"A Goodly Portion of the Right Brain" Was "Missing" -- Dr. Fred Hodges

[Michael Griffith]

In 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuroradiology at the John Hopkins medical school, was asked to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission. Among other things, he noted in his report that a "goodly portion" of the right brain was "missing":

          AP and two lateral views show. . . . A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air. (p. 2, LINK)

The absence of a good portion of the right side of the brain means the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with optical density measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays.

Further confirmation of a large amount of missing brain comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).

Even the ARRB's forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, who was loathe to see any evidence of fraud in the autopsy materials, said that the upper-right dark region on the AP x-ray indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report: Independent Review of JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs By Outside Consultant, 2/9/96, ARRB, p. 1).

As most here know, we also have a number of eyewitness accounts, from three different locations, that a substantial part of the brain was blown out. In addition, we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshields of the two left-trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, Agent Kinney's clothes, the limo's trunk, Jackie's dress, and several surfaces inside the limo.

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, as even Vince Bugliosi and Michael Baden gladly acknowledged and insisted. 

Given these facts, it is not surprising that the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that he was certain that the brain photos in evidence are not the brain photos he took.

Also, although the Rockefeller Commission's final report endorsed the Clark Panel's cowlick entry site for the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges rejected the site in his report and said the EOP entry site was correct (pp. 2-3). 

A little more about Dr. Hodges: He began his career as a professor of radiology at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University. He served as president of the American Society of Neuroradiology for two years. He conducted numerous experiments to study the effects on animals and humans of penetrating wounds from high-velocity bullets. He was a highly respected reviewer for the American Journal of Neuroradiology and was a charter member of the Association of University Radiologists and of the American Society of Neuroradiology. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the skull x-rays show the 6.5 mm object "flattened against the outer table of the occiput" (p. 2). 

Thus, Hodges is yet another expert who has put the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, not in the right supraorbital ridge. Nearly all the experts who've examined the x-rays have put the object in the back of the head, not near the right eye. 

Not having the advantage of OD measurements, Hodges naturally assumed that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment ("large metallic fragment").

[Sandy Larsen]

Problem is, the skull x-rays are inconsistent with the early statements of nearly all of the Parkland nurses and doctors. They said that the gaping wound was at the back of the head. The x-rays indicate that the gaping wound is on top of the head.

I don't believe in mass hallucination, which is the only possible explanation for all those Parkland professionals to be consistently wrong. I conclude therefore that the x-rays must be fraudulent. I'm surprised that Mantik et. al. take them as seriously as they do.

So the back-of-head photos are fakes, the skull x-rays are fakes, and the brain photos are fakes. My guess is that they are all from other people, not Kennedy.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Problem is, the skull x-rays are inconsistent with the early statements of nearly all of the Parkland nurses and doctors. They said that the gaping wound was at the back of the head. The x-rays indicate that the gaping wound is on top of the head.

I don't believe in mass hallucination, which is the only possible explanation for all those Parkland professionals to be consistently wrong. I conclude therefore that the x-rays must be fraudulent. I'm surprised that Mantik et. al. take them as seriously as they do.

So the back-of-head photos are fakes, the skull x-rays are fakes, and the brain photos are fakes. My guess is that they are all from other people, not Kennedy.

 

So...are you acknowledging the autopsy photos showing the face are legit? Or are they of someone else also? 

P.S. Mantik claims the x-rays are of JFK., but that they've been altered. Is there any foundation to your guess they are of someone else? 

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. Mantik claims the x-rays are of JFK., but that they've been altered. Is there any foundation to your guess they are of someone else?

 

Absolutely. The x-rays show brain mass missing from the front of the skull. This doesn't match what the Parkland doctors saw, and doesn't even match the brain photos. But then, that wasn't Kennedy's brain.

I think that, in reality, by the time the body was prepared to ship to DC, there was very little left of the brain on the right side, particularly in the back of the skull. I think that by the time Humes took charge, the brain was completely gone and somebody else's brain put in its place. Which is why the brain just fell out without having to cut the brain stem.

Another problem with the skull x-rays is that they show the bones largely in place on the back of the skull. X-rays of the real skull would have shown a massive hole there.

 

[Pat Speer]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Absolutely. The x-rays show brain mass missing from the front of the skull. This doesn't match what the Parkland doctors saw, and doesn't even match the brain photos. But then, that wasn't Kennedy's brain.

