Two Separate Wound Paths in JFK's Brain Prove Two Bullets Hit the Head

[Jack Nessan]

Allow me to bump this thread by circling back to this confused, unseemly dodge.

Are you actually claiming that Dr. Joseph N. Riley was a "crackpot"? FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.

You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.

Anyway, why do you suppose the HSCA FPP was so vague about the subcortical damage and made no effort to explain how it could have been caused by the same bullet that caused the cortical damage? The FPP described the cortical damage in detail, but gave only a brief, vague description of the subcortical damage, and made no effort to explain how the alleged Oswald headshot bullet could have caused the subcortical wound path. Why?

The Clark Panel described both the cortical and the subcortical damage but, like the HSCA FPP, made no effort to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage. In fact, the Clark Panel made the astoundingly erroneous claim that the high fragment trail was consistent with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail somehow also aligned with the cowlick entry site! Of course, we now know that the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and about 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP entry site.

Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail in the autopsy report and in the supplemental autopsy report? They described the subcortical damage in detail in the supplemental autopsy report, but uttered not a single word about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. They insisted that they saw a low fragment trail that started "slightly above" the EOP and extended to a point just above the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the existing skull x-rays.

Isn't it obvious that the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail and the cortical damage because they knew they could not be associated with the EOP entry site and therefore indicated that two bullets hit the skull? Isn't it obvious that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP failed to explain how the subcortical damage could be associated with the cowlick site because they recognized that the subcortical damage was too low to have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, since there is no connection whatsoever--no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing--between the subcortical damage and the cortical damage?

We should keep in mind that the autopsy evidence was not supposed to be seen by skeptical or independent experts for decades. Thus, the autopsy doctors believed they could get away with ignoring two obvious, problematic areas of damage in the skull. Similarly, the Clark Panel believed they could get away with claiming that the high fragment trail on the skull x-rays matches the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail aligns with the cowlick site.

But, then along came the HSCA FPP, who, for all their many errors and omissions, (1) at least identified the high fragment trail's actual location in relation to the EOP site, (2) acknowledged that the back wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC placed it, and (3) acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered at an upward angle and traveled upward from there. (If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit, never mind that no photo or footage shows JFK leaning that far forward during any of the proposed times for the SBT hit.)

Also, three of the HSCA FPP's expert consultants provided a number of crucial new findings: Dr. David O. Davis determined that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick site, and that the trail is well above the cowlick site (5 cm/1.9 inches above it, to be exact). Dr. Gerald McDonnel noted that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone, and he detected a previously unrecognized fragment on the back of the skull lodged between the outer table and the galea to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the cowlick site. And, Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized that the triangular skull fragment is frontal bone and that there is a gap between the frontal defect and the parietal-temporal defect.

Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.

“You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.””

Who needs someone like Dr. Riley. A crackpot is someone who ignores the fact that the bullet was fired from the TSBD and there was just one entrance wound and one exit wound but talks about two shooters and two bullets anyway. Why is that so hard to understand? All the medical jargon and supposed expert opinion does not change this fact. Back to explain the two entrance and exit wounds. Do you really not understand why this is important and talking about all this brain damage when only one bullet caused the damage is silly.

----------------------------------------

“the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.”

This endless high pitched squeal seems to be the basis of your whole theory. A bullet was fragmenting as it went through his brain. Were you expecting no damage. There bullet fragments by his eye.

--------------------------------

“If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit”

Brehm stated he was leaning forward when the first shot hit making Baden correct.

“When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded”

----------------------------------------------

“Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.”

The private experts are not limited to just medical people. The Medical opinion in the JFK assassination is nothing more than a carnival game where you can spin the wheel and get any answer you want to support your opinion. You spin and spin and spin the opinion wheel until the most unbelievable answer comes up that somehow fits this theory you have created. Then you claim it is the truth. 

