Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dr. James Humes, the chief pathologist at the JFK autopsy, stated in the autopsy report that the lateral skull x-rays depicted a bullet-fragment trail that went from the rear head entrance wound slightly above the EOP to the purported exit site just above the orbit of the right eye. However, the extant lateral skull x-rays show no such fragment trail; instead, they show a clear fragment trail that goes from just above the right orbit in an upward direction toward the upper rear of the skull. This trail begins at least 2 inches above the EOP and, as mentioned, goes upward toward the back of the skull.

When the ARRB general counsel, Jeremy Gunn, showed Humes the lateral skull x-rays and asked him to explain why the autopsy report says nothing about the obvious high fragment trail but describes a low fragment trail, Humes could offer no explanation, became silent, blushed, and exhibited extreme embarrassment.

Here is one of the major problems that Humes confronted during the autopsy and when writing his three drafts of the autopsy report: There were two obvious fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP entry wound and went to a point just above the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the skull but did not extend to the back of the skull. These two fragment trails, which were at least 2 inches apart vertically, clearly showed that two bullets had struck the skull. Therefore, one of the fragment trails had to be suppressed. Humes chose to suppress the high fragment trail, since the low fragment trail started at the rear entry wound just above the EOP, and since there was no high rear entry wound that could be associated with the high fragment trail (we now know there was an entry wound in the right temple, but Humes had to ignore it).

Dr. Finck confirmed to the ARRB that there was indeed a low fragment trail running from the EOP to just above the right orbit. When asked about the high fragment trail and the alleged cowlick entry site, which was a whopping 4 inches higher than the EOP entry site, Dr. Finck took the astounding step of questioning how the skull x-rays had been authenticated!

All three of the ARRB's forensic experts, incuding the forensic radiologist, said that the skull x-rays show no entry wound in the cowlick. The phantom cowlick entry wound was bogusly identified by the Clark Panel and then by the HSCA medical panel. Both panels claimed that the high fragment trail was caused by a bullet that entered at the alleged cowlick entry site.

It is fairly obvious what happened: After the autopsy, and before the Clark Panel viewed the autopsy skull x-rays, the low fragment trail was removed, the white patch was added to conceal missing brain and to conceal part of the right occipital-parietal exit wound, and the 6.5 mm object was added to further incriminate Oswald and to support a higher entry site.

This is why the autopsy report oddly says nothing about the 6.5 mm object, the most obvious apparent "fragment" on the extant skull x-rays. The Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel, working without the benefit of optical density (OD) analysis, naturally identified the 6.5 mm object as a bullet fragment, associated it with the high fragment trail, and cited it as evidence to support the phantom cowlick entry site.

I doubt that the plotters ever dreamed that scientists would one day subject the skull x-rays to OD analysis and would discover (1) that the 6.5 mm object was ghosted via double exposure over the image of a smaller genuine fragment on the rear outer table of the skull, (2) that the white patch is a physical impossibility and must have been added after the autopsy (unless we assume that JFK's skull was severely deformed), and (3) that the OD measurements of the genuine rear head fragment on the lateral x-ray and those of the 6.5 mm object on the A-P x-ray are markedly different, a physical impossibility unless the 6.5 mm object is not a bullet fragment.

For more information on these historic developments, I recommend the following sources:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/the-jfk-medical-coverup-2/

[Louis Earl]

I remember reading a quote from Humes along the lines of "they didn't ask me the right questions" or somesuch.  At the time I wondered if he had been asked if he believed there were 2 shooters what would his answer have been. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

I remember reading a quote from Humes along the lines of "they didn't ask me the right questions" or somesuch.  At the time I wondered if he had been asked if he believed there were 2 shooters what would his answer have been.

Yes, Humes made that comment ("didn't ask me the right questions") to a reporter after he met with the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). I think that was just his excuse for lying and withholding information.

