Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence

[Michael T. Griffith]

The autopsy photos and X-rays are authentic and unaltered, as confirmed by the Bethesda doctors who performed the autopsy, by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts,  by the photographer who took the photos, by the Radiologist responsible for the X-Rays , and by one of the techs who took the X-Rays.

You are years behind the information curve and obviously did not bother to read or view any of the sources that I linked in my post. I also note that you did not address a single point that I made. Instead, you repeated laughable talking points that show you are oblivious to the new developments that have occurred in the case.

Let me try to get you to answer a few straightforward questions, questions that should be very easy to answer if the autopsy photos and x-rays are pristine and accurate:

-- Why do the autopsy skull x-rays not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and Dr. Finck confirmed to General Blumberg that he saw this low fragment trail. No such trail appears on the extant skull x-rays. Why not?

-- Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the glaringly obvious cloud of tiny metal fragments in the right-frontal region on the extant lateral skull x-rays? Not only does the autopsy report say nothing about this fragment cloud, but the autopsy doctors said nothing about it in their WC testimony or in their autopsy notes. This fragment cloud is at least 2 inches higher than the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail (the EOP), and it's on the opposite end of the skull from the EOP, so it's hard to fathom how either of the trails could have been mistaken for the other. Are we to believe that all three autopsy doctors, and the radiologist, somehow "missed" the right-frontal cloud of fragments, the most obvious area of fragments visible on the extant x-rays?

-- Why do the autopsy photos of the brain show very little brain tissue missing when the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing brain tissue, when literally dozens of witnesses who saw JFK's large head wound said a great deal of brain was blown out, and when we know that a large amount of brain matter was blown backward onto the follow-on car's windshield, into the back of the limo, and onto Officer Hargis and onto his motorcycle's windshield?

-- Why do the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum to be intact and undamaged when the autopsy report says that a bullet struck the head slightly above the EOP, which means the bullet would have had to pass through the cerebellum, and when several Parkland Hospital doctors--including the neurosurgeon--specified that part of the cerebellum was damaged and missing, keeping in mind that cerebellar tissue looks very different from the surrounding brain tissue?

When Finck testified before the HSCA medical panel, Dr. Loquvam zeroed-in on this contradiction, and Finck had no explanation for it:

Dr. Loquvam. I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this [the EOP entry site] is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (p. 97)

Yet, we now know that the cowlick entry site is bogus, even though the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the HSCA medical panel identified it as the entry site. Even Sturdivan now says that the cowlick site is bogus and that the entry site was where the autopsy doctors said it was. The ARRB forensic pathologists noted that the skull x-rays show no entry site in the cowlick.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another remarkable indication of fraud in the autopsy evidence is the astounding fact that the autopsy doctors said absolutely nothing about the very obvious damage to the cerebral cortex. Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report, and the three autopsy doctors, incredibly, said nothing about it in the supplemental autopsy report, even though the main purpose of the supplemental report was to describe the brain damage that they found after they sectioned and examined the brain!

No one can believe that they "missed" the obvious cortical damage to the brain. The HSCA medical panel noted and described this damage. Yet, although the autopsy doctors described the subcortical damage in great detail, they said nothing about the equally obvious cortical damage. To clarify, cortical damage is damage that is on or near the surface of the brain. Subcortical damage is damage that is deep inside the brain, several inches away from the cerebral cortex.

Now, why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the cortical damage? For the same reason they said nothing about the high fragment trail associated with the cortical damage: they knew there was no way they could relate the cortical damage and the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound.

The cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds (wound tunnels) are several inches apart and are not connected, so they could not have been made by the same bullet. As Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, notes, "This is not a matter of interpretation but of anatomical fact." When a bullet travels in/through a brain, it creates a wound tunnel in the brain tissue, a tunnel technically known as a "cylinder of disruption" or a "cavitation wound."

A single bullet cannot create two cavitation wounds separated by several inches unless it, or a fragment from it, travels from the first tunnel and creates the second tunnel, and if it does so, there will be a connecting tunnel. But, there is no connecting cavitation wound or fragment trail between the cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds. This can only mean that two bullets struck JFK's head. Dr. Riley establishes this point in extensive detail in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries":

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf

Riley makes the same point in a somewhat less technical, easier to read article titled "What Struck John":

https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html

Another key fact about the subcortical damage is that, amazingly, there is no fragment trail associated with it on the extant autopsy skull x-rays! There is a fragment trail in and around the cortical damage but no fragment trail in/around the subcortical damage, which is several inches deeper into the brain than the cortical damage! This is an astounding contradiction.

To further thicken the plot, the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail going from the EOP to the right orbit, and such a path would correspond to the subcortical cavitation wound; however, no such low fragment trail appears on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.

The HSCA medical panel noted both the cortical and subcortical damage, but did not explain the lack of any connecting damage between the two wounds and the lack of any fragments in/around the subcortical damage.

