Landis's Disclosure and the 6.5 mm Object on the Autopsy Skull X-Rays

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A man says he saw NBA star LeBron James at the mall by his hot dog stand. He has a photo taken from  50 yards away that he says shows it. One of his co-workers doubts him. And spots a black man in the crowd 20 yards away and says that's him there and he's not by the hot dog stand. There's a photo of this man leaving the mall, however, and it's not LeBron James.

Decades later I discover this weird situation, and look in the photo by the hot dog stand, and see what appears to be a a black man looking in the other direction while leaning forward. I say well, that could be him right there.

Mantik and his minions: it couldn't be. The man must have been lying as part of some giant conspiracy.   

But your hypothetical LeBron James scenario bears no resemblance to your arguments about the 6.5 mm object and the largest fragment that Humes said he removed.

It is simply unreasonable and implausible to argue that Humes mistook your slice object for the 7x2 mm fragment and/or for the 6.5 mm object, that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray but failed to accurately describe it in the autopsy report or in his WC testimony, that Humes believed your slice object was the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, that Humes mismeasured the largest fragment that he removed, and that the CE 843 fragments could have formed a perfectly round fragment with a neat semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side (i.e., the 6.5 mm object). 

You brush aside the fact that not a single expert has identified your slice object as a bullet fragment, much less as the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object (i.e., as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray). I don't know how you rationalize this to yourself. 

As I've proved, Humes undeniably identified the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray as the largest fragment that he removed, and the 7x2 mm fragment is in the right location to be the largest fragment (above and behind the right orbit), just as Humes himself made clear. What's more, the HSCA FPP confirmed the 7x2 mm measurement. The FPP also confirmed the 6.5 mm measurement for the 6.5 mm object. Not even a child could have mistaken the 6.5 mm object for the 7x2 mm fragment or your slice object--they look nothing like the 6.5 mm object. 

You also brush aside the fact that virtually every expert who has examined the skull x-rays has placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head. You further brush aside the fact that if the slice object is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, then the small back-of-head fragment has no partner image on the AP x-ray, a physical impossibility. 

Finally, I notice that you continue to avoid the fact that if you believe the autopsy brain photos are genuine, you must reject the EOP entry site. One of them has to go. One of them has to be invalid. No bullet entering at the EOP site could have avoided damaging the cerebellum and the rear aspects of the occipital lobes, but the brain photos show absolutely no damage to those areas--not even any bleeding. When Loquvam sprang this contradiction on Finck, Finck was forced to admit that he had no explanation for it. When Petty confronted Humes and Boswell with this contradiction, they likewise had no answer for it. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

But your hypothetical LeBron James scenario bears no resemblance to your arguments about the 6.5 mm object and the largest fragment that Humes said he removed.

It is simply unreasonable and implausible to argue that Humes mistook your slice object for the 7x2 mm fragment and/or for the 6.5 mm object, that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray but failed to accurately describe it in the autopsy report or in his WC testimony, that Humes believed your slice object was the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, that Humes mismeasured the largest fragment that he removed, and that the CE 843 fragments could have formed a perfectly round fragment with a neat semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side (i.e., the 6.5 mm object). 

You brush aside the fact that not a single expert has identified your slice object as a bullet fragment, much less as the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object (i.e., as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray). I don't know how you rationalize this to yourself. 

As I've proved, Humes undeniably identified the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray as the largest fragment that he removed, and the 7x2 mm fragment is in the right location to be the largest fragment (above and behind the right orbit), just as Humes himself made clear. What's more, the HSCA FPP confirmed the 7x2 mm measurement. The FPP also confirmed the 6.5 mm measurement for the 6.5 mm object. Not even a child could have mistaken the 6.5 mm object for the 7x2 mm fragment or your slice object--they look nothing like the 6.5 mm object. 

You also brush aside the fact that virtually every expert who has examined the skull x-rays has placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head. You further brush aside the fact that if the slice object is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, then the small back-of-head fragment has no partner image on the AP x-ray, a physical impossibility. 

Finally, I notice that you continue to avoid the fact that if you believe the autopsy brain photos are genuine, you must reject the EOP entry site. One of them has to go. One of them has to be invalid. No bullet entering at the EOP site could have avoided damaging the cerebellum and the rear aspects of the occipital lobes, but the brain photos show absolutely no damage to those areas--not even any bleeding. When Loquvam sprang this contradiction on Finck, Finck was forced to admit that he had no explanation for it. When Petty confronted Humes and Boswell with this contradiction, they likewise had no answer for it. 

 

1. What you call the 7 by 2 fragment is not the fragment removed at autopsy. No one present at the autopsy said it was, and they all said the fragment was removed from inches away. This includes Humes. While Mantik has said Humes ID'ed this fragment as the fragment he'd removed, Mantik was blowing smoke. 

2. Fragments are 3-d not 2-d. The fragments removed at autopsy could have been 7 by 2 by 9 and 3 by 1 by 11. We don't know. 

3. As to your last paragraph, all of this is discussed on my website.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. What you call the 7 by 2 fragment is not the fragment removed at autopsy. No one present at the autopsy said it was, and they all said the fragment was removed from inches away. This includes Humes. While Mantik has said Humes ID'ed this fragment as the fragment he'd removed, Mantik was blowing smoke. 

2. Fragments are 3-d not 2-d. The fragments removed at autopsy could have been 7 by 2 by 9 and 3 by 1 by 11. We don't know. 

3. As to your last paragraph, all of this is discussed on my website.

First off, it bears repeating that your theory foundationally rests on your claim that the slice object on the lateral x-rays is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, a claim that has zero support from any of the medical experts who've examined the x-rays. Not a single medical expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, much less as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object.