We should keep in mind that Humes strongly disagreed with the FPP about the location of the rear head entry wound. Humes was insulted that the FPP wanted him to say that he mislocated the entry wound by nearly 4 inches, especially since he had a fixed anatomical reference point in the EOP. Only after extreme pressure did Humes finally and grudgingly go along with the cowlick entry site. However, when Humes did his JAMA interview, and when he was deposed by the ARRB, he once again said the entry wound was slightly above the EOP as stated in the autopsy report.

The plotters recognized early on that an entry wound at the EOP could not have come from the alleged sixth-floor sniper's nest, unless one ignores the photographic evidence and erroneously assumes that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck. That's one reason the plotters wanted to move the wound nearly 4 inches upward to the cowlick. However, as Howard Donahue first demonstrated, even the cowlick site presents a doubtful trajectory from the sixth-floor window, although it's not as brazenly problematic as the EOP site.

[Michael T. Griffith]

None of the Bethesda autopsy pathologists who testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 had the autopsy photos and X-rays to refer to. The Commission wanted any exhibits to be made public and felt the autopsy materials too gruesome.

In the autopsy report, reference is made to the skull entry inshoot being a measured distance from the midline:

    "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right
     and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound
     measuring  15 x 6 mm."

Obviously, the pathologists have a ruler in-hand that can measure down to the millimeter. Yet, the distance above the EOP is the unmeasured "slightly above". There is no mid-line on the external surface of the human occipital bone. Linking the right and left parietal bones is the wavy line known as the sagittal suture. If Humes measured from an exposed bony "midline", it was seem likely to me that he used the sagittal suture. If he had exposed the EOP (no easy feat with all the attachments), he could have measured the vertical distance from the EOP's midpoint, rather than hint with "slightly above".

What Humes, the lead pathologist, did was use palpation to locate the "EOP". On an undamaged skull, it's pretty straight-forward to do. But on a shattered skull, like Kennedy's, there are fragment edges that could mislead someone into thinking they had felt the EOP. The scalp was reflected (using cutlines side-to-side) and the skull inshoot as it appeared on the exterior bone was exposed. No photos were taken of the exterior skull inshoot and its relationship to a bared EOP, nor were measurements made from the inshoot to a newly-bared EOP.

The reflection of the scalp rearward did not go very far, much less to bare the EOP by severing the attachments there. Nowhere--in the Autopsy Report, the Military Review, the WC-HSCA-ARRB testimony--does Humes or the other pathologist defend their "low" EOP inshoot with claims that the scalp was reflected such that the outer surface of the EOP was bared. Neither Boswell nor Finck said they themselves felt through the scalp for the EOP.

It probably speaks to the fraternity of doctors that Boswell and Finck would support Humes' contention that the "bump" he felt was the EOP. Humes would not readily admit to making such a mistake, as it would cost him in terms of reputation and maybe pensions. Humes hinted that he had made such a mistake in his 1966 inspection of the autopsy material. The 1967 Military Review states:

    "the photographs show the [skull inshoot] wound to be slightly
     higher than its actually measured site".

Well, not just "slightly". So much higher that the three pathologists (Humes-Boswell-Finck) had to acknowledge it and sign on to it. And what vertical measurement ("actually measured site") did Humes make if all the Report said was "slightly above". If Humes had bought this feeble excuse (blame the photographs) to the Warren Commission, he would have been confronted in 1964 about his EOP wound-siting mistake.

The Clark Panel Report in 1968 review the same autopsy photo as those authenticated in the Military Review. They observed the same discrepancy that Humes noted ("the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site"). They concluded: "One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital protuberance."

    "On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring
     approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of
     the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can
     be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external
     occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole
     is depressed."

Humes "slightly above" the EOP turned out to be some 4"-or-so above. Once again, Humes, Boswell and Finck go on about their ordinary lives without have to address this. The HSCA finally ask them about it 1977. Humes once again self-servingly claimed palpation trumped photographs (photographs which his Autopsy Report said better described the wounds):

    "DR. HUMES stated categorically that his physical measurements
     are correct and emphasized that he had access to the body itself
     and made the measurements of the actual head region. In addition,
     he said that photographs and X-rays have inherent limitations
     which are not present when one is examining the subject."