I think that, in reality, by the time the body was prepared to ship to DC, there was very little left of the brain on the right side, particularly in the back of the skull. I think that by the time Humes took charge, the brain was completely gone and somebody else's brain put in its place. Which is why the brain just fell out without having to cut the brain stem.

Another problem with the skull x-rays is that they show the bones largely in place on the back of the skull. X-rays of the real skull would have shown a massive hole there.

 

I understand your reasoning. 

But here are some problems.

1. Everyone who's studied the post-mortem x-rays and compared them to JFK's pre-mortem x-rays has agreed they are of the same skull.. 

2. The autopsy report notes that the lining at the top of the brain which holds it in place was torn and loose. (This in itself is telling, as it designates the supposed exit location as an entrance.) In any event, the brain would thereby slump back in the skull when JFK was on his back. 

3. The statements about the brain being gone are almost always made in conjunction with the skull defect being massive. It's clear then. that these men were describing the wound as seen after the skull defect was enlarged and the brain removed. Jenkins, of course, is an exception, in that he was right there when the brain was removed. He said he thought the brain appeared to be small and that Humes made a comment about how easily it came out. Well, heck, this is interesting. But it more logically suggests the underside of the brain was damaged and torn from its moorings than it suggests the skull wound was expanded, the brain removed, another brain inserted, and the skull wound closed back up before the brain observed and handled by Jenkins was removed. Dr. Humes did not normally remove brains, after all. That job was usually performed by an assistant, such as Jenkins. Secondly, the brains removed by Humes were not gunshot victims, where the moorings of the brain had been torn. So his commenting on the ease with which he removed the brain need not be a reference to body alteration, etc. 

4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke? 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I understand your reasoning. 

But here are some problems.

1. Everyone who's studied the post-mortem x-rays and compared them to JFK's pre-mortem x-rays has agreed they are of the same skull.. 

 

I don't necessarily trust the judgement of "everybody." For example, I generally don't trust what HSCA experts said. The HSCA was coverup 2.0.

I do trust Cyril Wecht.

That said...

If the head x-rays are indeed those of JFK's, then I think that the bone fragments from the back of the head must have been largely recovered, and that they were reassembled before the x-ray was taken. In addition to that, the back of the then empty skull must have been packed with something to make it appear that the rear part of the brain was still in place.

I understand that Mantik has used optical densitometry to show that the x-ray was altered in a way that is consistent with what I just described.

 

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2. The autopsy report notes that the lining at the top of the brain which holds it in place was torn and loose. (This in itself is telling, as it designates the supposed exit location as an entrance.) In any event, the brain would thereby slump back in the skull when JFK was on his back. 

 

The autopsy report was based on a JFK head that, IMO, had been whacked with something hard to break up the skull, and whose scalp had sustained multiple cuts from a knife, the purpose of which was likely to remove the brain. Thus rendering the information gained from the head of little value.

 

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

3. The statements about the brain being gone are almost always made in conjunction with the skull defect being massive. It's clear then. that these men were describing the wound as seen after the skull defect was enlarged and the brain removed.

 

That is not clear to me.

Based on the early statements I've read, I believe that the body arrived with no brain and that another person's brain was inserted by Humes during a period of time when the autopsy audience had been asked to leave for a moment while x-rays were being taken.

 

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Jenkins, of course, is an exception, in that he was right there when the brain was removed. He said he thought the brain appeared to be small and that Humes made a comment about how easily it came out. Well, heck, this is interesting. But it more logically suggests the underside of the brain was damaged and torn from its moorings than it suggests the skull wound was expanded, the brain removed, another brain inserted, and the skull wound closed back up before the brain observed and handled by Jenkins was removed. 

 

If you believe that the underside of the brain was so damaged that the brain would easily come out, without cutting the brain stem, then you cannot possibly believe that the brain we have a drawing of is Kennedy's. The damage to that brain doesn't extend far down enough to reach the brain stem.

 

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke? 

 

I do have one problem with Mantik's judgement. And that is that he believes that the three missing fragments from the top of the skull actually escaped from the head through the gaping hole on the back of the head. At least that's the way it sounded to me in an e-mail exchange I had with him a few years ago. That is just nonsense on the face of it. It's obvious to me that those fragments fell out after somebody whacked the top of the head and sliced multiple times through the scalp in order to get the brain out.