Here's another summary of what you're asking us to believe:

-- The 6.5 mm object was on the AP x-ray and on the lateral x-rays during autopsy.

-- Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray but inexplicably mismeasured it as being 7x2 mm, even though he handled it. How could anyone look at the perfectly round 6.5 mm object, with its neat semi-circular notch, and measure it as 7x2 mm? How? There is a fragment on the AP x-ray that measures 7x2 mm, as confirmed by the HSCA medical experts, and it is in the correct location to be the largest fragment of the two fragments that Humes said he removed (above and behind the right orbit). 

Remember that Humes handled the fragments that he removed, so he saw them in 3D. Even if the 7x2 mm fragment had been 7x2x20, the 6.5 mm object, being circular, would have had the same width as its height; it would have been 6.5x6.5 mm regardless of its depth. So you are asking us to believe that Humes blundered so badly that he mismeasured 6.5 mm as 2 mm for the object's width. Come on. Really?

-- Humes not only badly mismeasured the 6.5 mm object, he also inexplicably described it as being "irregular" in shape. But the object is perfectly round with a neat semi-circular notch. The 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray is irregular in shape, but the 6.5 mm object is not. Again, Humes handled the two fragments that he removed.

-- Humes removed the 6.5 mm object and the 3x1 mm fragment, and these two fragments constituted CE 843, even though the largest CE 843 fragment is not perfectly round with a neat semi-circular notch, even though the three CE 843 fragments are not irregular in shape, and even though the CE 843 fragments could not have formed a perfectly round object with a neat semi-circular notch.

-- When Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, he concluded that the slice object that you've identified on the lateral x-rays was the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, i.e., that the slice object was the partner image of the 6.5 mm object. But, again, not a single medical expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment.

-- When Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, he concluded that it was near the right orbit. However, 27 of the 29 medical experts who have examined the x-rays have said the object is in the rear outer table of the skull.

-- Humes took the time to remove the 6.5 mm object and the 3x1 mm fragment, but he inexplicably failed to remove the 7x2 mm fragment, even though it is plainly visible on the AP x-ray. 

Occam's Razor screams, "Enough with this nonsense! The established science of optical density measurement must be given its due weight, and that science, as confirmed by two separate sets of OD measurements, shows that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. Humes did not blunderingly mismeasure the 6.5 mm object as 7x2 mm. He handled and measured the 7x2 mm fragment as 7x2 mm, and that was the largest fragment he removed, just as he plainly said. He did not mention the 6.5 mm object in the autopsy report because it was not on the x-rays during the autopsy. The tiny slice object on the lateral x-rays is not a bullet fragment and cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object."

Can you give me the link to your chapter/article that explains how the EOP entry site can be valid if the autopsy brain photos are valid?

Edited October 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

On 10/4/2023 at 5:46 AM, Michael Griffith said:

First off, it bears repeating that your theory foundationally rests on your claim that the slice object on the lateral x-rays is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, a claim that has zero support from any of the medical experts who've examined the x-rays. Not a single medical expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, much less as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object.

Here's another summary of what you're asking us to believe:

-- The 6.5 mm object was on the AP x-ray and on the lateral x-rays during autopsy.

-- Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray but inexplicably mismeasured it as being 7x2 mm, even though he handled it. How could anyone look at the perfectly round 6.5 mm object, with its neat semi-circular notch, and measure it as 7x2 mm? How? There is a fragment on the AP x-ray that measures 7x2 mm, as confirmed by the HSCA medical experts, and it is in the correct location to be the largest fragment of the two fragments that Humes said he removed (above and behind the right orbit). 

Remember that Humes handled the fragments that he removed, so he saw them in 3D. Even if the 7x2 mm fragment had been 7x2x20, the 6.5 mm object, being circular, would have had the same width as its height; it would have been 6.5x6.5 mm regardless of its depth. So you are asking us to believe that Humes blundered so badly that he mismeasured 6.5 mm as 2 mm for the object's width. Come on. Really?

-- Humes not only badly mismeasured the 6.5 mm object, he also inexplicably described it as being "irregular" in shape. But the object is perfectly round with a neat semi-circular notch. The 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray is irregular in shape, but the 6.5 mm object is not. Again, Humes handled the two fragments that he removed.

-- Humes removed the 6.5 mm object and the 3x1 mm fragment, and these two fragments constituted CE 843, even though the largest CE 843 fragment is not perfectly round with a neat semi-circular notch, even though the three CE 843 fragments are not irregular in shape, and even though the CE 843 fragments could not have formed a perfectly round object with a neat semi-circular notch.

-- When Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, he concluded that the slice object that you've identified on the lateral x-rays was the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, i.e., that the slice object was the partner image of the 6.5 mm object. But, again, not a single medical expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment.

-- When Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, he concluded that it was near the right orbit. However, 27 of the 29 medical experts who have examined the x-rays have said the object is in the rear outer table of the skull.

-- Humes took the time to remove the 6.5 mm object and the 3x1 mm fragment, but he inexplicably failed to remove the 7x2 mm fragment, even though it is plainly visible on the AP x-ray. 

Occam's Razor screams, "Enough with this nonsense! The established science of optical density measurement must be given its due weight, and that science, as confirmed by two separate sets of OD measurements, shows that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. Humes did not blunderingly mismeasure the 6.5 mm object as 7x2 mm. He handled and measured the 7x2 mm fragment as 7x2 mm, and that was the largest fragment he removed, just as he plainly said. He did not mention the 6.5 mm object in the autopsy report because it was not on the x-rays during the autopsy. The tiny slice object on the lateral x-rays is not a bullet fragment and cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object."

Can you give me the link to your chapter/article that explains how the EOP entry site can be valid if the autopsy brain photos are valid?