Indicative of how far Humes had put the autopsy behind him and how he had minimized his EOP mistake:

    "DR. HUMES was very concerned that we not interrupt his vacation
     for our work."

In an interview with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, Humes tried to move the skull in-shoot below the EOP:

    "Dr. HUMES. That’s an elliptical wound of the scalp which we described
     in our protocol. I’m quite confident. And it’s just to the right and below
     by a centimeter and maybe a centimeter to the right and maybe 2 centi-
     meters below the midpoint of the external occipital protuberance."

Shown this photograph (drawing posted above), Humes claimed the ruler placement meant nothing:

    "Dr. HUMES. Yeah. Whether this “defect” is a “defect”, in my mind, I’m not
     sure. I'm not sure it’s not some clotted blood that’s lying on the scalp."

Struggling to cover his arse, Humes argued the thing sitting on top of the scalp just above the hairline at the nape was the skull entry wound. How much of a clue bat does this guy need?

This labored, misleading nonsense is at least 20 years behind the information curve. I notice you simply ignored most of the information discussed in the OP.

I'm not going to waste much time on your reply. Again, the ARRB forensic experts found no evidence of cowlick entry wound on the x-rays, and the 6.5 mm object, including the small genuine fragment over which it was ghosted, isn't even at the phantom cowlick entry wound anyway--it's a good 1 cm from it, and the genuine fragment that Dr. McDonnel identified for the HSCA (and that Dr. Mantik has confirmed) is even farther away from it. So, clearly, even if there were a cowlick entry site, those fragments were not related to it--they are clearly ricochet fragments from the bullet that struck the street near the limousine. Plus, the high fragment trail does not start near the cowlick and does not reach the cowlick. Etc., etc., etc.

If anyone wants to see just how misleading and incomplete Organ's reply is, read the sources that I linked in my OP.

[Michael T. Griffith]

My providing direct quotes and trying to arrive at what might have happened is "misleading".

Yes, it is, because you only quoted part of what the autopsy doctors said.

Much better and truer to have autopsy photos and x-rays being manipulated.

    "It is fairly obvious what happened: After the autopsy, and before the Clark Panel
     viewed the autopsy skull x-rays, the low fragment trail was removed, the white
     patch was added to conceal missing brain and to conceal part of the right
     occipital-parietal exit wound, and the 6.5 mm object was added to further
     incriminate Oswald and to support a higher entry site."

Sure. You're not here to discuss anything.

Oh, I'm here to discuss things, but not with you, because you don't know what you're talking about and you're not honest. As I've said before, I usually only reply to you for the sake of others. It's a total waste of time expecting you to be honest with the evidence, or to accurately represent the evidence.

In your previous reply, you spent many paragraphs making the preposterous argument that Humes, Boswell, and Finck somehow made the mind-bogging "mistake" of confusing a wound in the cowlick for a wound nearly 4 inches lower right above the EOP. No honest, rational person can take such nonsense seriously. Even a first-year medical student would never make such an unbelievable, impossible "mistake," especially when they had the obvious, fixed anatomical feature of the EOP as a reference point, not to mention the hairline--and, oh yeah, the cowlick.

This is as absurd as suggesting that three doctors mistook a wound next to the right eye for a wound just to the left of the mouth. No jury, no judge, nobody would buy such a claim. They would all say, "No, no way. Nobody could make that mistake. Something else is going on here."

Since you can't go where the evidence clearly leads, you also ask us to believe that all three autopsy doctors, including Finck, somehow confused the obvious high fragment trail with a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and on the opposite end of the skull! The high fragment trail includes a cloud of numerous fragments in the right frontal region, and from there it dissipates upward and does not reach the cowlick. Just try to fathom how anyone could make such a stupendous blunder when looking at the lateral skull x-ray.

Do you have direct quotes for that?

Did those same ARRB forensic experts also say the x-rays were forged to conceal the "low fragment trail"?