There is another opinion and another expert you seem to have ignored, who was allowed to view Archive evidence, was Dr E Forrest Chapman. He concluded there was only two shots fired by LHO. He concluded, by the indentation on the primer of CE543, that CE 543 was “dryfired”. Unless you can explain what Chapman and the WC’s Joseph Nicol both believed, which is confirmed by your own paper on the subject, I am not sure where you get this wild eyed theory of an additional headshot. Do you not believe what you yourself wrote?

I should not have to explain the significance of CE 543 as you have written and published a paper on The Dented Shell. You are a fan of Howard Donahue who also determined the same fact. You can post all the adverse medical information you want but the assassination viewed through a two shot lense doesn’t allow for all the differing explanations you offer.

---------------------------

In your essay dated December of 1997, you quoted both Howard Donahue and Chris Mills as proof there were only two shots from the SN.

In your Nov 2023 post you again claim there were only two shots from the SN.

Michael Griffith

Posted November 16, 2023 (edited)

 

The main point of the chapter is that the dented shell could not have fired a bullet on 11/22/63. 

The shallow back wound could have been caused by a short shot, a shot that was traveling at a greatly reduced speed. Since the throat shot was the first hit, JFK's back muscles would have been very tight from stress and tension--this would have helped to prevent the back-wound bullet from penetrating more than a short distance. (JFK starts the motion of reaching for his throat at around Z202 in response to the throat shot, long before he is obviously hit in the back and jolted forward at Z226-232.

Science tells us that bullets that are traveling as "slowly" as 165-200 fps can penetrate skin. A bullet traveling at 200 fps has a max effective range of about 75-100 feet. A bullet moving at 400 fps has a max effective range of about 150-200 feet. A bullet moving at 600 fps has a max effective range of about 200-300 feet. If the back wound was caused by a short shot, I would guess that its velocity was somewhere around 600 fps when it left the barrel. JFK's greatly tightened back muscles would have contributed to the bullet's shallow penetration.

As many researchers have noted, a number of witnesses commented that one of the shots sounded noticeably different from the others. This could have been a short shot.

One thing that is crystal clear from the ARRB releases is that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined via prolonged probing and body manipulation that the back wound had no exit point and that the bullet did not penetrate the pleural cavity. This, of course, is why one of the drafts of the autopsy report said that the throat wound was made by an exiting fragment from the head shot.

===========

Unbelievable, I keep telling you to stop listening to these internet clowns and think for yourself. Look at what you posted. This whole medical nonsense is so much crap. What you have stated here, is that of the three shells found on the 6th floor, only two were fired. A short shot is beyond the realm of even ridiculous bordering on complete stupidity. Exactly explain the physics of firing a round without sufficient powder to even create a known trajectory to accurately aim the rifle for the shot. The whole idea of having aimed the rifle in a normal fashion and firing off a round like what is stated in this post is completely goofy.  In reality, this fantasy twilight zone shot does not even enter the conversation because by your own admission there were only two shots fired from the SN, which means shot one is the SBT throat shot, and shot two is the headshot. Nowhere in this bizarre theory is there even an attempt to at an explanation of JBC’s wounds. Do you not understand your own assessment of the shots explains all of JFK’s wounds along with JBC”s without these make believe other shooters.

The shot sounded noticeably different because LHO had the rifle retracted into the room to avoid detection by the Secret Service. No idea where all the dust on BRW’s hair came from? Fire a gun in a room and see how unpleasant that really is if you want to know why the rifle was then stuck out of the window.

[Michael T. Griffith]

"Subcortical damage" is not a missile path.

Uh, yes it is. Dr. Riley diagrammed it in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," as I've noted previously. It's described in the supplemental autopsy report--more on this in a moment.

What reputable source claims there is an open missile channel that passed through the corpus callosum?

Umm, much of the subcortical damage was below the body of the corpus callosum. See Dr. Riley's diagram in Figure 2D in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries" (here's the link, again: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf).

Sheesh, you don't even know what you're talking about, as usual. This is just one of the many times you've proved you don't have a handle on the basic facts (or refuse to acknowledge the basic facts) of the issues you're discussing.