You are just blowing smoke, Michael. Sorry. 

For one, 27 of 29 experts? Really? Where do you get this? Not from Mantik--who says there is no such fragment. And not from the ARRB experts, right? And not from Ebersole, or Custer and Reed? Right?

So you're pretending you believe The Clark Panel, Rocky Panel, and HSCA Panels--the very guys who conjured up an entrance in the cowlick? If you read the HSCA info you will find some hints about what did happen--Davis noticed that the trail of fragments was on the outside off the skull--but you can't take anything that was said as gospel. 

Let this sink in. Only 2 measurements were given for 3-d objects. I myself am 6 x 2 from the front, 6 x 1 from the side, and 1 x 2 from the top or bottom...and that's just the straight on looks. If you view me from an angle, I can be a number of different sizes. When you read radiology textbooks they specifically warn against measuring fragments or bullets on x-rays, as the angles and magnification. can lead to some very bad guesses. 

And let this sink in as well. Lattimer's claim the forehead fragment was the fragment removed at autopsy was a guess. It wasn't science. It was a guess. And he was clearly wrong. It appears you put men with letters after their names on a pedestal. When it's convenient. Something tells me you hate Fauci and his ilk. 

And, finally, this. Mantik's conclusions are questionable, and often obviously incorrect. HIs methodology is also questionable. If you'd read my website you would know all this... 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are just blowing smoke, Michael. Sorry. 

For one, 27 of 29 experts? Really? Where do you get this? Not from Mantik--who says there is no such fragment. And not from the ARRB experts, right? And not from Ebersole, or Custer and Reed? Right?

So you're pretending you believe The Clark Panel, Rocky Panel, and HSCA Panels--the very guys who conjured up an entrance in the cowlick? If you read the HSCA info you will find some hints about what did happen--Davis noticed that the trail of fragments was on the outside off the skull--but you can't take anything that was said as gospel. 

Let this sink in. Only 2 measurements were given for 3-d objects. I myself am 6 x 2 from the front, 6 x 1 from the side, and 1 x 2 from the top or bottom...and that's just the straight on looks. If you view me from an angle, I can be a number of different sizes. When you read radiology textbooks they specifically warn against measuring fragments or bullets on x-rays, as the angles and magnification. can lead to some very bad guesses. 

And let this sink in as well. Lattimer's claim the forehead fragment was the fragment removed at autopsy was a guess. It wasn't science. It was a guess. And he was clearly wrong. It appears you put men with letters after their names on a pedestal. When it's convenient. Something tells me you hate Fauci and his ilk. 

And, finally, this. Mantik's conclusions are questionable, and often obviously incorrect. HIs methodology is also questionable. If you'd read my website you would know all this... 

This is really sad. Mantik's research is far superior to yours. Have you ever responded to his reply to your attacks on his research?

I already proved to you that Mantik places the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head. It is a bit misleading to note that Mantik observes that there was no 6.5 mm "fragment." Yes, of course, because he confirmed via OD measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it was superimposed over the image of a smaller fragment on the back of the head. 

Your polemic about 3D vs. 2D and measurements is lame. You keep ignoring the fact that Humes HANDLED the fragments. Let me repeat that: Humes HANDLED the fragments. He said they measured 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. Obviously, the depth measurement was so miniscule that he understandably didn't bother with it.

Yes, 27 of 29 medical experts have in fact said that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. The two exceptions are Riley and Robertson. Every other expert who has examined the x-rays and commented on the object's location has said it's in the back of the head. Again, for the umpteenth time, that's why it's such a big deal that there's no companion image for the object on the lateral x-rays. If the object were not in the back of the head, it would not matter that it does not appear in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. 

I read your chapter that you suggested I read when I pressed you on the impossible contradiction between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos. But your chapter doesn't lay a finger on the problem. You don't even acknowledge the entire problem. You mention the lack of damage to the cerebellum, but you say nothing about the lack of damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes. And, you don't even try to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have failed to damage the cerebellum.

A major reason that the HSCA medical experts rejected the EOP site is that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the rear portion of the occipital lobes. If one wants to delude themselves into thinking that the bullet somehow could have avoided damaging the cerebellum (although Finck admitted this was impossible), even a person on heroin could not convince themselves that the bullet could have missed the rear part of the occipital lobes. When the HSCA FPP confronted the autopsy doctors with this problem, they had no answer for it.

If you want us to believe that the brain photos are authentic, then you need to explain how you can reconcile those photos with the EOP entry site.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

On 10/5/2023 at 11:23 AM, Michael Griffith said:

This is really sad. Mantik's research is far superior to yours. Have you ever responded to his reply to your attacks on his research?

I already proved to you that Mantik places the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head. It is a bit misleading to note that Mantik observes that there was no 6.5 mm "fragment." Yes, of course, because he confirmed via OD measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it was superimposed over the image of a smaller fragment on the back of the head. 

Your polemic about 3D vs. 2D and measurements is lame. You keep ignoring the fact that Humes HANDLED the fragments. Let me repeat that: Humes HANDLED the fragments. He said they measured 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. Obviously, the depth measurement was so miniscule that he understandably didn't bother with it.

Yes, 27 of 29 medical experts have in fact said that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. The two exceptions are Riley and Robertson. Every other expert who has examined the x-rays and commented on the object's location has said it's in the back of the head. Again, for the umpteenth time, that's why it's such a big deal that there's no companion image for the object on the lateral x-rays. If the object were not in the back of the head, it would not matter that it does not appear in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. 

I read your chapter that you suggested I read when I pressed you on the impossible contradiction between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos. But your chapter doesn't lay a finger on the problem. You don't even acknowledge the entire problem. You mention the lack of damage to the cerebellum, but you say nothing about the lack of damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes. And, you don't even try to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have failed to damage the cerebellum.