Oh, here we go again with your dishonest polemics. The ARRB forensic experts did not address the low fragment trail because it's not on the skull x-rays, and they were not asked to comment on the autopsy report or the autopsy doctors' testimony. However, the ARRB forensic experts did note the following:

* The AP skull x-ray shows substantial frontal bone missing. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)

Dr. G.M. McDonnel and Dr. Lawrence Angel told the HSCA the same thing, but Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA medical panel, ignored their findings.

How do you square substantial frontal bone missing with the autopsy photos that show JFK's forehead intact? Dr. Ubelaker noted this contradiction, as I note below.

* The amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos. (Dr. Ubelaker)

Since the HSCA only asked them to study the x-rays, McDonnel and Angel apparently did not realize that the autopsy photos show no indication of any frontal-bone damage. But, of course, Baden knew this, and that is why he ensured that the HSCA medical panel's report falsely claimed that the x-rays showed the frontal bone intact.

So here we have four forensic experts--two for the HSCA and two for the ARRB--debunking Baden's claim of intact frontal bone. Again, how do you square the autopsy photos that show an undamaged forehead with substantial frontal bone missing?

* On the AP x-ray, the orbit of the right eye appears to be “cracked and displaced.” (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)

Of course, no such damage appears in the autopsy photos that show the face. Dr. Kirschner went even further regarding right-orbit damage, saying that “the rear of the right orbit was observed to be missing.”

* No part of the lambdoid suture is visible on the lateral skull x-rays. (Dr. Ubelaker)

This is critical information. The lambdoid suture is the fibrous connective tissue joint that joins the parietal bones to the occipital bone. It is located only in the back of the head. Dr. Mantik notes that the absence of the right part of the lambdoid suture clearly requires that occipital bone and rear parietal bone are missing. Dr. Mantik notes that part of the right lambdoid suture is also missing on the AP x-ray.

* There is no fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner)

As some will realize, this is monumental. It confirms the optical-density (OD) measurements and magnified viewing of the 6.5 mm object done by three medical doctors with expertise in radiology, including Dr. Mantik. We now know that a forger ghosted the image of the 6.5 mm object onto the AP x-ray. Dr. Mantik has been able to duplicate how it was done.

* The damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. (Dr. Ubelaker)

Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front.

* The Clark Panel/HSCA cowlick entry wound does not appear on the skull x-rays. There is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner)

This leaves the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report as the only viable rear-head entry site, but the EOP site presents impossible trajectory problems for the lone-gunman theory. There is no way that the alleged lone gunman could have fired that shot, unless we assume JFK was leaning forward by about 60 degrees when the shot occurred. That is one of the reasons the people doing the cover-up decided to try to move the entry wound up by a whopping 4 inches, from the EOP up to the cowlick. The Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel obediently rubber-stamped the cowlick entry site. This says a lot about their reliability and their integrity.

Two of the HSCA forensic consultants did raise questions about the cowlick site, but their observations were ignored.

* The photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. (Dr. Ubelaker)

Dr. Ubelaker was “surprised that the HSCA had determined the red spot in the back of the head photos was the entry wound on President Kennedy’s head.” He added,

The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph.

Interestingly, this is exactly what the three autopsy doctors argued when several of the HSCA medical panel members tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP site and endorse the cowlick entry site.

* Autopsy photo F8 shows fatty tissue in the upper-left corner. (Dr. Kirschner)

This is crucial because F8 could not show that fatty tissue unless it had been taken from the back of the head. We now know that the autopsy doctors, the autopsy radiologist, and the medical photographer who took the picture said it was a back-of-head photo. This, in turn, is crucial because it means this photo shows a large wound in the occiput.

