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

[Michael Crane]

For information purposes only.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I have Thompson's Last Second.  I understand his conclusions were based primarily on his interpretation of the acoustical evidence.  He thinks there were at least 4 or 5 shots from different directions.

But if you read his "Final Reconstruction", pp 355-7, of what he says happened, it's clear that virtually none of what he says can be seen in the extant Zapruder.  He is making the case for alteration, whether acknowledged or not.

He and the others probably thinks talking about Z alteration would be distraction from their detailed presentation of the evidence, particularly the acoustical part which is the heart of his argument. I don't agree. It leaves open the question:  if what you say happened is true, why can't I see it in Zapruder?

Are you going to be there, Pat?  Perhaps you could ask the group that.

 

 

I have been battling cancer for a few years, and finally got the ok to travel a few weeks back. So of course I went out last week and tripped on the sidewalk and fractured my humerus. So, no, I won't be traveling to Duquesne, or Dallas. 

As far as Tink's final conclusions, you and I are actually in the same boat. I fail to see evidence for two headshots, one from the front and one from the back, within a split second of Z-313. I have talked to Doug DeSalles (who worked with Tink on his book) about this recently, and he thinks this new presentation will be more convincing. But I suspect that I, and many others, will remain unconvinced. 

Your post does raise an important point about human nature--I think. Tink sees something in the z-film others fail to see, and this feeds into his belief it wasn't faked. While at the same time others fail to see things in the film they assume should be in the film, and this leads them to believe it was faked. Having met and chatted with the likes of William Newman and Mary Moorman, who will tell you the film isn't exactly what they remember, but that they feel sure it wasn't faked, and having had photos emerge of concerts in which I'd been in the crowd, which show me to have been 15 feet or more away from where I distinctly remember being, I put little faith in the recollections of humans when the recollections are at odds with the photographic record.

In my case, I performed a detailed study the eyewitness evidence, photographic evidence, and medical evidence, which led me to believe there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza, and that Oswald was not among them. While some are horrified that the experts and authorities were "fooled" by fake evidence, my horror is greater, as I have come to believe the experts and authorities incapable of separating fact from fiction, once the "proper" conclusion has been determined. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

On 10/13/2023 at 12:11 AM, Pat Speer said:

You are correct in that not every aspect of the case is clear. It seems clear, however, that a bullet entering near the EOP and descending the neck would almost certainly be a subsonic bullet. The tests performed for the WC, furthermore, show that a bullet striking Connally and creating all his wounds would also be a subsonic bullet. At times I have wondered if they could be the same bullet. But I ultimately came to suspect they were two separate rounds fired in a burst from an automatic rifle. I even found a specially-designed assassination rifle that would do the trick. 

I would agree, however, that speculation about a particular weapon is inherently risky, and that CT world has had a terrible track record when it comes to speculation about top secret weapons and ammo. 

Random question(s). The alleged EOP entrance on the mystery photo - which I do think is the EOP entrance - reflects that the 15mm dimension was nearly horizontal i.e. at a small angle to the XY plane of JFK’s head. JFK’s head position in Z223 however was nearly upright, so from what angle do you propose the bullet entered? 

In Z312 however, JFK was leaning forward and to the left, as shown in the Moorman photo, etc. A bullet entering the EOP area from above and behind at Z312 (or even Z327 perhaps) seems like it would be a lot more likely to leave such an oblong, angled entrance on the back of the skull.

I also wonder about Boswell’s face sheet, and the arrow by the EOP entrance pointing up and to the left. If Boswell was correct in speculating to the ARRB about why he made that notation, it implies that he saw evidence at autopsy suggesting the bullet “traversed in that direction”. The back wound has that lower abrasion margin or whatever it is suggesting that the bullet entered moving upward -  a result of the slope of JFK’s back. The back of the skull also slopes forward above the EOP, and that slope would be exaggerated by a forward lean. A shot to just above the EOP from above, behind, and to the right of the limo, combined with a forward and left lean of JFK’s head, seems like it could potentially leave an oblong, tilted entrance on the skull pointing up and to the left.