A major reason that the HSCA medical experts rejected the EOP site is that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the rear portion of the occipital lobes. If one wants to delude themselves into thinking that the bullet somehow could have avoided damaging the cerebellum (although Finck admitted this was impossible), even a person on heroin could not convince themselves that the bullet could have missed the rear part of the occipital lobes. When the HSCA FPP confronted the autopsy doctors with this problem, they had no answer for it.

If you want us to believe that the brain photos are authentic, then you need to explain how you can reconcile those photos with the EOP entry site.

Read the website and all shall be revealed, LOL. 

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Read the website and all shall be revealed, LOL. 

I did read your website. As I said, I read your chapter on the rear head entry wound. And, as I noted, your chapter doesn't lay a finger on the problem. You don't even acknowledge the entire problem. You mention the lack of damage to the cerebellum, but you say nothing about the even-more-damning lack of damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes. You offer no explanation for how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have failed to damage the cerebellum, much less how it could have failed to damage the rear area of the occipital lobes.

Again, if one wants to delude themselves into thinking that the bullet somehow could have avoided damaging the cerebellum (although Finck admitted this was impossible), no rational person could convince themselves that the bullet could have missed the rear part of the occipital lobes. And, as I've also noted, when the HSCA FPP confronted the autopsy doctors with this problem, they had no answer for it.

You cannot duck the issue by attacking the entire HSCA FPP and its consultants just because they posited the cowlick entry site. They did so because of the brain photos and because of the 6.5 mm object. Some of those experts did gently raise issues with the cowlick site, but Baden ignored them. The fact of the matter is that the FPP and its consultants were undeniably correct in noting that a bullet entering at the EOP site would have done considerable damage to the cerebellum and to the rear portion of occipital lobes. 

But since you are bound and determined to believe that the autopsy materials are pristine and reliable, you refuse to acknowledge the impossible contradiction between the EOP site and the brain photos.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I did read your website. As I said, I read your chapter on the rear head entry wound. And, as I noted, your chapter doesn't lay a finger on the problem. You don't even acknowledge the entire problem. You mention the lack of damage to the cerebellum, but you say nothing about the even-more-damning lack of damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes. You offer no explanation for how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have failed to damage the cerebellum, much less how it could have failed to damage the rear area of the occipital lobes.

Again, if one wants to delude themselves into thinking that the bullet somehow could have avoided damaging the cerebellum (although Finck admitted this was impossible), no rational person could convince themselves that the bullet could have missed the rear part of the occipital lobes. And, as I've also noted, when the HSCA FPP confronted the autopsy doctors with this problem, they had no answer for it.

You cannot duck the issue by attacking the entire HSCA FPP and its consultants just because they posited the cowlick entry site. They did so because of the brain photos and because of the 6.5 mm object. Some of those experts did gently raise issues with the cowlick site, but Baden ignored them. The fact of the matter is that the FPP and its consultants were undeniably correct in noting that a bullet entering at the EOP site would have done considerable damage to the cerebellum and to the rear portion of occipital lobes. 

But since you are bound and determined to believe that the autopsy materials are pristine and reliable, you refuse to acknowledge the impossible contradiction between the EOP site and the brain photos.

The EOP entry was rejected by the Clark Panel on down because there was no upwards path  ending at the large defect. They never looked down. We can presume, moreover, that they weren't allowed to, because that would mean a second shooter. 

Now I know you're gonna pretend there's no evidence a bullet went down the neck, but there is a massive amount of such evidence, which is widely discussed on my website. If you had actually read my chapters on the head wounds, you would know this. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The EOP entry was rejected by the Clark Panel on down because there was no upwards path  ending at the large defect. They never looked down. We can presume, moreover, that they weren't allowed to, because that would mean a second shooter. 

Now I know you're gonna pretend there's no evidence a bullet went down the neck, but there is a massive amount of such evidence, which is widely discussed on my website. If you had actually read my chapters on the head wounds, you would know this. 

Oh, come on. You'd better take a minute and look at a diagram of the brain. If the bullet had entered the EOP at a sharply downward angle, it still could not have missed the right occipital lobe and the cerebellum. You must know this. You must be able to see this in any valid brain diagram. 

The EOP site was slightly above the EOP. So do tell me how in the world it could have missed the right occipital lobe. Look where the right occipital lobe is. Look at the EOP. Now tell me how a bullet entering just above the EOP, even at a sharply downward angle, could have missed the right occipital lobe. Not on this planet.

The FPP got this one right, and even Wecht saw the conflict between an EOP site and an undamaged cerebellum and an undamaged right occipital lobe.

And if the bullet were traveling sharply downward, how in the devil could it have left the cerebellum completely undamaged, without even causing any bleeding?! 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh, come on. You'd better take a minute and look at a diagram of the brain. If the bullet had entered the EOP at a sharply downward angle, it still could not have missed the right occipital lobe and the cerebellum. You must know this. You must be able to see this in any valid brain diagram. 

The EOP site was slightly above the EOP. So do tell me how in the world it could have missed the right occipital lobe. Look where the right occipital lobe is. Look at the EOP. Now tell me how a bullet entering just above the EOP, even at a sharply downward angle, could have missed the right occipital lobe. Not on this planet.

The FPP got this one right, and even Wecht saw the conflict between an EOP site and an undamaged cerebellum and an undamaged right occipital lobe.

And if the bullet were traveling sharply downward, how in the devil could it have left the cerebellum completely undamaged, without even causing any bleeding?! 

All this is covered on my website--y'know the one you've supposedly read but have apparently failed to absorb, or even slightly understand. 

