Confused & looking for opinions on JFK's brain.

[Pete Mellor]

Michael's thread here, 'Confused & looking for opinions on JFK's brain' is certainly one of the more entertaining series of posts on the Forum.

Both Pat's & David's debates provide food for thought.  My own, non expert, interpretations of evidence could be described as largely to go along with what points David has set out.  Yet Pat's research has forced a more open opinion on some points.  So, maybe a few visits to PatSpeer.com. I may be gone for some time!

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

I certainly hope that I am not trying to sound like Mr.Researcher because,I'm far from it.It's just that I have never this picture that far down from the chin.

The color photos all come through Groden. For whatever reason, he failed to make some uncropped versions available for years and years and only released them when he had something new to sell. Unfortunately, he also released some photos that were not JFK while claiming they were JFK. So it's bit of a mess. 

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The color photos all come through Groden. For whatever reason, he failed to make some uncropped versions available for years and years and only released them when he had something new to sell. Unfortunately, he also released some photos that were not JFK while claiming they were JFK. So it's bit of a mess. 

Ok,that sounds about right.

I can remember posting a colored photograph on here of JFK's mangled head that certainly was not part of the Fox collection,and right away you was able to determine that it came from Groden.I can't remember if you said that he tampered with it or not.I'm leaning towards tampered.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Michael Crane

[David Josephs]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It took forever but you finally admitted Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo was in error.

I never said it was in error, only I, like you, think it should be rotated a bit more clockwise, but what the heck do I know, I am just a layman researcher...  like you.

I've been talking with a Dr. who was able to see the full F8 image at the archives and says the top and left of the image was cropped off showing detail which orients the image they way it should be, as Mantik laid it out.

The layer of abdominal wall fat noted above is cropped out of the Fox copies, but was clearly visible on the archive photos. The layer of fat allows orientation to the angle of the camera, and makes it much easier to orient oneself to the view of the skull. The photographer was situated at the head of the table, directing the camera toward the feet, and focusing on the inner skull.

 In addition to the layer of fat, the right eyebrow and eyelashes were visible, and also the area of the V incision is seen. These landmarks allow definite orientation to the parts of the skull which were captured in the photograph.

Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I...  the F8 overlay I did was a guess, a way of illustrating the actually placement of the hole to the extent it can, as I posted, I would rotate my F8 down so that hole was at the rear right of the skull but cannot do that on the F7 image.  

Have you seen the original F8 at the archives ?

 

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I never said it was in error, only I, like you, think it should be rotated a bit more clockwise, but what the heck do I know, I am just a layman researcher...  like you.

I've been talking with a Dr. who was able to see the full F8 image at the archives and says the top and left of the image was cropped off showing detail which orients the image they way it should be, as Mantik laid it out.

The layer of abdominal wall fat noted above is cropped out of the Fox copies, but was clearly visible on the archive photos. The layer of fat allows orientation to the angle of the camera, and makes it much easier to orient oneself to the view of the skull. The photographer was situated at the head of the table, directing the camera toward the feet, and focusing on the inner skull.

 In addition to the layer of fat, the right eyebrow and eyelashes were visible, and also the area of the V incision is seen. These landmarks allow definite orientation to the parts of the skull which were captured in the photograph.

Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I...  the F8 overlay I did was a guess, a way of illustrating the actually placement of the hole to the extent it can, as I posted, I would rotate my F8 down so that hole was at the rear right of the skull but cannot do that on the F7 image.  

Have you seen the original F8 at the archives ?

 

Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I.

 

Oh my. If this were true, you would jump in line behind the Clark Panel, HSCA FPP, the forensic anthropology consultants and a neroranatomist like Riley. 

[David Josephs]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I.

 

Oh my. If this were true, you would jump in line behind the Clark Panel, HSCA FPP, the forensic anthropology consultants and a neroranatomist like Riley. 

Nice list. Real cream of the crop...  All I did was ask Pat. 

Reading a thousand books doesn't put your fingers into a man's head, literally.  But hey, what do I know anyway.