I agree with a lot of your medical arguments, but this Z223 EOP shot thing has bugged me for a while. 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Random question(s). The alleged EOP entrance on the mystery photo - which I do think is the EOP entrance - reflects that the 15mm dimension was nearly horizontal i.e. at a small angle to the XY plane of JFK’s head. JFK’s head position in Z223 however was nearly upright, so from what angle do you propose the bullet entered? 

In Z312 however, JFK was leaning forward and to the left, as shown in the Moorman photo, etc. A bullet entering the EOP area from above and behind at Z312 (or even Z327 perhaps) seems like it would be a lot more likely to leave such an oblong, angled entrance on the back of the skull.

I also wonder about Boswell’s face sheet, and the arrow by the EOP entrance pointing up and to the left. If Boswell was correct in speculating to the ARRB about why he made that notation, it implies that he saw evidence at autopsy suggesting the bullet “traversed in that direction”. The back wound has that lower abrasion margin or whatever it is suggesting that the bullet entered moving upward -  a result of the slope of JFK’s back. The back of the skull also slopes forward above the EOP, and that slope would be exaggerated by a forward lean. A shot to just above the EOP from above, behind, and to the right of the limo, combined with a forward and left lean of JFK’s head, seems like it could potentially leave an oblong, tilted entrance on the skull pointing up and to the left.

I agree with a lot of your medical arguments, but this Z223 EOP shot thing has bugged me for a while. 

You're actually in good company. I was told the other day that some of the top speakers at Duquesne next month are gonna review some of my findings and try to add them into a presentation pushing two headshots around 313. I hope they do so. 

My belief the EOP shot came earlier comes from a couple of observations that are hard for me to reconcile with a later impact.

1. Kennedy's arms begin flailing as he comes out from behind the sign. This reaction matches up perfectly with the reaction of someone suffering a cerebellar injury. It's hard for me to reconcile his reaction at this point with a bullet's creating a shallow back wound. I have had a lot of injuries and medical procedures over the past few years, and I doubt a shallow stab in the back would cause the reactions we see. 

2. It seems probable to me that Connally is hit around 224, and is hit by a subsonic bullet. This makes it easy to assume JFK was hit by the same bullet. But it probably makes more sense to assume he was hit by a bullet from the same burst. The trajectory from the EOP to the throat makes far more sense if one allows that it could have been a subsonic bullet. Witnesses heard two loud sounds around the time of the head shot, not one. So having an EOP shot running down the neck at this time is a problem. Tink, of course, has the bullet creating the EOP entrance exit through the hole left by the 313 bullet. But my study of brain injuries leads me to believe this bullet went down the neck, and not out the top of the head. 

Now these are just impressions. If the back wound did cause an unexpected amount of distress, and the Connally hit was a separate blast, then the EOP entrance could have been created after the time of the head shot at 313. 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

You have to determine when JFK is hit in the back of the head on the Zapruder film (my theory because of cerebellum)

IMHO...you pretty much have to choose "around" frame 312 or when JFK was falling into Jackie's lap.

You are not going to hit JFK in the head when Jackie is making sure that his head is down (lower than the seat)

Pat, I'd say that JFK flailing his arms when he comes from behind the sign is a someone suffering from a throat injury not cerebellum.

JFK IMO would not have the motor skills to hold his head up (and appear normal) after such a shot.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

You have to determine when JFK is hit in the back of the head on the Zapruder film (my theory because of cerebellum)

IMHO...you pretty much have to chose "around" frame 312 or when JFK was falling into Jackie's lap.

You are not going to hit JFK in the head when Jackie is making sure that his head is down (lower than the seat)

Pat, I'd say that JFK flailing his arms when he comes from behind the sign is a someone suffering from a throat injury not cerebellum.

JFK IMO would not have the motor skills to hold his head up (and appear normal) after such a shot.

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.