That said, it was sure thoughtful of Dr. Mantik to send me a copy of his latest book, which is just beautiful.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't necessarily trust the judgement of "everybody." For example, I generally don't trust what HSCA experts said. The HSCA was coverup 2.0.

I do trust Cyril Wecht.

That said...

If the head x-rays are indeed those of JFK's, then I think that the bone fragments from the back of the head must have been largely recovered, and that they were reassembled before the x-ray was taken. In addition to that, the back of the then empty skull must have been packed with something to make it appear that the rear part of the brain was still in place.

I understand that Mantik has used optical densitometry to show that the x-ray was altered in a way that is consistent with what I just described.

 

 

The autopsy report was based on a JFK head that, IMO, had been whacked with something hard to break up the skull, and whose scalp had sustained multiple cuts from a knife, the purpose of which was likely to remove the brain. Thus rendering the information gained from the head of little value.

 

 

That is not clear to me.

Based on the early statements I've read, I believe that the body arrived with no brain and that another person's brain was inserted by Humes during a period of time when the autopsy audience had been asked to leave for a moment while x-rays were being taken.

 

 

If you believe that the underside of the brain was so damaged that the brain would easily come out, without cutting the brain stem, then you cannot possibly believe that the brain we have a drawing of is Kennedy's. The damage to that brain doesn't extend far down enough to reach the brain stem.

 

 

I do have one problem with Mantik's judgement. And that is that he believes that the three missing fragments from the top of the skull actually escaped from the head through the gaping hole on the back of the head. At least that's the way it sounded to me in an e-mail exchange I had with him a few years ago. That is just nonsense on the face of it. It's obvious to me that those fragments fell out after somebody whacked the top of the head and sliced multiple times through the scalp in order to get the brain out.

That said, it was sure thoughtful of Dr. Mantik to send me a copy of his latest book, which is just beautiful.

 

Three quick points.

1. Mantik had told and allowed people to believe that the white spot on the lateral x-ray had been added to conceal a blow-out wound on the back of the head. When I started pointing out that the white spot did not extend to the far back of the head, he clarified that the white spot did not conceal missing skull on the side of the head, but missing brain near the back of the head. He then began claiming that the skull at the far back of the head was indeed missing, but it was imperceptible to the naked eye and only apparent from studying the OD measurements. (I suspect you agree this is nonsense.) In any event, you can't cite Mantik as support for the x-rays being altered to hide a wound on the back of the head when he has written books claiming there is such a wound on the x-rays.

2. What early statements claiming the body arrived without a brain? I hope you don't mean Custer, who recognized the x-rays in which brain is apparent once shown the originals. These x-rays were taken at the beginning of the autopsy, moreover, after Humes asked some of the staff to leave. There is no record of his asking people to leave numerous times, nor of his re-closing the skull after inserting a brain so he could open it up again in front of Jenkins etc and remove a substitute brain. 

3. The primary source for the brain's coming out quite easily is Jenkins, who simultaneously maintains that no pre-autopsy surgery was performed at Bethesda. You can't use Jenkins to suggest Humes performed pre-autopsy surgery when Jenkins insists that he was there the whole time and no such thing happened. 

4. The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser, is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA, which is a view from above. No view of the underside has ever been made available. This may not be a coincidence, moreover. The HSCA pathology panel were all colleagues and cronies of the Clark Panel's Fisher, who "moved" the entrance wound to the top of the head. Any damage to the underside of the brain would have undercut his conclusion along with the HSCA's intended rubber-stamp of the single-assassin conclusion. So we can suspect that the HSCA's failure to present a drawing of the underside of the brain was not an oversight, but a deliberate omission. 

[Sandy Larsen]

22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

(I suspect you agree this is nonsense.)

Yes, I agree with you on the Mantik nonsense.

But I disagree with you on almost everything else. But I don't want to get into it because it is very complex, particularly if you include changes in what the witnesses said over time.

 

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Problem is, the skull x-rays are inconsistent with the early statements of nearly all of the Parkland nurses and doctors. They said that the gaping wound was at the back of the head. The x-rays indicate that the gaping wound is on top of the head.

I don't believe in mass hallucination, which is the only possible explanation for all those Parkland professionals to be consistently wrong. I conclude therefore that the x-rays must be fraudulent. I'm surprised that Mantik et. al. take them as seriously as they do.