Good luck on your screenplay

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, David Josephs said:

Nice list. Real cream of the crop...  All I did was ask Pat. 

Reading a thousand books doesn't put your fingers into a man's head, literally.  But hey, what do I know anyway.

Good luck on your screenplay

 

 

My point was that the "experts" in this case are frequently ill-informed and frequently full of crap. In order to make any progress, you need to figure out what people should have said and not what they actually said, while kissing up to Uncle Sam or selling books.

 

[David Josephs]

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

My point was

You don't answer questions put to you directly if they make you sound or look bad...

1. Are you a doctor of anything having to do with anything from the neck up?

2. Have you seen the same things at the archives that these ill-informed/foc doctors have and reported on?

Yes or no will be fine.

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You don't answer questions put to you directly if they make you sound or look bad...

1. Are you a doctor of anything having to do with anything from the neck up?

2. Have you seen the same things at the archives that these ill-informed/foc doctors have and reported on?

Yes or no will be fine.

Oh my. This is a ridiculous set of questions. You've read my posts. You've been to the conventions. (I'd assumed you'd read my website.) I am a layman, albeit one who grew up in a medical family, who'd read medical textbooks as a kid. After viewing the mystery photo in The Killing of a President, and realizing there was a bullet hole hiding in plain sight, I took an interest in the medical evidence. This led me to read other books, including Best Evidence, and to joining this forum. In short order, I was able to ask both Groden and Lifton if they saw what I was talking about when I pointed out the bullet hole in the photo. They both said yes, that that was a bullet hole. When I asked them why they'd never mentioned it in their books, however, neither one had an answer. This led me to realize that there was plenty of evidence hiding in plain sight that group-think and politics had prohibited folks from seeing. Inspired by Lifton, I performed a deep dive, researching the case full time for 3 1/2 years or so. Following Lifton, I became a regular at the UCLA medical library, photocopying hundreds of pages of articles, and then returning a month or so later, to photocopy hundreds more. In time I was invited to speak at Lancer Conferences, and then Copa. I put out a respected video series on YouTube. In 2013 I was asked by the Wecht family to speak at Duchesne University, in opposition to Dr. Mantik. Mantik surprised me by admitting several mistakes of his and his followers that I helped bring to light. In 2014, I was asked to speak on the single-bullet theory at the 50th anniversary of the WR conference in Bethesda. At that conference Dr. Wecht set aside an hour-and-a half so I could give him a personal presentation. He found much of it eye-opening. Since that time I have been to several mini-conferences, and have provided a number of juicy tidbits to the most famous names re the medical evidence.

As a layman, I am not allowed to view the medical evidence myself. But even a quick comparison of the various statements by those who've seen it shows that being a doctor doesn't mean much, as these guys are all over the place. 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You don't answer questions put to you directly if they make you sound or look bad...

1. Are you a doctor of anything having to do with anything from the neck up?

2. Have you seen the same things at the archives that these ill-informed/foc doctors have and reported on?

Yes or no will be fine.

Oh my. This is a ridiculous set of questions.

So the answers are:

1. No

2. No

Curious...

What changes did MANTIK make to his presentation as a result of your informed analysis?
What changes did WECHT make to his presentation as a result of your personal presentation?

There is no doubt your work has had an impact on those within the community... yet claiming everyone who disagrees with you and is in the medical community is only out to shill a book or a POV for whatever reason is especially lame in my view.

That you can take a qualified neurosurgeon's analysis and feel that your work supersedes this because you have conflicting results as opposed to reconsidering your laymen's analysis is quite amusing Pat.  You play a doctor on TV and know how to make photocopies... amazingly, that doesn't make you an expert in the field but someone with a well informed opinion and a whole lot of paper.

So remind us again...  according to you there was only 1 brain exam or do you agree there were 2?  the 1500cc brain was or was not the brain in his head when he was shot? Since this is a thread about the brain and all.