* Some of the dark areas on the skull x-rays are unusually dark, much darker than the dark areas on normal x-rays. (Dr. Ubelaker)

Dr. Mantik had made this same observation a few years earlier, unknown to Dr. Ubelaker.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Humes labored under several restraints during his interview with the HSCA FPP. He was especially handcuffed when it came to the rear head entry wound because he had to pretend that the back-of-head autopsy photo showed how the head looked during the autopsy, when Humes knew it did not. He did not dare tell the FPP that, as we now know from the ARRB evidence, the back-of-head photo was taken after the mortician had reconstructed the skull after the autopsy, and that there was a sizable hole in the right occipital-parietal area, i.e., the right-rear part of the skull.

Humes had no way of knowing when he spoke with the FPP that Dr. Boswell would later admit to the ARRB that there was considerable bone missing from the right occipital-parietal area. Boswell even drew a diagram on an artificial skull to portray the missing bone, and the wound that he drew looks nothing like the WC and HSCA illustrations of the large head wound. And, needless to say, his description and diagram prove that the back-of-head autopsy photo is a deliberate misrepresentation of how the back of the head looked during the autopsy.

Boswell also told the ARRB that the rear head entry wound was exactly where the autopsy report says it was and that he had never changed his mind about its location. When Boswell was asked specifically about the Clark Panel's finding that the entry wound was in the cowlick, he replied, "I never believed this." I should mention that the autopsy face sheet likewise shows the entry wound next to the EOP and nowhere near the cowlick.

In the process of explaining the rear head entry wound, Boswell made a startling, historic disclosure: he explained, in some detail, that part of the wound was in one of the skull fragments that arrived during the autopsy and that the other part of the wound was in the intact part of the skull. When Boswell said this, the interviewer, ARRB general counsel Jeremy Gunn, asked several specific follow-up questions to ensure he understood what Boswell was saying:

Q: So does that mean that it was your understanding that the piece of bone that is drawn at the bottom of page 2 is showing part of the entrance wound in the back of the skull?

A: Yes. . . .

Q: You're referring to the bottom of page 2 on Exhibit 1?

A: Yes, should fit right there. . . .

Q: Dr. Boswell is now being shown Exhibit MI 15, which are x-rays taken of fragments arriving from Dallas during the course of the autopsy.

A: And I think this is an x-ray of this piece showing the wound of entrance there, part of it.

Doug Horne has discussed this historc new information in his book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

But Humes could not, dared not, explain that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the skull fragments that arrived from Dallas and that when this fragment was put in place on the skull the complete entry wound was then formed and visible. He could have blown the cowlick entry site out of the water with this information, but this information would have wreaked havoc on the back-of-head autopsy photo and on the skull x-rays and would have begged the obvious question of why there is no fragment trail going from the EOP, or even any fragments near the EOP, on the extant skull x-rays.

Plus, admitting that part of the entry wound was in one of the skull fragments that arrived from Dallas would have revealed that one of those fragments was occipital bone.

Incidentally, when asked about the 6.5 mm object, Boswell said, "We did not find one that large. I'm sure of that." Of course not, since the 6.5 mm object was never in the skull and was added to the A-P skull x-ray after the autopsy. That's why the autopsy report does not even mention it, even though it is the largest and most obvious "fragment" on the A-P x-ray and even though the autopsy report mentions a much smaller fragment.

Finally, I should mention that regarding the white patch, one of the controls that Dr. Mantik used was one of JFK's previous skull x-rays. In several of his articles and in his new book, he provides a side-by-side view of the two x-rays, and even a layman can see that there is no white patch on the earlier JFK skull x-ray. The clincher, however, is the OD measurements of the white patch, which prove it cannot be genuine.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Speaking of the rear head entry wound, some people here may not be aware that in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, rejects the cowlick entry site identified by the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP and argues that the rear entry wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was: about 4 inches below the cowlick site and slightly above the EOP (pp. 165-180)!

However, in a sad display of pseudo-scholarship, Sturdivan deals with the impossible trajectory posed by the EOP site by theorizing that the alleged FMJ bullet, after supposedly entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle (after allegedly having been fired from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest), magically made a sharp right turn and also veered markedly upward to exit the upper-front part of the right parietal bone (p. 180, Figure 54). No, I’m not kidding. This is actually his theory.