The supplemental autopsy report says there was a separate subcortical laceration that went from the genu to the "tail" (splenium) of the corpus callosum. That's a wound path of at least 2 inches right there. The genu is the front end of the corpus callosum. The splenium is the rear end (or tail) of the corpus callosum. In the average male brain, there are at least 2 inches between the genu and the splenium.

Moreover, the supplemental autopsy report adds that this end-to-end laceration of the corpus callosum exposed "the interiors of the right lateral and third ventricles." Do you know where the third ventricle is? It is below the corpus callosum and parallel with the occipital lobe. The right later ventricle is also below the body of the corpus callosum. Did you not bother to read the supplemental autopsy report before you posted your reply?

See Dr. Riley's article, including his diagram of the subcortical damage therein, to educate yourself on the extent of the subcortical wound path.

The superficial tears were probably caused by several factors, such as coup damage and the right hemisphere being jostled violently by the passage of the bullet that entered the cowlick area. A part of the brain also spills forward (then back into the brain case) in the Zapruder film just after the head shot.

"Superficial tears"?! What an absolute joke. As Dr. Riley noted, the subcortical damage was "far more extensive in terms of volume of tissue damaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex" (p. 10). (Just to be clear, Dr. Riley was using the term "superficial" in its medical meaning of "surface." He stipulated that the cortical damage was on the surface of the brain, and that the subcortical damage was well below it.)

Since the subcortical damage was more severe than the cortical damage, your comical explanation is an abortion from the outset. I notice you said nothing about the EOP entry site and the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, which site and trail would explain the subcortical damage.

And since the cortical damage was less severe than the subcortical damage, shall we follow your pitiful logic and theorize that it was caused merely by the brain's being jostled around?! Why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP did not float your ridiculous explanation?

I see you're still peddling the debunked cowlick entry site. If a bullet entered there, why is there no fragment trail that starts or ends near it? Why is the only fragment trail in the upper half of the skull located 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site? If a bullet entered at the cowlick site at any kind of a downward angle, how did two fragments end up 1 cm below the site? Why did every single autopsy witness who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound say that the wound was right next to the EOP and near the hairline, not 4 inches higher in the cowlick? Why did the only three doctors who actually handled the skull after the scalp had been reflected insist that there was no wound in the cowlick? And on and on we could go.

If Quack Riley thinks the corpus callosum damage was some distance from the the large primary laceration, he either doesn't understand the metric system or he shares your aversion to perspective and visualization.

Oh, Dr. Riley was a "quack," huh?! Given your track record of making blunderingly errant claims, you are the last person on Earth to be calling anyone a quack.

FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology. His research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.

But here you are pretending to know more than he did about brain anatomy and claiming that he had an aversion to perspective and visualization! You don't even know the extent and location of the subcortical damage, and yet you pretend that you know more than Dr. Riley did on the subject. Heck, just a few weeks ago, you said the cerebellum was part of the right cerebrum and claimed that Dr. Riley put the cowlick site near the vertex! You are not to be taken seriously.

Tell me, does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage? For that matter, can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Almost like something tore at the bulk of the brain's right's side and caused things to tear below.

Oh, so a separate extended "tear"--read: wound path--just magically got created through and below the corpus callosum from a wound in the cowlick, never mind that there's no fragment trail within 2 inches of the subcortical damage, and no path or trail between the cortical and subcortical damage! Sorry, wound paths--or separate extended "tears"--don't happen like that.

Again, why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP made no attempt to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage? Why do you suppose they did not float your ludicrous explanation of the subcortical damage?

Before I continue, allow me to note that you said nothing about your erroneous claim that the subcortical damage was "superficial" ("minor" in your usage). Obviously, you were unaware that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of damaged tissue than the cortical damage. Your claim that the subcortical damage was superficial (minor) was the key assumption of your jostled-brain explanation.

But, as you usually do when you're caught peddling nonsense, you failed to acknowledge your error and continued to float your jostled-brain explanation. Throughout your time in this forum, this cycle has repeated itself over and over. You just bounce from one invalid claim to the next.