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

Is there a prevailing theory amongst single bullet advocates for JFK’s reaction that doesn’t involve the Thorburn position thing? This is from a random Google search, and I know basically nothing about spinal anatomy, but the description of motor deficits from injury to some of these nerves seem to fit the profile of JFK’s reaction if it’s possible they were damaged in the right combination:

Axillary Nerve: 

• Motor deficit
  • arm abduction at shoulder

Median Nerve: 

• Motor deficit
  • proximal lesion
    • oppositon of thumb

    • lateral finger flexion

    • wrist flexion

  • distal lesion
    • wrist flexion

Musculocutaneous Nerve:

• Motor deficit
  • flexion of arm at elbow

Ulnar Nerve: 

• Motor deficit
  • proximal lesion
    • medial finger flexion

    • wrist flexion

  • distal lesion
    • abduction and adduction of fingers (interossei)

    • adduction of thumb

    • extension of 4th and 5th fingers (lumbricals)

This is pure speculation, but these nerves all seem to branch out of the spine in the general area of the back wound impact, so I’m curious if it’s possible that even an undercharged bullet could cause enough trauma to trigger an instant reaction, etc. 

 

https://step1.medbullets.com/msk/112008/upper-extremity-nerves

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/13/2023 at 2:07 PM, Pat Speer said:

 

 

  

All of these issues are addressed on the website you claim to have read, but clearly fail to understand. 

You keep saying this, and I keep proving that your website does explain the things you claim it explains.

By the way, I notice that you made no attempt to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have exited the throat without tearing through the cerebellum, and how the EOP site can be accepted if you believe the autopsy photos are genuine since those photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and no pre-mortem damage to it—not even any bleeding.

Yet, Finck told the ARRB that there was "extensive damage" to the cerebellum:

          Q: Was the cerebellum of President Kennedy's brain disrupted or lacerated by the entrance wound?
          A: Well, it was—there was extensive damage. (ARRB deposition, 5/24/96, p. 104)

Obviously, he could not have been describing the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.

I will address one point. The descriptions of the brain in the autopsy report and supplemental report strongly suggest two headshots. They mention a trail of fragments on the x-rays in the initial report, but present no evidence for it after studying the brain. It seems clear then that Humes had fooled himself into thinking he saw such a trail on the x-rays a few days later when writing the report, or was flat-out fibbing. In any event, the conclusions of the doctors are at odds with their own observations. 

In other words, when you want to believe the autopsy doctors, you cite and quote them approvingly, but when they say things that contradict your theory, you claim they made astonishing errors or out-and-out lied.

Why didn’t Humes say anything about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report? Did he “miss” it? Did Boswell, Finck, and Ebsersole also “miss” it? Didn’t Finck tell the ARRB that he saw the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report?

By the way, I notice that you made no attempt to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have exited the throat without tearing through the cerebellum, and how the EOP site can be accepted if you believe the autopsy photos are genuine since those photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and no pre-mortem damage to it—not even any bleeding.

You keep missing this. The observations are the key, not the conclusions. People stating they do not see a fragment on the back of the head on the lateral x-ray are not simultaneously saying it is on the back of the head on the A-P x-ray. One can not determine depth from an x-ray--this is why they take two views when trying to determine location.

As for those stating they could not see a partner or whatever, they were responding to questions written and asked under the presumption the fragment on the A-P was on the back of the head. Their answer was they could not see it. If you can show me one such exchange where they were told beforehand that the largest fragment removed at autopsy was removed from behind the eye, and then asked if the fragment behind the eye had a partner on the lateral, well, that would be something. But that never happened. Heck, Morgan was never allowed to meet with H and B before claiming the fragment was on the back of the head. He was told to find evidence proving the shot was from behind, and popped up with a non-existent fragment on the back wall by a non-existent hole. You don't believe there was such a hole, right? So why would you believe there was such a fragment? 

Oh, come on. So according to you, the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP consultants, and the three ARRB experts blindly accepted the assumption that the 6.5 mm object was in the back of the head. Most of these men relocated the rear head entry wound upward by nearly 4 inches, but it never occurred to them to verify the 6.5 mm object’s location with their own observation and analysis!

The HSCA FPP members and consultants all identified the small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, which self-evidently proves that they located the object on the back of the head—otherwise, it could not be the parent image of the back-of-head fragment.

You ignore the fact that even Dr. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object should be even brighter in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays than it appears on the AP x-ray:

          The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [i.e., the small back-of-head fragment] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths, p. 193)

Dr. Mantik has made the same point. So has Dr. Aguilar. So has Dr. Chesser.