Yet, surely Sturdivan knew better. Surely he knew that not one of the bullets in the WC’s head-shot ballistics tests veered so markedly, either horizontally or vertically. Surely he knew that brain tissue could not have caused such a drastic change in the bullet’s horizontal and vertical trajectory. And surely he that there is no way that the high fragment trail could have been made by an FMJ bullet striking the EOP at a downward angle of 15 degrees.

Sturdivan says nothing about the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays. The autopsy report says this fragment trail started at the EOP and extended to a point just above the right eye. If Sturdivan had addressed this issue, he would have been forced to explain (1) why this low fragment trail does not appear on the extant x-rays, (2) why there are no fragments near the EOP, and (3) how three autopsy pathologists could have confused the plainly visible and obvious high fragment trail for a trail that started about 3 inches lower, especially when they had the EOP as a reference site, as well as the hairline and the cowlick.

The only fragment trail on the extant x-rays is above the debunked cowlick entry site but does not extend to or from the cowlick; rather, it consists of a cloud of fragments in the right frontal region, and from that cloud it dissipates upward toward the back of the head without reaching the cowlick. Now, just try to imagine how in the world a bullet that entered at the EOP, at a 15-degree downward angle no less, could leave such a fragment trail.

It is worth mentioning that Dr. Pierre Finck, the only board-certified forensic pathologist of the three autopsy doctors, insisted to the HSCA and the ARRB that he saw the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. He told the HSCA that it was 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP. When the FPP showed Finck the back-of-head photo that has a small reddish spot in the cowlick, he refused to say that this was the entry wound, insisted that the back-of-head photo was shot from a distorted angle, and said that the photo did not show the wound that he saw on the body itself (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, pp. 82-102).

Then, the FPP members pressed him about the red spot on the back-of-head photo and showed him enhanced and colorized versions of the red spot, but Finck would not budge, and at one point he even asked how the photographs had been authenticated as coming from the autopsy:

Dr. Finck. I don't know what it [the red spot] is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy? (p. 89)

Finck added that he asked for pictures to be taken of the rear head entry wound from outside the skull and from inside the skull, a standard autopsy procedure, but that he never saw such photos in the collection of autopsy photos that he reviewed. When asked specifically if the red spot was any kind of a wound or defect, Finck said no:

Mr. Purdy. One final question. At the time of the autopsy do you recall anything at the upper area where the red spot is at the caldic? Do you remember anything that would correspond to that red spot?

Dr. Finck. No. No, there was only one wound of entry in the back of the head. (p. 94)

Then, the FPP showed Finck the autopsy skull x-rays and asked him to locate the entry wound on the x-rays. Finck said the x-rays were not a good source to identify the entry wound and that the body was a better source:

The value of the X ray films and why I asked for the X ray films is to have a whole body survey, not to be told afterwards that there could have been an intake bullet and that was the reason for those multiple X ray films. As far as location of wounds, this is not as good a source as the dead body itself. (p. 95)

Then, the FPP tried to get Finck to identify the track of the bullet, i.e., the course of the bullet, based on the fragment trail on the skull x-rays. Finck would not take the bait and gave the astounding answer that he could not identify a track!

Dr. Petty. No, that is not quite what I asked. Can you tell where the penetrating gunshot wound went? I am not I asking for entrance or exit but the course.

Dr. Finck. The track. I cannot identify a track. (p. 96)

Now, think about this: Finck was saying that on the x-rays that they were showing him, he could not discern a bullet track; however, he insisted that at the autopsy, there was a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right orbit (i.e., just above the right eye).

Next came some crucial and surprising questions from FPP member Dr. George Loquvam. Dr. Loquvam made the logical point that if a bullet entered at the EOP, the photos of the brain would show damage to cerebellar tissue but that they show no such damage.

Loquvam may not have realized that he was treading on dangerous ground because he was pointing out a brazen contradiction between the autopsy report and the autopsy photos of the brain.