Allow me to also note that you said nothing about the damage below the corpus callosum. Not one word. Gee, why not?

Allow me to also note that you said nothing about your bogus claim that the skull x-rays show no missing frontal bone, and that you did not answer any of my questions about the debunked cowlick entry site.

They [the autopsy doctors] don't say it's a missile path with an open tunnel with missing tissue, or say it was caused by a bullet.

LOL! I mean, really? Are you really making this argument, with a straight face?! The autopsy doctors didn't even describe the cortical damage or the high fragment trail, yet you infer from their failure to explicitly specify the cause of the subcortical damage that they didn't think it was caused by a bullet?! How in the world can anyone take your nonsense seriously?

If they didn't think the damage was caused by a bullet, one would think they would have said so. This was, after all, an autopsy report. The only cause of damage to the head that they mentioned was a bullet that entered slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP.

They specified that the bullet deposited a fragment trail that started near the EOP and went upward to a point just above the right orbit, and that the bullet's exit wound was above the right ear. As several scholars have noted, a bullet entering at the EOP site could have caused the subcortical damage--but not the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. This is undoubtedly why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.

A laceration can be a tear with no tissue missing. The out-folding of the right cerebrum in the brain photo could have caused the tear to be seen to be open. Or they manually opened the laceration to see how deep it went.

An amateurish, not-so-clever, dishonest dodge. Did you forget the point that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of the amount of tissue damage than the cortical damage? Did that somehow slip your mind?

It's just amazing how often you pull this stunt of ignoring key contrary facts that have been pointed out to you and then repeating your position as if those facts do not exist.

Riley contends the following HSCA description of a "groove" corresponds to his "subcortical" missile path through the corpus callosum (drawing above).

    "On the right cerebral hemisphere is an anterior-posterior cylindrical
     groove in which the brain substance is fragmented or absent. This
     groove extends from the back of the brain to the right frontal area
     of the brain."

But, as one can see, they're describing the "right cerebral hemisphere", particularly the area near the midline, which would be above the corpus callosum. That's where the missing tissue is. However, Riley diminishes the traditional large laceration (whose height extended some 4.5cm from the vertex to its base) by claiming that brain matter, said to be missing and blown out by the HSCA, is actually present in the brain photograph but out-folded. Jack White would be proud.

Another amateurish, not-so-clever, and dishonest dodge. Did you forget the fact that, as Dr. Riley noted, the HSCA FPP said very little about the subcortical damage and provided only a brief, cursory, non-technical description of it? Did that key point slip your mind, or were you hoping that no one would notice your deception? Yet, according to you, Dr. Riley misrepresented the FPP's description of "the right cerebral hemisphere"! What an amazingly erroneous, misleading argument.

Moreover, you have simply ignored Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the FPP's brief, cursory description of the subcortical damage so you can falsely pretend that he misrepresented the FPP's description, when he did no such thing. You quoted the FPP's description but ignored Dr. Riley's three-paragraph explanation. Let's read what Dr. Riley wrote so everyone can see how dishonest and erroneous your argument is:

----------------------------------------------------
A description of all of the neuroanatomical structures involved is beyond the scope of this paper; however, by referring to Fig. 4D, the brain structures mentioned fall within or near the "groove" as described by the Panel. To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. Second, the wound passes near the midline. The brain is a bilateral structure but, for present purposes, it may be viewed as "joined together" except for the cerebral cortex. At the midline, the cortex "dips down" and two corresponding cortical regions (cingulate cortex) are located opposite of each other. A sheet of dura mater, termed the Falx, is located between the cigulate cortex on each hemisphere.

The subcortical damage is illustrated in Fig. 4A (HSCA exhibit F-302). (To the author's knowledge, there are no published photographs of the brain; however, the illustration is sufficient). To understand the relationship between the cortical and subcortical damage, it is crucial to understand what is shown and what is not. F-302 is NOT a view of the cortical damage ("cortical damage", as used here, refers to the dorsomedial cortex described previously upon which bullet fragments were distributed). What is illustrated is partially disrupted cingulate cortex that has shifted apparent location due to the disruption of brain tissue ventral (below) to it. In non-technical language, there is an outfolding of cortex due to its detachment from the brain tissue below it (in this case, largely the corpus callosum). Schematically, this is illustrated in Fig. 4F.