[Richard Smith]

If all your "evidence" of a conspiracy to kill a US President is "clear" and "obvious" as you repeatedly claim, why are you wasting your time on an Internet forum?  Why not take this "evidence" to Tucker Carlson or the NY Times and have them report it?  Or better yet - law enforcement authorities to reopen the case?  I've asked this repeatedly of CTers.  If they honestly believe they have evidence that proves Oswald was not the assassin and/or there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, why limit your contributions to obscure forums?  If I believed that I had evidence to shed light on a murder - much less the assassination of a President - I would camp out at the NY Times or the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating to present them with that evidence.  Have you made any such effort?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If all your "evidence" of a conspiracy to kill a US President is "clear" and "obvious" as you repeatedly claim, why are you wasting your time on an Internet forum?  Why not take this "evidence" to Tucker Carlson or the NY Times and have them report it?  Or better yet - law enforcement authorities to reopen the case?  I've asked this repeatedly of CTers.  If they honestly believe they have evidence that proves Oswald was not the assassin and/or there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, why limit your contributions to obscure forums?  If I believed that I had evidence to shed light on a murder - much less the assassination of a President - I would camp out at the NY Times or the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating to present them with that evidence.  Have you made any such effort?

Conspiracy "hobbyists", those who spend so much of their lives promoting their conspiracy, face a problem. If the conspiracy is so obvious, so clear, then why did so many generations of Americans in government and outside it miss this obvious act? Even today? How could talented, educated men and women miss what we, conspiracists, clearly happened? These pathetic WC apologists (that would be you and me) are just that, apologists, people unwilling to face what happened. Their patriotism, simple thinking, is blinding them to what happened. But all of these other people? How did they miss it?

As in every conspiracy claim the answer to this challenge is: more conspiracies. Every explanation for the failure to expose the conspiracy is prima facie evidence of another conspiracy. The Republicans in the HSCA covered up for LBJ (!?). The Washington Post and ABC and CBS - who exposed the abuses of the CIA and FBI - covered up for Hoover and Dulles. Yes, this is what they are reduced to proposing. Endless series of conspiracies to cover up the original one. For decades. Multiple generations of people, many of whom have no benefit at all in covering this up.

We cannot reason with this mindset. Whatever explanation that is given is dismissed as simply apologies (why are we apologizing for something that happened nearly 60 years ago? Defend Earl Warren et al? Why? What's in it for us?), or sinister acts by followup generations. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. It's useless trying to find common ground with people with this conspiracy mentality. Common ground is based on more conspiracies.

Speaking of which: Zapruder. Shortly after the assassination, he has the in camera original developed. Then he has at that time three first generation copies made. Forrest Sorrels of the government - the SAIC in Dallas - ask for how many of those four films? Answer: two. He doesn't take all four. He takes two and has them sent to Washington. So the FBI et al. has two and only two copies. Not the original.

Now why the heck would he not take all four? The government has two copies. The original and a copy are sold to Life magazine which publishes stills made from the film. So when did "the government" get those two films - the original and a copy? To alter them. And why did "the government" alter the two copies originally given? That's worthless unless you have the originals. You want to alter the original and then make copies. An original that they never had. In fact, Zapruder shows the original in the Shaw trial in 1968. He doesn't see any alteration. Sometimes us WC apologists make good points.

[Michael T. Griffith]

If all your "evidence" of a conspiracy to kill a US President is "clear" and "obvious" as you repeatedly claim, why are you wasting your time on an Internet forum?  Why not take this "evidence" to Tucker Carlson or the NY Times and have them report it?  Or better yet - law enforcement authorities to reopen the case?  I've asked this repeatedly of CTers.  If they honestly believe they have evidence that proves Oswald was not the assassin and/or there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, why limit your contributions to obscure forums?  If I believed that I had evidence to shed light on a murder - much less the assassination of a President - I would camp out at the NY Times or the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating to present them with that evidence.  Have you made any such effort?

This nonsensical evasion is beyond disingenuous. I know you cannot be so naive as to sincerely believe such polemic. We both know what you're doing here. Since you cannot explain away the evidence, you resort to this silliness.

[Richard Smith]

This nonsensical evasion is beyond disingenuous. I know you cannot be so naive as to sincerely believe such polemic. We both know what you're doing here. Since you cannot explain away the evidence, you resort to this silliness.

Instead of this mumbo jumbo, why not try to respond to my straightforward question?  If you believe your own "evidence" making it "clear" that there was a conspiracy, why not present that evidence to law enforcement or media sources to get the case reopened?  That is what any reasonable person would do if they believed they had evidence relating to any murder much less the assassination of the president.  Doesn't the fact that you limit your "clear" or "obvious" evidence to an Internet forum suggest some dim awareness that you don't really believe it yourself?  There is some subconscious understanding that this is just a fantasy or hobby and not a real thing.