Dr. Fitzpatrick was puzzled and disturbed by the stark difference in brightness/density between the small back-of-head fragment and the 6.5 mm object. He would not have cared one bit about this contradiction if the 6.5 mm object did not appear to be on the back of the head in the AP x-ray. If the object were just behind the right eye, it would not matter one tiny bit that the back-of-head fragment cannot be the 6.5 mm object’s partner image—indeed, this would be impossible because the small fragment would be in the wrong location. It is amazing that you keep dismissing this fundamental point.

Ah, but according to you, Fitzpatrick misled himself because he blindly assumed that the 6.5 mm object was in the back of the head on the AP x-ray and that this assumption caused him to compound his error because it led him to assume that the object’s partner image should be in the back of the skull!

Finally, it bears repeating that you are (1) dismissing the hard science of the two independent sets of OD measurements that prove the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, (2) assuming that all of the descriptions of a large right-rear head wound are “mistaken,” (3) assuming that all of the accounts of severe damage to the cerebellum are likewise “mistaken,” (4) assuming that the brain matter that was splattered onto 15 surfaces amounted to no more than 3 ounces, (5) assuming that Humes missed the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray, and (6) assuming that Humes somehow mistook the round 6.5 mm object for a club-shaped 7x2 mm object.

By the way, did I mention that I notice that you made no attempt to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have exited the throat without tearing through the cerebellum, and how the EOP site can be accepted if you believe the autopsy photos are genuine since those photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and no pre-mortem damage to it—not even any bleeding? Did I mention that?

Edited October 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

You ignore the fact that even Dr. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object should be even brighter in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays than it appears on the AP x-ray:

          The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [i.e., the small back-of-head fragment] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths, p. 193)

 

Oh my. You just love to wrap yourself around "experts", particularly when they are testifying outside their area of expertise. 

I am fairly certain Sturdivan was not a doctor, and he was most certainly not an expert on radiology. If he'd read textbooks on radiology and books on the history of radiology he would know that the relative brightness of an object on an x-ray is not a reflection of the object's actual appearance, but is a reflection of the cumulative amount of resistance to the x-ray at that particular 2-d location, which is magnified or lessened by the settings on the machine. Simply put, one can not look at an A-P x-ray and say that the brightest object on that x-ray should be the brightest object on a lateral x-ray. The item on the A-P x-ray might overlap a piece of metal elsewhere on the x-ray. And overlap a sinus on the lateral x-ray. And that's not even to mention the settings, which can have a huge impact on the appearance of an x-ray. 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

You ignore the fact that even Dr. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object should be even brighter in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays than it appears on the AP x-ray:

          The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [i.e., the small back-of-head fragment] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths, p. 193)

 

Oh my. You just love to wrap yourself around "experts", particularly when they are testifying outside their area of expertise. 

I am fairly certain Sturdivan was not a doctor, and he was most certainly not an expert on radiology. If he'd read textbooks on radiology and books on the history of radiology he would know that the relative brightness of an object on an x-ray is not a reflection of the object's actual appearance, but is a reflection of the cumulative amount of resistance to the x-ray at that particular 2-d location, which is magnified or lessened by the settings on the machine. Simply put, one can not look at an A-P x-ray and say that the brightest object on that x-ray should be the brightest object on a lateral x-ray. The item on the A-P x-ray might overlap a piece of metal elsewhere on the x-ray. And overlap a sinus on the lateral x-ray. And that's not even to mention the settings, which can have a huge impact on the appearance of an x-ray. 

No, Sturdivan is not a doctor, but Fitzpatrick is, Mantik is, Chesser is, Aguilar is, etc., etc. The HSCA FPP members and consultants were medical experts. 

You are again using a strawman argument to avoid the problem. The point is not that the brightest object on an AP x-ray should be the brightest object on the corresponding lateral x-ray. The point is that the 6.5 mm object should be even brighter on the lateral x-rays than it is on the AP x-ray. 