In his first response to Loquvam’s crucial question, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any bleeding (hemorrhaging)! Loquvam was incredulous at this response and replied, “You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?” Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question:

Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

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 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)

The problem was that Finck knew that the autopsy photos of the brain are bogus, that the brain shown in those photos is not and could not be JFK’s brain, but of course Finck did not dare cite this fact in defense of his placement of the rear head entry wound.

Doug Horne, among other scholars, has detailed the evidence that shows that there is simply no way, absolutely no way, that the brain in the autopsy photos of the brain could be JFK’s brain. The evidence for this finding is so strong that even George Lardner of the Washington Post has taken it seriously:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/

I should add that Sturdivan says nothing about the stark contradiction between the EOP entry site and the autopsy photos of the brain.

[Tim Nickerson]

Dr. James Humes, the chief pathologist at the JFK autopsy, stated in the autopsy report that the lateral skull x-rays depicted a bullet-fragment trail that went from the rear head entrance wound slightly above the EOP to the purported exit site just above the orbit of the right eye. However, the extant lateral skull x-rays show no such fragment trail; instead, they show a clear fragment trail that goes from just above the right orbit in an upward direction toward the upper rear of the skull. This trail begins at least 2 inches above the EOP and, as mentioned, goes upward toward the back of the skull.

When the ARRB general counsel, Jeremy Gunn, showed Humes the lateral skull x-rays and asked him to explain why the autopsy report says nothing about the obvious high fragment trail but describes a low fragment trail, Humes could offer no explanation, became silent, blushed, and exhibited extreme embarrassment.

Here is one of the major problems that Humes confronted during the autopsy and when writing his three drafts of the autopsy report: There were two obvious fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP entry wound and went to a point just above the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the skull but did not extend to the back of the skull. These two fragment trails, which were at least 2 inches apart vertically, clearly showed that two bullets had struck the skull. Therefore, one of the fragment trails had to be suppressed. Humes chose to suppress the high fragment trail, since the low fragment trail started at the rear entry wound just above the EOP, and since there was no high rear entry wound that could be associated with the high fragment trail (we now know there was an entry wound in the right temple, but Humes had to ignore it).

Dr. Finck confirmed to the ARRB that there was indeed a low fragment trail running from the EOP to just above the right orbit. When asked about the high fragment trail and the alleged cowlick entry site, which was a whopping 4 inches higher than the EOP entry site, Dr. Finck took the astounding step of questioning how the skull x-rays had been authenticated!

All three of the ARRB's forensic experts, incuding the forensic radiologist, said that the skull x-rays show no entry wound in the cowlick. The phantom cowlick entry wound was bogusly identified by the Clark Panel and then by the HSCA medical panel. Both panels claimed that the high fragment trail was caused by a bullet that entered at the alleged cowlick entry site.

It is fairly obvious what happened: After the autopsy, and before the Clark Panel viewed the autopsy skull x-rays, the low fragment trail was removed, the white patch was added to conceal missing brain and to conceal part of the right occipital-parietal exit wound, and the 6.5 mm object was added to further incriminate Oswald and to support a higher entry site.

This is why the autopsy report oddly says nothing about the 6.5 mm object, the most obvious apparent "fragment" on the extant skull x-rays. The Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel, working without the benefit of optical density (OD) analysis, naturally identified the 6.5 mm object as a bullet fragment, associated it with the high fragment trail, and cited it as evidence to support the phantom cowlick entry site.

I doubt that the plotters ever dreamed that scientists would one day subject the skull x-rays to OD analysis and would discover (1) that the 6.5 mm object was ghosted via double exposure over the image of a smaller genuine fragment on the rear outer table of the skull, (2) that the white patch is a physical impossibility and must have been added after the autopsy (unless we assume that JFK's skull was severely deformed), and (3) that the OD measurements of the genuine rear head fragment on the lateral x-ray and those of the 6.5 mm object on the A-P x-ray are markedly different, a physical impossibility unless the 6.5 mm object is not a bullet fragment.

For more information on these historic developments, I recommend the following sources:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/the-jfk-medical-coverup-2/

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.