I mean, it's gotten beyond ridiculous. Post after post in which you make inaccurate claims and present ignorant assumptions as fact, and attack me for failing to consider blank, when I discuss blank in detail on my website, and have discussed blank on this forum, and in presentations, and in personal meetings and phone calls with the likes of Aguilar, Thompson, Wecht, and Newman. 

Read the website, for real. While you can disagree with my conclusions, you will undoubtedly learn more from my website than from the crap you've been reading. 

From Chapter 17:

 

The Final Moments

Since a bullet shooting down the neck at Z-224 would have brushed past the cerebellum, I decided to look back through the literature to see if there was any indication something like this occurred. I found that when discussing the brain photos with the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes acknowledged, “the right cerebellum has been partially disrupted, yes.” I also found that Dr. Peters, one of the President’s doctors in Dallas, was shown the autopsy photos in 1988 and shared Humes’ appraisal. He wrote writer Harry Livingstone that “the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared to the left.” I then recalled the HSCA’s declaration that “the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum” was “virtually intact…It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report.” This time, however, I noticed the qualifiers. They said “virtually intact,” which indicates some damage. They also said there was certainly not the degree of damage necessary to be consistent with the autopsy report. Well, this makes sense. The bullet trajectory suggested by the autopsy report, after all, has the bullet heading straight into the cerebellum. These statements by the HSCA Pathology Panel, then, led me to believe the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet’s having headed down into the neck.

Dr. Humes certainly thought a bullet caused this damage. When interviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel on 9-16-77, and asked by Dr. Coe if he thought the "destruction" apparent on the underside of the brain was a "post-mortem artifact" from the removal of the brain, or was caused by the bullet, Humes responded "I think it was partly caused by the bullet."

And it appears that he wasn't the only doctor present at the autopsy, to subsequently study the autopsy photos, to say as much. On page 159 of his book The Death of a President, published 1967, William Manchester reports: "The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's cerebellum, the lower part of his brain." Well, so what? Who the heck is Manchester? He could just be repeating nonsense he read in the paper. Well, this is what. Manchester's book was authorized by the Kennedy family. It was supposed to answer a lot of the questions. As a result, Manchester was given unparalleled access. Including access to doctors speaking with nobody, and I mean nobody, else. The Sources section of his book lists 5 interviews with Kennedy's physician, Dr. Burkley, between October 1964 and July 1966. Burkley inspected the autopsy photos in 1965. Did Burkley tell Manchester the cerebellum was damaged?

We can assume so.

Upon re-reading the supplementary autopsy report from 12-6-63, moreover, I noticed that there were seven slices of tissue removed from the brain for microscopic examination, including one from the “right cerebellar cortex.” I then noticed that the other six were all from areas reported to be damaged. When I re-read the report I realized that a line I had read many times meant something completely different than I’d previously believed. The report states “When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right cortex is again obvious.” As “the basilar aspect” means “underneath” and “cortex” means “outer layer,” this is quite possibly a reference to the cerebellum as well as the cerebrum.

The results of the microscopic examination of the brain confirm, furthermore, that the cerebellum was damaged: “Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are examined. All sections are essentially similar and show extensive disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage.” Later, during his March 16, 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, Humes confirmed yet again that the cerebellum was damaged. He noted that "the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated." There is no flocculus cerebri. There is however, a flocculus cerebelli. It is on the underside of the cerebellum. While some researchers insist Humes meant to say the "falx cerebri," a covering of the brain, was extensively lacerated, it seems obvious that he would be much more likely to say (or have mis-recorded by a court reporter) "cerebri" instead of "cerebelli" than he would be to say (or have mis-recorded) "flocculus" instead of "falx".

There's also this. In Dr. Michael Chesser's appearance at the 2018 JFK Lancer Conference--an appearance designed to raise questions about the authenticity of the brain handled by autopsy assistant James Jenkins on November 22, 1963, and the brain photos currently in the archives--he nevertheless admitted that the photos he'd viewed at the archives revealed a "tiny sliver hanging loose" from the underside of the right cerebellum. Now, Chesser knew this observation did nothing to help sell his theory the brain photos are fakes, so we can probably presume it was accurate.

At the risk of pulling a Lattimer--who foolishly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after first struck to something he described as a Thorburn’s response--let's examine, then, the possibility the President’s behavior after frame 224 in the Zapruder film can be explained by his suffering damage to the flocculus in particular, and the cerebellum in general. Neuroanatomy: An Atlas of Structures, Sections, and Systems (2004) holds that lesions involving the flocconobular lobe result in "truncular ataxia (an impairment of the ability to perform smoothly coordinated voluntary movements), nystagmus (a condition in which the patient suffers involuntary eye movements) and head tilting."

Similarly, Neuroscience in Medicine (2008), holds that "damage to the flocculus, nodulus, and uvula result in a pronounced loss in equilibrium, including truncal ataxia..." The description continues: "There is an inability to incorporate vestibular information with body and eye movements."

Well, thankfully, Wisegeek.com helps put this in layman's terms: "Damage to the flocculus can cause jerky eye movements and difficulty maintaining balance."

Now this is quite interesting. Kennedy appears to reach for his neck, but miss, and then lean to his left in the frames after Zapruder frame 224.

Here is a Gif put together by Robert Harris, in which the awkward actions of Kennedy's arms are revealed.

An observation by Dr. William Kemp Clark contained in Warren Commission Exhibit 392 becomes relevant at this point. When describing Kennedy's appearance upon treatment at Parkland Hospital, he noted: "His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present." Well, it seems more than a coincidence then that numerous scientific articles cite a correlation between damage to the flocculus and downbeat nystagmus, in which the eyes drift slowly upward, before returning to their target. Neurological Differential Diagnosis, 2005, goes even further, moreover, and notes both that the "flocculo-occulomotor tract" has "the only direct cerebellar connection with the eye muscle nuclei" and that "clinical lesions and stimulation experiments" of the cerebellum may "result in a divergence of the eyes." Well, let's put it together. Damage to the flocculus can cause a divergence of the eyes.