So the back-of-head photos are fakes, the skull x-rays are fakes, and the brain photos are fakes. My guess is that they are all from other people, not Kennedy.

Sandy, I think this is going too far. The skull x-rays are definitely of JFK, but they've been altered.  

The skull may well have been intact at the location of the 6.5 mm object (and the small genuine fragment inside it). Keep in mind that this is over 3 inches above the EOP. The right-rear exit wound may well not have extended that high above the EOP.

Another factor to keep in mind is the distinct possibility that the rear-head bullet struck first and that the frontal shot hit second and took out part of the right-rear area of the skull, which would explain why Boswell specified that part of the EOP entry site was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment. 

I agree that the autopsy brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain, that they must be of someone else's brain, but I think the evidence indisputably shows that the skull x-rays are altered JFK skull x-rays.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Sandy, I think this is going too far. The skull x-rays are definitely of JFK, but they've been altered.  

 

Perhaps. But...

 

 

It is beyond believe IMO that the lateral (b) x-ray could possibly be correctly portraying the shredded scalp at the top of the skull. Compare it to what the AP (anterior-posterior) view (a) shows for the shredded scalp on top. To me the AP view looks reasonable with regard to the shredded scalp. There is not enough inline scalp to result in x-ray opaqueness, and so that area is dark.

 

 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:30 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Also, although the Rockefeller Commission's final report endorsed the Clark Panel's cowlick entry site for the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges rejected the site in his report and said the EOP entry site was correct (pp. 2-3). 

Hodges did not say that the EOP site was the entry. He merely said that the EOP site had been described as being the entry.

[Michael Griffith]

On 12/24/2023 at 1:13 AM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Hodges did not say that the EOP site was the entry. He merely said that the EOP site had been described as being the entry.

No, go back and read what Dr. Hodges said. He said he could see the wound in some of the autopsy photos. Let's read his statement again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

I might add that when the autopsy doctors examined the autopsy photos in late 1966, they reported that the autopsy photos proved that the EOP entry wound was correct:

          The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. (p. 3)

In Dr. Finck's January 1965 report to General Blumberg, Finck said the entry wound was in the occiput (p. 1). Are you going to tell me that Finck could have so horrendously blundered as to locate a wound in the occiput that was actually visibly above the lambda and even more visibly above the lambdoid suture and thus obviously in the parietal bone?

Military aide Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from General Wehle, told the HSCA that the entry wound was "just inside the hairline" (Richard A. Lipsey Interview, 1/18/1978, HSCA transcript, p. 9). The HSCA interviewers asked Lipsey to draw a diagram of JFK's wounds. Lipsey put the rear head entry wound in the lower-middle part of the back of head, just above the hairline and very near the EOP (p. 10). 

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, go back and read what Dr. Hodges said. He said he could see the wound in some of the autopsy photos. Let's read his statement again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

I might add that when the autopsy doctors examined the autopsy photos in late 1966, they reported that the autopsy photos proved that the EOP entry wound was correct:

          The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. (p. 3)

In Dr. Finck's January 1965 report to General Blumberg, Finck said the entry wound was in the occiput (p. 1). Are you going to tell me that Finck could have so horrendously blundered as to locate a wound in the occiput that was actually visibly above the lambda and even more visibly above the lambdoid suture and thus obviously in the parietal bone?

Military aide Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from General Wehle, told the HSCA that the entry wound was "just inside the hairline" (Richard A. Lipsey Interview, 1/18/1978, HSCA transcript, p. 9). The HSCA interviewers asked Lipsey to draw a diagram of JFK's wounds. Lipsey put the rear head entry wound in the lower-middle part of the back of head, just above the hairline and very near the EOP (p. 10). 

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). 

I repeat ........Hodges did say that the EOP site had been described as being the entry..... These words exist & can never be erased (but apparently have been been ignored, but not by me).

Anyone with a good BS meter can see that any claim that the entry was other than above the lambda is wrong.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

I repeat ........Hodges did say that the EOP site had been described as being the entry..... These words exist & can never be erased (but apparently have been been ignored, but not by me).

Anyone with a good BS meter can see that any claim that the entry was other than above the lambda is wrong.

So all those claiming to see an EOP entry were lying? And all the descriptions by the doctors of an EOP entrance on the photos and x-rays were a hoax? 

What are you saying?