Better yet, since it takes you a dozen posts to get to the heart of a question, I'll go right to the source.

So first we have the conclusion of JJ HUMES from the Supplemental:

This supplementary report covers in more detail the extensive degree of cerebral trauma in this case. However neither this portion of the examination nor the microscopic examinations alter the previously submitted report or add significant details to the cause of death.

AND THIS, for example, FROM THE HUMES "previously submitted report" (which does not contain anything as mentioned in the Exec Session about a fragment coming out the front of his throat btw so who knows which of the autopsy reports they are talking about - just not the one in evidence)

"Aside from the above described skull wounds, .. there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities."  
(This is Humes' being detail-oriented and complete since JFK's back only shows nasty degradation, and metal.. I use this as an example of the honesty and attention to detail we can expect from this HUMES autopsy report - I would have thought even HUMES was aware of the terrible back problems his president suffered thru)

. 

Does this look like no significant gross skeletal abnormalities to your expert eyes?  If Humes et al did not see anything wrong with the mans' spine/skeleton who's xrays were they looking at?

 

HUMES continued in the Autopsy Report in evidence:

Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close
inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere . At this point it is noted that the falx cerebai is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus .

The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared. (but which we are not going to show you)

(The whole point of an autopsy report is to accurately describe the wounds.. yet Humes simply cannot do it - and this is the man you want us to believe over the word of actual specialists...   )

A supplementary report will be submitted following a more detailed examination of the brain and of microscopic sections. However, it is not anticipated that those examinations will materially altar the findings.

====== Okay Pat... from your experience what does "major portion" mean to you?  In the real world a majority is usually more than 50%.  If the brain was 1500gms as you like to claim, before the shooting, than each hemisphere is about 750gms with a potential minimum loss of 375gms...

PAGE 1 LINE 1 of Supp Autopsy:
Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms.

(Abstract:  Based on more than 8000 autopsies of male and female patients without brain diseases the normal brain weight of adult males and females in relation to sex, age, body-weight, and body-height as well as Body Mass Index were calculated. The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr. )   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8072950/#:~:text=The average brain weight of,average of about 3.7 gr.

What is the effect of formalin fixation on brain weight?
Mass and volume of the brains changed considerably during a 3-week fixation period. On average mass increased by 50g, volume by 57 ml. Mean brain density decreased during the first week and attained its final value almost at the end of the third week. Most changes seem to happen during the first week. (50/1500 = 3%). 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2588832/#:~:text=Mass and volume of the,happen during the first week.

1500 - 375 = 1125 + 3% = 1158gms.  Wow, sure sounds as if a 1500cc brain with a "major portion" of the right hemisphere existing as lacerated and extruding from a large hole... it would lose a little weight... 

So how much does a brain need to start out as to wind up at 1500gms after losing a minimum of 50% of one hemisphere and gaining 3% from foralin?   1923gms Pat... so let's see how that stacks up against your assumptions.

Now, From your 16c:

Now, the thought occurs that all this discussion of Kennedy's skull and scalp bypasses Exhibit A for the argument Kennedy was killed by a tangental gunshot wound--Kennedy's brain.

Now, this should not be controversial, but, unfortunately, it is. 

And a large percentage of conspiracy theorists think such a discussion a total waste of time. Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB he failed to recognize the photos of Kennedy's brain as photos he was purported to have taken, and this allows these theorists to both reject the veracity of the photos currently in the archives, and reject the descriptions of the brain included in the Supplementary Autopsy Report, which correspond to these photos. 

And that's too bad...as a close reading of the brain damage described by the doctors in the Supplementary Autopsy Report is strongly suggestive---that the doctors got it wrong.

One of the great complaints about the medical evidence is that the weight given for Kennedy's brain at the Supplemental Exam--1500 gms--is just too much. Some take from this that Kennedy's brain had been swapped out, and that a substitute brain had been studied in its place. 

Such thoughts go too far, in my opinion.

---

Let's try these on for size.