Well, then what about damage to the cerebellum in general, as opposed to damage specific to the flocculus? According to multiple sources, including Dr. Gordon Holmes in the December 1917 issue of Brain, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream.Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22^nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord (1974) made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final silent moments.

So, yeah, I'd say there's good reason to suspect Kennedy's cerebellum and/or posterior skull was damaged even before he'd received his fatal wound.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/11/2023 at 12:39 PM, Pat Speer said:

All this is covered on my website--y'know the one you've supposedly read but have apparently failed to absorb, or even slightly understand. 

I mean, it's gotten beyond ridiculous. Post after post in which you make inaccurate claims and present ignorant assumptions as fact, and attack me for failing to consider blank, when I discuss blank in detail on my website, and have discussed blank on this forum, and in presentations, and in personal meetings and phone calls with the likes of Aguilar, Thompson, Wecht, and Newman. 

Read the website, for real. While you can disagree with my conclusions, you will undoubtedly learn more from my website than from the crap you've been reading. 

From Chapter 17:

The Final Moments

Since a bullet shooting down the neck at Z-224 would have brushed past the cerebellum, I decided to look back through the literature to see if there was any indication something like this occurred. I found that when discussing the brain photos with the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes acknowledged, “the right cerebellum has been partially disrupted, yes.” I also found that Dr. Peters, one of the President’s doctors in Dallas, was shown the autopsy photos in 1988 and shared Humes’ appraisal. He wrote writer Harry Livingstone that “the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared to the left.” I then recalled the HSCA’s declaration that “the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum” was “virtually intact…It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report.” This time, however, I noticed the qualifiers. They said “virtually intact,” which indicates some damage. They also said there was certainly not the degree of damage necessary to be consistent with the autopsy report. Well, this makes sense. The bullet trajectory suggested by the autopsy report, after all, has the bullet heading straight into the cerebellum. These statements by the HSCA Pathology Panel, then, led me to believe the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet’s having headed down into the neck.

Dr. Humes certainly thought a bullet caused this damage. When interviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel on 9-16-77, and asked by Dr. Coe if he thought the "destruction" apparent on the underside of the brain was a "post-mortem artifact" from the removal of the brain, or was caused by the bullet, Humes responded "I think it was partly caused by the bullet."

And it appears that he wasn't the only doctor present at the autopsy, to subsequently study the autopsy photos, to say as much. On page 159 of his book The Death of a President, published 1967, William Manchester reports: "The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's cerebellum, the lower part of his brain." Well, so what? Who the heck is Manchester? He could just be repeating nonsense he read in the paper. Well, this is what. Manchester's book was authorized by the Kennedy family. It was supposed to answer a lot of the questions. As a result, Manchester was given unparalleled access. Including access to doctors speaking with nobody, and I mean nobody, else. The Sources section of his book lists 5 interviews with Kennedy's physician, Dr. Burkley, between October 1964 and July 1966. Burkley inspected the autopsy photos in 1965. Did Burkley tell Manchester the cerebellum was damaged?

We can assume so.

Upon re-reading the supplementary autopsy report from 12-6-63, moreover, I noticed that there were seven slices of tissue removed from the brain for microscopic examination, including one from the “right cerebellar cortex.” I then noticed that the other six were all from areas reported to be damaged. When I re-read the report I realized that a line I had read many times meant something completely different than I’d previously believed. The report states “When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right cortex is again obvious.” As “the basilar aspect” means “underneath” and “cortex” means “outer layer,” this is quite possibly a reference to the cerebellum as well as the cerebrum.

The results of the microscopic examination of the brain confirm, furthermore, that the cerebellum was damaged: “Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are examined. All sections are essentially similar and show extensive disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage.” Later, during his March 16, 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, Humes confirmed yet again that the cerebellum was damaged. He noted that "the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated." There is no flocculus cerebri. There is however, a flocculus cerebelli. It is on the underside of the cerebellum. While some researchers insist Humes meant to say the "falx cerebri," a covering of the brain, was extensively lacerated, it seems obvious that he would be much more likely to say (or have mis-recorded by a court reporter) "cerebri" instead of "cerebelli" than he would be to say (or have mis-recorded) "flocculus" instead of "falx".

There's also this. In Dr. Michael Chesser's appearance at the 2018 JFK Lancer Conference--an appearance designed to raise questions about the authenticity of the brain handled by autopsy assistant James Jenkins on November 22, 1963, and the brain photos currently in the archives--he nevertheless admitted that the photos he'd viewed at the archives revealed a "tiny sliver hanging loose" from the underside of the right cerebellum. Now, Chesser knew this observation did nothing to help sell his theory the brain photos are fakes, so we can probably presume it was accurate.

At the risk of pulling a Lattimer--who foolishly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after first struck to something he described as a Thorburn’s response--let's examine, then, the possibility the President’s behavior after frame 224 in the Zapruder film can be explained by his suffering damage to the flocculus in particular, and the cerebellum in general. Neuroanatomy: An Atlas of Structures, Sections, and Systems (2004) holds that lesions involving the flocconobular lobe result in "truncular ataxia (an impairment of the ability to perform smoothly coordinated voluntary movements), nystagmus (a condition in which the patient suffers involuntary eye movements) and head tilting."