I notice you said nothing about Finck's statement that there was "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. Either the brain photos do not show JFK's brain or Finck was yet another doctor who inexplicably mistook the cerebrum for the cerebellum, even though the cerebellum has a much different appearance and is located behind the lower part of the occiput. 

Finally, I note that you once again declined to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have exited the throat without tearing through the cerebellum, and how the brain photos could be authentic if the EOP site is valid. We should keep in mind that the EOP site was at least 1/8th inch above the EOP.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, Sturdivan is not a doctor, but Fitzpatrick is, Mantik is, Chesser is, Aguilar is, etc., etc. The HSCA FPP members and consultants were medical experts. 

You are again using a strawman argument to avoid the problem. The point is not that the brightest object on an AP x-ray should be the brightest object on the corresponding lateral x-ray. The point is that the 6.5 mm object should be even brighter on the lateral x-rays than it is on the AP x-ray. 

I notice you said nothing about Finck's statement that there was "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. Either the brain photos do not show JFK's brain or Finck was yet another doctor who inexplicably mistook the cerebrum for the cerebellum, even though the cerebellum has a much different appearance and is located behind the lower part of the occiput. 

Finally, I note that you once again declined to explain how a bullet that entered at the EOP site could have exited the throat without tearing through the cerebellum, and how the brain photos could be authentic if the EOP site is valid. We should keep in mind that the EOP site was at least 1/8th inch above the EOP.

Once again, NONE of your proclaimed experts were both radiologists and well-versed in the issues at hand. None of them studied the witness statements and noted that a fragment was found in that location. I have spent A Lot of time in hospitals over the past few years--and there is essentially no such thing as a "medical" expert. They are specialists, and even then only as good as the information provided. 

As far as the EOP entrance...your persistence on this point can only be viewed as trolling. You acknowledge you believe there was an entrance at this location, and that its pathway through the body is unknown. You acknowledge as well that some who have viewed the photos have noted damage to the cerebellum. I have shown you as well that the original reports noted damage in this area that they believed had been caused by a bullet, and that a number of the experts you pretend to believe in have noted a passage in the tissues down the neck ending at the throat wound. So what's the problem? A number of those inspecting the photos have claimed they proved no bullet had traversed UPWARDS from he EOP, and then used this to push the bullet really entered 4 inches higher where no one saw a wound. The possibility it went downwards was never addressed. Although there is some language suggesting they thought the lack of damage meant no entry of any kind was by the EOP, they were clearly just blubbering, as they elsewhere acknowledged there was some damage and that there was a passageway down the neck. 

So let's be clear... If you believe there was an EOP entrance that led upwards, but that the photos were faked and don't show this, then your claims he bullet could not have gone down the neck has no basis outside your pretending to trust in the expertise of men you believe conjured up a fake entrance in the cowlick, while studying photos and x-rays you assume to be fake.

In other words you are arguing just to argue...and your arguments are without merit. 

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Once again, NONE of your proclaimed experts were both radiologists and well-versed in the issues at hand. None of them studied the witness statements

Oh, wow, so you’re saying that all those pathologists and radiologists couldn’t even read an x-ray, could not distinguish between a round 6.5 mm object and a narrow club-shaped 7x2 mm fragment, and royally goofed in locating the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head! Okay, you bet.

and noted that a fragment was found in that location.

We’ve already been over this. We both know that Humes clearly, plainly, and undeniably said that the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment, which he correctly noted was behind and just above the right orbit. But you wave this aside and rely on a confusing statement by two FBI agents about a fragment in the back of the head, and ignore the fact that there was a fragment in the back of the head but that Humes obviously did not remove it.

As far as the EOP entrance...your persistence on this point can only be viewed as trolling.

My persistence in rejecting your erroneous, convoluted arguments is “trolling”! Okay. You just can’t admit when you’re clearly wrong.

You acknowledge you believe there was an entrance at this location, and that its pathway through the body is unknown.

Huh??? Its “pathway through the body”??? Its only pathway would have been in/through the head, and only the head. It could not have gone below the head unless it was fired from a helicopter hovering above the TSBD, and even then it would have had a hard time missing the cerebellum.

