The Mystery of Kennedy's Brain Deepens

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, Joe Bauer said:

 

See Speer's website. Hill isn't the greatest medical witness.

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

PS...from the photos you viewed of JFK's removed brain, surely you must have seen a noticeable chunk missing from the back of it?

Inches away Clint Hill testified to the WARREN COMMISSION:

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one "large gaping wound" in the right rear portion of the head.

They take photos because witness statements and recollections are notoriously inaccurate. In Hill's case, he has been consistent since day one that there was a large wound on the top of the back of the head--which he has clarified to mean above and slightly behind the right ear. (The use of him to indicate there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head--overlying the occipital bone--is a con job, IMO.) He has also been consistent in that it looked like a scoop had  been taken to the brain, i.e. that a lot of substance was missing from the top of the brain. This is both consistent with the autopsy photos and autopsy protocol. It is also inconsistent with the subsequent statements of Dr. Baden--that a largely intact bullet exited the brain and broke up on the windshield strut.

FWIW, The HSCA FPP knew that having missing scalp overlying missing brain meant death to the single-assassin solution, and so conjured up the claim very little scalp was actually missing, and that it could be folded back into place. They admitted, moreover, that Humes et al said scalp was missing, but said they must have been mistaken. They hid of course that Dr. Clark had previously and separately concluded that scalp was missing over the large defect. 

The missing scalp is the smoking gun, IMO. Missing scalp designates an impact location. The bullet impacted at the the large defect. it's a scientific fact. 

It's a pity that so much time has been wasted trying to prove the medical evidence is fake when the medical evidence has been clear-cut proof of conspiracy...from day one. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Joe Bauer]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

They take photos because witness statements and recollections are notoriously inaccurate. In Hill's case, he has been consistent since day one that there was a large wound on the top of the back of the head--which he has clarified to mean above and slightly behind the right ear. (The use of him to indicate there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head--overlying the occipital bone--is a con job, IMO.) He has also been consistent in that it looked like a scoop had  been taken to the brain, i.e. that a lot of substance was missing from the top of the brain. This is both consistent with the autopsy photos and autopsy protocol. It is also inconsistent with the subsequent statements of Dr. Baden--that a largely intact bullet exited the brain and broke up on the windshield strut.

FWIW, The HSCA FPP knew that having missing scalp overlying missing brain meant death to the single-assassin solution, and so conjured up the claim very little scalp was actually missing, and that it could be folded back into place. They admitted, moreover, that Humes et al said scalp was missing, but said they must have been mistaken. They hid of course that Dr. Clark had previously and separately concluded that scalp was missing over the large defect. 

The missing scalp is the smoking gun, IMO. Missing scalp designates an impact location. The bullet impacted at the the large defect. it's a scientific fact. 

It's a pity that so much time has been wasted trying to prove the medical evidence is fake when the medical evidence has been clear-cut proof of conspiracy...from day one. 

[Joe Bauer]

Just now, Joe Bauer said:

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

They take photos because witness statements and recollections are notoriously inaccurate. In Hill's case, he has been consistent since day one that there was a large wound on the top of the back of the head--which he has clarified to mean above and slightly behind the right ear. (The use of him to indicate there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head--overlying the occipital bone--is a con job, IMO.) He has also been consistent in that it looked like a scoop had  been taken to the brain, i.e. that a lot of substance was missing from the top of the brain. This is both consistent with the autopsy photos and autopsy protocol. It is also inconsistent with the subsequent statements of Dr. Baden--that a largely intact bullet exited the brain and broke up on the windshield strut.

FWIW, The HSCA FPP knew that having missing scalp overlying missing brain meant death to the single-assassin solution, and so conjured up the claim very little scalp was actually missing, and that it could be folded back into place. They admitted, moreover, that Humes et al said scalp was missing, but said they must have been mistaken. They hid of course that Dr. Clark had previously and separately concluded that scalp was missing over the large defect. 

The missing scalp is the smoking gun, IMO. Missing scalp designates an impact location. The bullet impacted at the the large defect. it's a scientific fact. 

It's a pity that so much time has been wasted trying to prove the medical evidence is fake when the medical evidence has been clear-cut proof of conspiracy...from day one. 

Expand  

Here Here.