Similarly, Neuroscience in Medicine (2008), holds that "damage to the flocculus, nodulus, and uvula result in a pronounced loss in equilibrium, including truncal ataxia..." The description continues: "There is an inability to incorporate vestibular information with body and eye movements."

Well, thankfully, Wisegeek.com helps put this in layman's terms: "Damage to the flocculus can cause jerky eye movements and difficulty maintaining balance."

Now this is quite interesting. Kennedy appears to reach for his neck, but miss, and then lean to his left in the frames after Zapruder frame 224.

Here is a Gif put together by Robert Harris, in which the awkward actions of Kennedy's arms are revealed.

An observation by Dr. William Kemp Clark contained in Warren Commission Exhibit 392 becomes relevant at this point. When describing Kennedy's appearance upon treatment at Parkland Hospital, he noted: "His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present." Well, it seems more than a coincidence then that numerous scientific articles cite a correlation between damage to the flocculus and downbeat nystagmus, in which the eyes drift slowly upward, before returning to their target. Neurological Differential Diagnosis, 2005, goes even further, moreover, and notes both that the "flocculo-occulomotor tract" has "the only direct cerebellar connection with the eye muscle nuclei" and that "clinical lesions and stimulation experiments" of the cerebellum may "result in a divergence of the eyes." Well, let's put it together. Damage to the flocculus can cause a divergence of the eyes.

Well, then what about damage to the cerebellum in general, as opposed to damage specific to the flocculus? According to multiple sources, including Dr. Gordon Holmes in the December 1917 issue of Brain, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream.Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22^nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord (1974) made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final silent moments.

So, yeah, I'd say there's good reason to suspect Kennedy's cerebellum and/or posterior skull was damaged even before he'd received his fatal wound.

Yes, I did read that chapter. You keep claiming that I'm either not reading or am missing/ignoring your explanations. I am reading them, but your explanations don't "explain" anything--they are balls of confusion, special pleading, contradiction, error, and abject nonsense.

Yes, Dr. Chesser did indeed say that when he examined the autopsy brain photos, he saw a "tiny sliver hanging loose" from the underside of the right cerebellum. How does this help your case??? How??? A bullet entering the EOP site would have done far, far, far more damage to the cerebellum than merely causing a "tiny sliver" to hang loose. 

Sheesh, you must be kidding. I take it you didn't follow my suggestion to examine a brain diagram and to note where the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe are located in relation to the EOP. If the bullet entered the EOP site at a sharply downward angle, it may have just barely avoided physical contact with the right occipital lobe, but it could not have missed the cerebellum. The bullet's shock wave would have at least damaged part of the right occipital lobe, and the bullet itself would have torn through the cerebellum.

Furthermore, a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have entered JFK's skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees, which is not what one would usually consider to be a sharply downward angle. At that angle, or at any angle close to it, the bullet could not have avoided doing severe damage to the cerebellum and to the right occipital lobe, just as the HSCA FPP noted.

Incredibly, you appeal to Dr. Kemp Clark regarding the appearance of JFK's eyes. However, you also claim that Dr. Clark egregiously erred in describing substantial damage to the cerebellum! IOW, Dr. Clark could accurately describe JFK's eyes but he committed the stunning error of mistaking damage to the parietal lobe for damage to the cerebellum! Yeah, and just never mind that he was a neurosurgeon, and never mind that the cerebellum has a distinct appearance and is only located low behind the occiput!

This is a good example of your convoluted, contradictory, and dubious "explanations."

Edited October 12, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, I did read that chapter. You keep claiming that I'm either not reading or am missing/ignoring your explanations. I am reading them, but your explanations don't "explain" anything--they are balls of confusion, special pleading, contradiction, error, and abject nonsense.

Yes, Dr. Chesser did indeed say that when he examined the autopsy brain photos, he saw a "tiny sliver hanging loose" from the underside of the right cerebellum. How does this help your case??? How??? A bullet entering the EOP site would have done far, far, far more damage to the cerebellum than merely causing a "tiny sliver" to hang loose. 

Sheesh, you must be kidding. I take it you didn't follow my suggestion to examine a brain diagram and to note where the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe are located in relation to the EOP. If the bullet entered the EOP site at a sharply downward angle, it may have just barely avoided physical contact with the right occipital lobe, but it could not have missed the cerebellum. The bullet's shock wave would have at least damaged part of the right occipital lobe, and the bullet itself would have torn through the cerebellum.

Furthermore, a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have entered JFK's skull at a downward angle of 15 degrees, which is not what one would usually consider to be a sharply downward angle. At that angle, or at any angle close to it, the bullet could not have avoided doing severe damage to the cerebellum and to the right occipital lobe, just as the HSCA FPP noted (and, again, even Wecht recognized the unsolvable contradiction).

Incredibly, you appeal to Dr. Kemp Clark regarding the appearance of JFK's eyes. However, you also claim that Dr. Clark egregiously erred in describing substantial damage to the cerebellum! IOW, Dr. Clark could accurately describe JFK's eyes but he committed the stunning error of mistaking damage to the parietal lobe for damage to the cerebellum! Yeah, and just never mind that he was a neurosurgeon, and never mind that the cerebellum has a distinct appearance and is only located low behind the occiput!

This is a good example of your convoluted, contradictory, and dubious "explanations."

 

 

More flailing. If you had read the chapters you'd know I present drawings to support my arguments. 

As far as the EOP entrance... the Clark Panel used the lack of lower brain damage to refute the low entrance/high exit trajectory pushed by the autopsy doctors and WC. So they conjured up a higher entrance. 

Neither they nor any of their disciples have made the argument the brain photos preclude a low entrance/even lower exit. 

If you're claiming to have done so, please present your work...

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

More flailing. If you had read the chapters you'd know I present drawings to support my arguments. 