You acknowledge as well that some who have viewed the photos have noted damage to the cerebellum. I have shown you as well that the original reports noted damage in this area that they believed had been caused by a bullet,

You know this is misleading. You know that no expert who has viewed the brain photos has noted anything remotely close to the kind of damage that would have been done by a bullet entering at the EOP site.

You know that all but one of the experts who have viewed the brain photos have noted no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and only very slight post-mortem damage. The one exception is Dr. Chesser, and the only pre-mortem damage he saw in the brain photos was a small sliver of the cerebellum hanging down. Yet, Finck told the ARRB that there was “extensive damage” to the cerebellum, and some of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was badly damaged.

and that a number of the experts you pretend to believe in have noted a passage in the tissues down the neck ending at the throat wound. So what's the problem?

There is no path from the EOP site to the throat wound that does not go through the cerebellum. I have repeatedly challenged you to prove otherwise, and you have declined to do so.

The throat wound was an entrance wound—that’s why it was small, neat, and punched-in. Furthermore, we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the pathologists absolutely, positively determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point.

A number of those inspecting the photos have claimed they proved no bullet had traversed UPWARDS from he EOP, and then used this to push the bullet really entered 4 inches higher where no one saw a wound. The possibility it went downwards was never addressed. Although there is some language suggesting they thought the lack of damage meant no entry of any kind was by the EOP, they were clearly just blubbering, as they elsewhere acknowledged there was some damage and that there was a passageway down the neck. 

You can repeat this nonsense a hundred times and it will still be nonsense. There was no path from the EOP site to the throat wound that did not go through the cerebellum. The throat wound was an entrance wound. Your entire argument starts with the bogus assumption that your slice object on the lateral x-rays is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object, yet no expert has even identified that slice object as metallic, much less as the partner image for any object seen on the AP x-ray.

So let's be clear... If you believe there was an EOP entrance that led upwards, but that the photos were faked and don't show this, then your claims he bullet could not have gone down the neck has no basis outside your pretending to trust in the expertise of men you believe conjured up a fake entrance in the cowlick, while studying photos and x-rays you assume to be fake.

I do not claim that the x-rays are “fake.” I say they have been altered, that they are x-rays of JFK’s skull taken at the autopsy but that they have been altered. And, yes, I do most certainly say that the brain photos are fake because they could not be photos of JFK’s brain, since we have numerous credible accounts that a large part of JFK’s brain was gone and that a large amount of brain tissue was splattered onto 15 surfaces, since the x-rays portray far more missing brain than we see in the brain photos, and since the brain photos show a virtually undamaged cerebellum.

Yes, the HSCA FPP members followed the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, but they did so partly because they noted that the brain photos categorically and incontrovertibly refuted the EOP site. They also did so because they were trying to account for the 6.5 mm object, which all of them correctly located in the back of the head. At least one of the FPP consultants raised issues with the revised entry wound location, but his observations were ignored.

In other words you are arguing just to argue...and your arguments are without merit. 

Phew! Can you say “projection”? You can’t cite a single expert who says your slice object is metallic. You wave 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 make the absurd assumption that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole horrendously misread the skull x-rays, that they incomprehensibly mistook the round 6.5 mm object for the narrow, club-shaped 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray, and that they then read your small slice object as being the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays!

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Once again, NONE of your proclaimed experts were both radiologists and well-versed in the issues at hand. None of them studied the witness statements

Oh, wow, so you’re saying that all those pathologists and radiologists couldn’t even read an x-ray, could not distinguish between a round 6.5 mm object and a narrow club-shaped 7x2 mm fragment, and royally goofed in locating the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head! Okay, you bet.

and noted that a fragment was found in that location.

We’ve already been over this. We both know that Humes clearly, plainly, and undeniably said that the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment, which he correctly noted was behind and just above the right orbit. But you wave this aside and rely on a confusing statement by two FBI agents about a fragment in the back of the head, and ignore the fact that there was a fragment in the back of the head but that Humes obviously did not remove it.

As far as the EOP entrance...your persistence on this point can only be viewed as trolling.

My persistence in rejecting your erroneous, convoluted arguments is “trolling”! Okay. You just can’t admit when you’re clearly wrong.

You acknowledge you believe there was an entrance at this location, and that its pathway through the body is unknown.