[James DiEugenio]

 

No photo or illustration can be admitted into court unless the person who took it testifies to its provenance.

Stringer's testimony would make the brain photos not allowable.

And that would be just the beginning of a debacle for the prosecution.

 

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, The HSCA FPP knew that having missing scalp overlying missing brain meant death to the single-assassin solution, and so conjured up the claim very little scalp was actually missing, and that it could be folded back into place. They admitted, moreover, that Humes et al said scalp was missing, but said they must have been mistaken. They hid of course that Dr. Clark had previously and separately concluded that scalp was missing over the large defect. 

The missing scalp is the smoking gun, IMO. Missing scalp designates an impact location. The bullet impacted at the the large defect. it's a scientific fact. 

You might know where this is going, but I’m not sure the missing scalp is as much of a smoking gun as you are making it out to be. I’ve posted this several times before, but the latest wound ballistics research, like in the last 20 years, has determined that exit wound size - which in this case could mean missing scalp - is highly dependent on the  temporary cavity location relative to the plane of exit. If the plane of exit occurs within the temp cavity, the exit wound is much bigger, etc. It seems obvious, but apparently no one studied this relationship directly until 2011: 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

The study proved that the extension and position of the temporary wound cavity was decisive for the size of the exit wound: An exit plane within the cavity resulted in particularly large skin lesions, whereas the wound diameters were much smaller if the exit plane was located in front or behind the cavity. 

The photos in the study of FMJ test shots on ballistics gel covered with pig skin suggest that this temp cavity-exit plane scenario could result in an unusual amount of missing scalp. 

Also, one photo in the study suggests that the high fragment trail in JFK’s head is not incompatible with, and possibly even supportive of this theory: 

According to the CT findings, the second half of the perforated soap block contained small metallic particles mostly located around the temporary cavity and behind it. This phenomenon can be explained by bending and compressive stresses squeezing parts of the lead core out of the jacket when the yawing bullet is subjected to lateral forces. 

However, a major missing variable in this paper is the skull. You’ve said before that the skull fracture patterns are more indicative of a two-headshot/tangential wound scenario than this temp cavity/exit plane deal, and you may be right. I’ve looked around a bit for a study specifically comparing skull fracture patterns with exit plane/temp cavity locations but haven’t been able to find anything. The skull fractures might indeed be a deal breaker; but based on this highly controlled study, the missing scalp and high fragment trail look to be compatible with single headshot from behind under a narrow set of  circumstances. 

I know this is just one random paper i.e. not evidence that this is actually what happened to JFK; but this very specific wounding dynamic, however improbable it may be, seems like a better fit for the WC shooting scenario than a lot of the crap put out by Lattimer, Sturdivan, et al. over the years, so it should at least be taken seriously, IMO. 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

No photo or illustration can be admitted into court unless the person who took it testifies to its provenance.

Stringer's testimony would make the brain photos not allowable.

And that would be just the beginning of a debacle for the prosecution.

 

Stringer's testimony re the brain photos just isn't all that significant, I'm afraid. 1. It was more than 30 years after the fact. 2. He had been shown the photos several times before and had said nothing. 3. In the same testimony in which he expressed doubts about the brain photos he signed off on the authenticity of the back of the head photos.

Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say his expressing doubts about the brain.photos means the photos were switched because the bullet exited the far back of the head when he repeatedly said no such thing occurred, and that his problem with the photos were photographic i.e. the kind of film used, etc, and not substantive, i.e. that the photos failed to show a large wound low on the back of the brain. 

[Michael Crane]

Boswell was the one who had the brain in his hands & handed it off to James Jenkins.

According to Jenkins,the autopsy Dr's. would be the person that wrote down the weight of the brain.

In this case...it was Jenkins who was writing down MOST of the weights.

For whatever reason (and we know why) the brain weight was not written down that night.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Boswell was the one who had the brain in his hands & handed it off to James Jenkins.

According to Jenkins,the autopsy Dr's. would be the person that wrote down the weight of the brain.

In this case...it was Jenkins who was writing down MOST of the weights.

For whatever reason (and we know why) the brain weight was not written down that night.

Did Boswell remove JFK's brain from his skull? 

Or did Humes? 

Did Humes or Boswell cut JFK's brain stem?