As far as the EOP entrance... the Clark Panel used the lack of lower brain damage to refute the low entrance/high exit trajectory pushed by the autopsy doctors and WC. So they conjured up a higher entrance. 

Neither they nor any of their disciples have made the argument the brain photos preclude a low entrance/even lower exit. 

If you're claiming to have done so, please present your work...

One, not one of your drawings/diagrams even attempts or pretends to explain how a bullet entering at the EOP site could have magically missed the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Just to be sure I had not missed something, I reviewed all of your chapters on the medical evidence. Nowhere do you provide any diagram or drawing that even shows the EOP site in relation to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe, much less that shows how a bullet entering at that site could have missed those parts of the brain.

Two, I am baffled by your comment about the Clark Panel and the conflict between the EOP entry site and the lack of damage to the cerebellum in the brain photos.

Did you have a sudden attack of amnesia and forget that the HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on the impossibility of the EOP entry site because of the virtually pristine condition of the cerebellum (with no pre-mortem cerebellar damage) and of the rear area of the right occipital lobe in the brain photos? Do I need to again quote Dr. Loquvam's devastating interrogation of Finck on this point? Do I need to quote Dr. Petty's damning questioning of Humes and Boswell on this point? Let's read what the FPP said on this issue in their report:

          The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129)

The panel added that

          . . . the absence of injury on the inferior surface of the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report. (7 HSCA 115)

I find it hard to take you seriously when you keep insisting that the autopsy brain photos are authentic. 

Of all the evidence that has obviously been faked or altered, the brain photos are at the top of the list. We have a number of accounts of brain tissue being splattered onto over a dozen surfaces (15, by my count). We have numerous mutually corroborating accounts that a large part of JFK's brain was blown out. We have dozens of accounts of a large wound that included a sizable part of the occiput. We have several accounts of severe damage to the cerebellum. Yet, the brain photos show a virtually intact brain, with no more than 2 or 3 ounces of missing tissue, including a virtually undamaged cerebellum, no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, and no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe. 

And we have the EOP entry site, which could not exist if the brain photos were authentic. 

I'm adding two diagrams that show the EOP's location in relation to the cerebellum, and the EOP's location in relation to the eye socket. I did not create these diagrams but pulled them from the Internet and added lines, boxes, arrows, and comments.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

One, not one of your drawings/diagrams even attempts or pretends to explain how a bullet entering at the EOP site could have magically missed the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Just to be sure I had not missed something, I reviewed all of your chapters on the medical evidence. Nowhere do you provide any diagram or drawing that even shows the EOP site in relation to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe, much less that shows how a bullet entering at that site could have missed those parts of the brain.

Two, I am baffled by your comment about the Clark Panel and the conflict between the EOP entry site and the lack of damage to the cerebellum in the brain photos.

Did you have a sudden attack of amnesia and forget that the HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on the impossibility of the EOP entry site because of the virtually pristine condition of the cerebellum (with no pre-mortem cerebellar damage) and of the rear area of the right occipital lobe in the brain photos? Do I need to again quote Dr. Loquvam's devastating interrogation of Finck on this point? Do I need to quote Dr. Petty's damning questioning of Humes and Boswell on this point? Let's read what the FPP said on this issue in their report:

          The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129)

The panel added that

          . . . the absence of injury on the inferior surface of the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report. (7 HSCA 115)

I find it hard to take you seriously when you keep insisting that the autopsy brain photos are authentic. 

Of all the evidence that has obviously been faked or altered, the brain photos are at the top of the list. We have a number of accounts of brain tissue being splattered onto over a dozen surfaces (15, by my count). We have numerous mutually corroborating accounts that a large part of JFK's brain was blown out. We have dozens of accounts of a large wound that included a sizable part of the occiput. We have several accounts of severe damage to the cerebellum. Yet, the brain photos show a virtually intact brain, with no more than 2 or 3 ounces of missing tissue, including a virtually undamaged cerebellum, no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, and no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe. 

And we have the EOP entry site, which could not exist if the brain photos were authentic. 

You are just messing with me, right?

1. If you connect an entry by the EOP to the wound in the throat you will find that the trajectory leads across the underside of the cerebellum, precisely where Humes noted damage. I suppose you think that's a coincidence. And, oh yeah, the Clark Panel and HSCA saw a path from above and exiting at the throat wound on the x-rays. The Clark Panel pretended this path started at the back wound, which they pretended was well above the throat wound. The HSCA Panel knew this was nonsense, but were frightened by the implications of the trail, and so conjured up a line of bs so transparent you might find it convincing. They said JFK's tie blocked his throat wound and forced the air leaking from his windpipe to back up into his neck. Because, y'know, that happens

2. Most of the doctors you claim to believe in, including Mantik, have come to believe there was an entrance hole by the EOP. Assuming you believe they are correct, just where do you think the bullet exited? 

3. The brain photos are fake blah blah is built on Stringer's ARRB interview. It uses his belief the photos were not photos taken by him to push that the photos were faked to hide a huge hole on the back of the brain. And it does this without admitting Stringer also told the ARRB the photos showing an intact back of the head were taken by him, and that there was no hole on the back of the head. It's cherry-picking at its worst. 

4. Actually, the brain photos are fake blah blah is worse than bad cherry-picking. It conceals from impressionable parties what they need to know: that the photos match up with the autopsy protocol and supplemental report, and that this, the official evidence regarding the shooting of Kennedy, is clear-cut proof for two head shots, and thus, a conspiracy. 

There's no need to fake evidence when you can just mis-interpret it, or lie about it. 

 

[Michael Crane]

There are 14 pictures of the brain in the archives.Why the Government insists on using "drawings" seems like a red flag.

Plenty of brain matter in the back seat and floorboard.