JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.
--- End quote ---
Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.
I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.
But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.
Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.
--- End quote ---
So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.
Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.
Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.
--- End quote ---
The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.
When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage".
--- End quote ---
Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).
--- End quote ---
That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.
It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 05:44:51 PM ---Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".
--- End quote ---
"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.
The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM ---There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.
--- End quote ---
Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:
--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:
Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)
The National Institutes of Health:
The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))
The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:
Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)
The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):
The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:
Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)
Science Direct:
The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)
Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:
Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------
If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM ---I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.
--- End quote ---
You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."
Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM ---I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.
--- End quote ---
LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!
You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM ---Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.
--- End quote ---
You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.
Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.
BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?
And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos.
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM ---The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.
--- End quote ---
This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:
---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:
"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)
---------------------------------------
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster).
I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:
When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on December 19, 2023, 10:12:07 PM ---On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.
--- End quote ---
More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:
---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.
The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------
So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"? I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.
What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.
Michael T. Griffith:
Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.
Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).
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.
Regarding the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges said the following:
--- Quote ---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.
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)
--- End quote ---
These findings were unacceptable because the new official position was that the rear head entry wound was in the right parietal bone, not in the occiput, that it was visibly above and to the right of the lambda, a whopping 10 cm (4 inches) above the location identified by the autopsy doctors.
Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by several experts, including 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 this 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).
Yet, the autopsy brain photos show no more than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing, as even Bugliosi and Baden freely acknowledged.
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 that he took.
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 20, 2023, 05:44:18 PM ---Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.
Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).
--- End quote ---
No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Marjan Rynkiewicz on December 20, 2023, 10:52:34 PM ---No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.
--- End quote ---
No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said 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.
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)
What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version