If Boswell handed JFK's brain to Jenkins, that suggests Jenkins was not far away from Boswell and or Humes during the brain removal...correct?

Did Jenkins describe anything specific regards the removal that was different than a normal saw cutting and pulling down, then eye nerve and muscle cutting procedure that Corpsman Paul O'Conner described in his "Trial Of Lee Oswald" testimony?

From the X-rays of the top of JFK's skull it was hugely shattered into many separated pieces. Cutting through that with a power saw seems like it would have been a bloody mess.

The actual removal of JFK's brain is a poorly described action in Humes's transcribed testimony imo. 

Like his answers as to why the brain wasn't weighed. 

Humes described most of his recollections of his autopsy actions in great and well recalled detail. The few that were vague seemed oddly selective.

In slow motion viewing of the Z film, it was always clear to me that you can actually see a large part of JFK's skull top being unnaturally uplifted upon the bullet strike.

I believe it is a visual of the massive shattering of the upper skull in live time.

We also see a large bone flap separate outward above JFK's right ear where you can actually see a glistening wet tissue exposure underneath accompanied by a bright red/pink 5 to 6 foot high and broad tissue and fluid spray cloud that was so condensed it wafted back hitting the Dallas motorcycle officers full on with enough force they could feel it doing so.

Is all that combined explosive damage to JFK's skull and brain somewhat typical to other human or animal headshots from a high powered rifle?

The testimony that JFK's brain was not significantly damaged through all the massive and explosive skull damage you can so clearly see in the Z-film just doesn't seem possible imo.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

Perhaps it should be pointed out that an assistant (in this case Jenkins or O'Connor)  would normally be tasked with the removal of the brain. Sad to say, some of the confusion could stem from this. Perhaps Jenkins would normally infuse the brain right after weighing. Perhaps he failed to realize that when Humes told him to infuse the brain that it had not been weighed. Or perhaps people were so horrified that it just didn't occur to them.

Or perhaps they avoided it for the same reason they failed to report on his adrenals--because it would have been embarrassing to the President's memory, . 

As stated, this idea that the (possibly inaccurate) brain weight was intended to hide the nature of Kennedy's wounds becomes ridiculous, once one realizes what was shared in the autopsy protocol and supplemental exam. I spent years full-time researching the medical evidence, then later went back and spent 3-4 months researching gunshot injuries to the brain. This is reported on my website. Below are two photos presenting what would be typical damage to the brain from a high-velocity bullet on the left, and a low velocity bullet on the right. Note that in neither case does the top of the brain explode while leaving no sign of passage below.

One of the most important facts about the medical evidence--perhaps the most important fact--is that the top of JFK's brain had a gutter running across it for nearly the whole length...that did not connect back to the EOP entrance. This is extremely strong evidence for a tangential wound at the top of the head. Full-metal jacketed bullets don't enter low and travel upwards at an angle, then EXPLODE an inches-long groove from the top of the head stretching both forward and rearward of its exit. In all cases, the damage is centered along the trajectory of the bullet. But not in this case? 

When one reads through all the statements, etc, one realizes that this fact did not escape the attention of the Clark Panel on down. They KNEW the brain injuries were inconsistent with an EOP entrance heading upwards. So they conjured up an alternative entrance near the top of the head that was not observed by anyone in Parkland or Bethesda. THIS is the real scandal involving the medical evidence. The failure of the Bethesda staff to write down and/or accurately report the brain weight is minor in comparison. 

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You might know where this is going, but I’m not sure the missing scalp is as much of a smoking gun as you are making it out to be. I’ve posted this several times before, but the latest wound ballistics research, like in the last 20 years, has determined that exit wound size - which in this case could mean missing scalp - is highly dependent on the  temporary cavity location relative to the plane of exit. If the plane of exit occurs within the temp cavity, the exit wound is much bigger, etc. It seems obvious, but apparently no one studied this relationship directly until 2011: 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

The study proved that the extension and position of the temporary wound cavity was decisive for the size of the exit wound: An exit plane within the cavity resulted in particularly large skin lesions, whereas the wound diameters were much smaller if the exit plane was located in front or behind the cavity. 

The photos in the study of FMJ test shots on ballistics gel covered with pig skin suggest that this temp cavity-exit plane scenario could result in an unusual amount of missing scalp. 