Suppose Kennedy's pre-mortem brain weighed 1500 g. This is not unreasonable in that the brains of some famous and semi-famous men were reported to have weighed as follows: 

Roger Craig (1300 g), Vladimir Lenin (1340 g), J.D. Tippit (1350 g), Michael Jackson (1380 g), Corey Haim (1390 g), Ron Goldman (1400 g), Martin Luther King (1400 g), Lee Oswald (1450 g), Dale Earnhardt (1450 g), David Ferrie (1480 g), Christopher Wallace (1490), Dylan Klebold (1500 g), Chester Bennington (1530 g), River Phoenix (1540 g), Russell Armstrong (1600 g), William Pitzer (1625 g), and Andy Irons (1664 g). 

And no, this isn’t a biased sample. A 2018 study by South African doctors presented in the International Journal of Morphology reported that the medium brain weight of 32 deceased males aged 41-50 was 1386.56g, and that the largest of these brains weighed 1638g.   (As I posted above)

So, yeah, a 1500g pre-mortem brain weight for Kennedy is not unreasonable. (agreed)

---

Suppose then that the formalin procedures added 25% onto this weight.
---
Well, this means the formalin procedures would only have to have added 20% onto the weight of Kennedy's pre-formalin-infused brain. 

Sometimes what seems impossible is well within the grasp of the possible. 

Uh, no Pat, why not take a second and actually look it up? you are off by 25/3= 833%

"Sometimes" impossible things are made to appear possible when bogus suppositions are allowed to change reality to fantasy...

And this is why I have a hard time with the opinionated conclusions of a layman who trusts the WCR & JJ HUMES over much more qualified people without a career which could easily be cut short by a military court-martial.

You want to play "compare the statements" have at it.  The assumptions and shortcuts which are obvious in a cursory look at just a single chapter of your work makes it very difficult to accept much of anything you offer without first doing my own "deep dive" - which in this case I have, being in personal contact with a number of "experts in the field".

You want so bad to believe the evidence offered is authentic and indicative of the Dallas injuries you'd bend over backward to assume measurements which are WAY out of line with reality and have the temerity to bash those who put your analysis skills in this area to shame.

Why did you go out of your way to embellish what formalin does to a brain Pat?  Because it's the only way you can justify the completely bogus weight offered by these men... and let yourself believe that replacing JFK's brain - with the tell tale signs of what really happened to him - "goes too far" ?

Why resort to BS "suppositions" which are so easily refuted, just to make an analysis sound more right than it really is?

Even more respect flies out the window when the evidence from the WCR and related documents is used in an attempt to show what actually happened... like you're not even aware of the cruel joke played on us all those years ago, and are willing to accept the conclusions of a desperately corrupt "investigation" which by definition produced desperately corrupt evidence.

Maybe more attention to that screenplay is in order...  

 

[Michael Crane]

It's pretty wild to think that Robert Kennedy was the culprit for stealing JFK's brain & making it unavailable instead of the establishment (maybe buried with JFK the 2nd time)

Thanks to Micah's link,I was able to watch another Youtube video of James Jenkins that I have not seen.

James said that he thinks that the brain was less than 1500 grams & might have been a females.

We all know that the pictures at the archives are not JFK's brain.

We also know that depending on what time the brain was observed,you're going to get different answers also.

Which brings me back to O'Connor & makes me wonder why he would lie about the cranium being empty?

[Charles Blackmon]

This screenplay?

[Michael Crane]

Interested members can click here.

 

 

[Michael Crane]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread.It's pretty much in the middle.Take it for what it's worth.

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Micah Mileto]

On 3/6/2023 at 1:37 AM, Michael Crane said:

 

Oh, and while Francis X. O'Neill claimed to have actually SEEN the dead baby wheeled through the corridor at Bethesda hospital, Lifton said in Best Evidence that he couldn't find any evidence of any such infant death.

 

Edit: O'Neill was almost certainly known to be lying about staying at the autopsy to see the restoration.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Micah Mileto