Huh??? Its “pathway through the body”??? Its only pathway would have been in/through the head, and only the head. It could not have gone below the head unless it was fired from a helicopter hovering above the TSBD, and even then it would have had a hard time missing the cerebellum.

You acknowledge as well that some who have viewed the photos have noted damage to the cerebellum. I have shown you as well that the original reports noted damage in this area that they believed had been caused by a bullet,

You know this is misleading. You know that no expert who has viewed the brain photos has noted anything remotely close to the kind of damage that would have been done by a bullet entering at the EOP site.

You know that all but one of the experts who have viewed the brain photos have noted no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and only very slight post-mortem damage. The one exception is Dr. Chesser, and the only pre-mortem damage he saw in the brain photos was a small sliver of the cerebellum hanging down. Yet, Finck told the ARRB that there was “extensive damage” to the cerebellum, and some of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was badly damaged.

and that a number of the experts you pretend to believe in have noted a passage in the tissues down the neck ending at the throat wound. So what's the problem?

There is no path from the EOP site to the throat wound that does not go through the cerebellum. I have repeatedly challenged you to prove otherwise, and you have declined to do so.

The throat wound was an entrance wound—that’s why it was small, neat, and punched-in. Furthermore, we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the pathologists absolutely, positively determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point.

A number of those inspecting the photos have claimed they proved no bullet had traversed UPWARDS from he EOP, and then used this to push the bullet really entered 4 inches higher where no one saw a wound. The possibility it went downwards was never addressed. Although there is some language suggesting they thought the lack of damage meant no entry of any kind was by the EOP, they were clearly just blubbering, as they elsewhere acknowledged there was some damage and that there was a passageway down the neck. 

You can repeat this nonsense a hundred times and it will still be nonsense. There was no path from the EOP site to the throat wound that did not go through the cerebellum. The throat wound was an entrance wound. Your entire argument starts with the bogus assumption that your slice object on the lateral x-rays is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object, yet no expert has even identified that slice object as metallic, much less as the partner image for any object seen on the AP x-ray.

So let's be clear... If you believe there was an EOP entrance that led upwards, but that the photos were faked and don't show this, then your claims he bullet could not have gone down the neck has no basis outside your pretending to trust in the expertise of men you believe conjured up a fake entrance in the cowlick, while studying photos and x-rays you assume to be fake.

I do not claim that the x-rays are “fake.” I say they have been altered, that they are x-rays of JFK’s skull taken at the autopsy but that they have been altered. And, yes, I do most certainly say that the brain photos are fake because they could not be photos of JFK’s brain, since we have numerous credible accounts that a large part of JFK’s brain was gone and that a large amount of brain tissue was splattered onto 15 surfaces, since the x-rays portray far more missing brain than we see in the brain photos, and since the brain photos show a virtually undamaged cerebellum.

Yes, the HSCA FPP members followed the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, but they did so partly because they noted that the brain photos categorically and incontrovertibly refuted the EOP site. They also did so because they were trying to account for the 6.5 mm object, which all of them correctly located in the back of the head. At least one of the FPP consultants raised issues with the revised entry wound location, but his observations were ignored.

In other words you are arguing just to argue...and your arguments are without merit. 

Phew! Can you say “projection”? You can’t cite a single expert who says your slice object is metallic. You wave 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 make the absurd assumption that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole horrendously misread the skull x-rays, that they incomprehensibly mistook the round 6.5 mm object for the narrow, club-shaped 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray, and that they then read your small slice object as being the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays!

Okay, it appears you can't follow what's been placed before you...

So let's go back to the beginning. 

In 1968, the Clark Panel was formed, primarily to refute the "junk" in Tink Thompson's book, including that the bullet trajectory for the head wound proposed by the autopsy doctors made no sense. And VOILA! Dr.s Fisher and Morgan "discovered" a small bullet hole in the cowlick (where no one viewing the body had noted such a bullet hole) and a large bullet fragment on the back of the head? Were they correct? 

[Michael Griffith]

@Pat SpeerWe are basically going around in circles. You keep repeating the same arguments and keep dismissing contrary evidence and arguments. We are not going to agree on the specious, contradictory assumptions your position requires one to make.