Also, one photo in the study suggests that the high fragment trail in JFK’s head is not incompatible with, and possibly even supportive of this theory: 

According to the CT findings, the second half of the perforated soap block contained small metallic particles mostly located around the temporary cavity and behind it. This phenomenon can be explained by bending and compressive stresses squeezing parts of the lead core out of the jacket when the yawing bullet is subjected to lateral forces. 

However, a major missing variable in this paper is the skull. You’ve said before that the skull fracture patterns are more indicative of a two-headshot/tangential wound scenario than this temp cavity/exit plane deal, and you may be right. I’ve looked around a bit for a study specifically comparing skull fracture patterns with exit plane/temp cavity locations but haven’t been able to find anything. The skull fractures might indeed be a deal breaker; but based on this highly controlled study, the missing scalp and high fragment trail look to be compatible with single headshot from behind under a narrow set of  circumstances. 

I know this is just one random paper i.e. not evidence that this is actually what happened to JFK; but this very specific wounding dynamic, however improbable it may be, seems like a better fit for the WC shooting scenario than a lot of the crap put out by Lattimer, Sturdivan, et al. over the years, so it should at least be taken seriously, IMO. 

Thanks, Tom. I have been reluctant to read research papers these days but this one proved no problem. In any event, this almost entirely supported my arguments. Kennedy's large head wound was described as an absence of scalp and bone. This article describes and depicts soft tissue wounds in which the skin split at exit, where the exit wounds (the wounds apparent when the skin flaps were opened) were of varying size, depending on the position of the temporary cavity within the subject. 

Note conclusion number 3. 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Stringer's testimony is significant. 

He was the one who allegedly took those pictures.

His testimony relied on two factors which were part of his routine as a photographer.

The type of film, and the technique he used.

So please do not blur this with specific detailed memory.

Jeremy Gunn constructed this  questioning well.  He first got him on the record, and THEN showed him the evidence. Therefore he could not adjust his testimony after the fact when confronted with the pictures.

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Just how much evidence is needed to show fraud?

1. Stringer's powerful testimony to the ARRB under oath.

2. The Mantik/Wecht article in the anthology The Assassinations, in which through OD evidence, a large part of the brain is missing. (pp. 250-68, including pictures and illustrations)

3. The testimony of over ten people who saw a brain with significant loss of mass, at both Parkland and Bethesda.

4. The Dutch study which states that Kennedy's alleged brain is 150 grams above the norm, which it cannot be.  Because we have so many films and pictures showing a huge head explosion, including a cyclist on Kennedy's left side who was hit so hard he thought a projectile struck him.

 

If I was an attorney I would go into court with this.  Or hope the prosecution brought it up so I could demolish it.

Edited August 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, this article is getting around.

Dave Montague of the ARRB, who helped me, congratulated me on it.

Aaron Good wants to interview me on his podcast American Exception about it.   A British radio station also contacted me.  And a few readers graciously commented on it.

I always thought this was some of the most compelling forensic evidence we had.

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just how much evidence is needed to show fraud?

1. Stringer's powerful testimony to the ARRB under oath.

2. The Mantik/Wecht article in the anthology The Assassinations, in which through OD evidence, a large part of the brain is missing. (pp. 250-68, including pictures and illustrations)

3. The testimony of over ten people who saw a brain with significant loss of mass, at both Parkland and Bethesda.

4. The Dutch study which states that Kennedy's alleged brain is 150 grams above the norm, which it cannot be.  Because we have so many films and pictures showing a huge head explosion, including a cyclist on Kennedy's left side who was hit so hard he thought a projectile struck him.

 

If I was an attorney I would go into court with this.  Or hope the prosecution brought it up so I could demolish it.

To what end? 

Stringer denied that the back of the head was blown off. 

The autopsy protocol, supplemental report, x-rays, photos, and Z-film combine to make an extremely strong case for more than one shooter, and thus, a conspiracy. 

Focusing on Stringer's latter-day recollections of the film used at the supplemental exam does little to prove conspiracy--seeing as Stringer said nothing about having a problem with these photos when shown them over the years before being asked about them by Gunn, and stood by the back of the head photos showing NO blow-out wound on the back of the head.

And it distracts from the far bigger problem--that the "official" evidence fails to support the scenarios pushed by the government's investigations.