I'm never going to buy the idea that all three autopsy doctors and the radiologist committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the 6.5 mm object for the 7x2 mm fragment, much less for your non-metallic slice object. Nor am I ever going to buy your argument that Humes mismeasured the largest fragment, especially given the fact that he did *not* measure it on the x-ray but measured it after he removed it. Nor will I ever buy your vacuous theory that a bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum. Etc., etc., etc.

I will address one issue that you raised that I only briefly answered, namely, the controls used by Dr. Mantik in his OD findings on the white patch on JFK's lateral autopsy x-rays. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Doug DeSalles (M.D.) took OD measurements of the lateral x-rays of nine other deceased persons, in addition to examining one of JFK's pre-mortem lateral x-rays (Dr. Chesser examined the original pre-mortem x-ray).

In all the control cases, there was no white area that even came close to transmitting the amount of light transmitted by the white patch. There was a drastic difference between the light area-dark area contrast on the control x-rays vs. the white patch's contrast with the dark area in the frontal region. On the control x-rays, the brightest area was only two or three times brighter than the dark areas, whereas the white patch transmitted about 1100 times more light than the dark area in the frontal region. 

Doug Horne discusses these facts and provides a detailed explanation of the OD findings in his book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume 2 (pp. 546-554). He also discusses the science of OD measurement in relation to the 6.5 mm object and the state of x-ray technology at the time of the autopsy. 

Contrary to what you and some WC apologists claim, the overlapping bone above JFK's right ear on the lateral x-rays has nothing to do with the white patch. The white patch is noticeably farther to the rear than the overlapping bone; they are in two different areas of the skull, as Dr. Mantik observes in his reply to your critique of his research (LINK).

Edited October 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

On 10/23/2023 at 7:29 AM, Michael Griffith said:

@Pat SpeerWe are basically going around in circles. You keep repeating the same arguments and keep dismissing contrary evidence and arguments. We are not going to agree on the specious, contradictory assumptions your position requires one to make.

I'm never going to buy the idea that all three autopsy doctors and the radiologist committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the 6.5 mm object for the 7x2 mm fragment, much less for your non-metallic slice object. Nor am I ever going to buy your argument that Humes mismeasured the largest fragment, especially given the fact that he did *not* measure it on the x-ray but measured it after he removed it. Nor will I ever buy your vacuous theory that a bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum. Etc., etc., etc.

I will address one issue that you raised that I only briefly answered, namely, the controls used by Dr. Mantik in his OD findings on the white patch on JFK's lateral autopsy x-rays. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Doug DeSalles (M.D.) took OD measurements of the lateral x-rays of nine other deceased persons, in addition to examining one of JFK's pre-mortem lateral x-rays (Dr. Chesser examined the original pre-mortem x-ray).

In all the control cases, there was no white area that even came close to transmitting the amount of light transmitted by the white patch. There was a drastic difference between the light area-dark area contrast on the control x-rays vs. the white patch's contrast with the dark area in the frontal region. On the control x-rays, the brightest area was only two or three times brighter than the dark areas, whereas the white patch transmitted about 1100 times more light than the dark area in the frontal region. 

Doug Horne discusses these facts and provides a detailed explanation of the OD findings in his book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume 2 (pp. 546-554). He also discusses the science of OD measurement in relation to the 6.5 mm object and the state of x-ray technology at the time of the autopsy. 

Contrary to what you and some WC apologists claim, the overlapping bone above JFK's right ear on the lateral x-rays has nothing to do with the white patch. The white patch is noticeably farther to the rear than the overlapping bone; they are in two different areas of the skull, as Dr. Mantik observes in his reply to your critique of his research (LINK).

You're wrong about this stuff, including DeSalles. If you move away from the likes of Fetzer Horne and Chesser you will find that very few top researchers put much stock in Mantik's findings. Some are intrigued by his OD readings. And maybe even intrigued by the white patch. But none buy into his Harper fragment nonsense. Or his Z-filmlimo-stop/Moorman in the street nonsense. Or his three head shots nonsense. They find them embarrassing.