This interpretation is supported by the following evidence. First, the cingulate sulcus and parietooccipital sulcus are clearly evident (Figs. 4A-4D). The "grooves" on the cortical surface (sulci, singular is sulcus) and corresponding "ridges" (gyri, singular is gyrus) are arranged in an ordered and established pattern. The cingulate and parietooccipital sulci are located at the appropriate. position and there is no configuration of sulci on the dorsolateral surface that could account for this configuration. Since it is unlikely that many readers will be experienced neuroanatomists, it must be stressed that the identification of the cingulate sulcus is beyond reasonable doubt. The cigulate sulcus is found at the posteromedial margin of the postcentral gyrus. The precentral gyrus (primary motor cortex), postcentral gyrus (primary somatosensory cortex), and the central sulcus which separates them are well defined and unambiguous cortical landmarks. It is not a matter of differing interpretations; it is a matter of attending to the facts. There is no other valid interpretation. Anatomical landmarks can be obscured or obliterated by bullet wounds; they cannot be created. Second, as reviewed previously, the evidence accumulated by the Panel demonstrates that the cortical wound was relatively superficial; there had to be cortical tissue present for fragments to be distributed so near the surface of the brain. Finally, without discussing the effects of fixation on brain tissue in detail, the increase in surface area in the right hemisphere cannot be accounted for as "flattening" of the brain (see below). ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," pp. 11-12, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
----------------------------------------------------

Dr. Riley prefaced the section on the subcortical damage with the following paragraph:

----------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissuedamaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. It will be difficult, without a background in neuroanatomy, to understand the extent of this damage based solely on the written descriptions; however, it is not difficult to understand the wounds when they are placed in their anatomical relationships. (p. 10)
----------------------------------------------------

I might add that not one of the HSCA FPP members was a neuroscientist.

Riley (and Griffith, the Mormon "scholar") apparently know more (or are comfortable with promoting fiction) than the HSCA and Clark Panel, the latter writing of the right cerebral hemisphere:

    "It is transected by a broad canal running generally in a posteroanterior
     direction and to the right of the midline. Much of the roof of this canal is
     missing, as are most of the overlying frontal and parietal gyri."

So you're doubling-down on your amateurish deception.

One, I will again note that none of the HSCA FPP members were neuroscientists. None of the Clark Panel members were neuroscientists, either. Heck, the Clark Panel erroneously claimed that the high fragment trail aligned with the cowlick site and also somehow magically corresponded to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report! As you surely know, the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and at least 10 cm above the starting point of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.

But you're so desperate to make people think that you have an answer for the subcortical damage that you apparently suffered another one of your frequent, convenient memory lapses about problems with your sources.

Two, what does the partial description of the brain damage in the right cerebrum that you quoted have to do with the subcortical damage? Did you notice that it refers to the "roof" (top) of the "canal" to the right of the midline? Did you not notice that it mentions that the "frontal and parietal gyri" are on top of the canal ("overlying frontal and parietal gyri")? Do you not know that these frontal gyri are at the top of the brain?

Either by ignorance or design, you happened to cherry pick the part of the Clark Panel's description of the brain damage that does not relate to the subcortical damage. You either did not realize how badly you were blundering, or else you thought that you could get away with such erroneous cherry-picking.

And, did you not notice that in the next paragraph the panel goes on to say that this damage was caused by a high-velocity bullet ("a single bullet travelling at high velocity") that entered at the cowlick site?! You know that the alleged murder rifle was a low-velocity weapon, as FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier specified to the WC, right? You know this, right? Let's read from Frazier's WC testimony:

----------------------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------

The Clark Panel did not even know that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle. They were right about the fact that the skull and brain damage indicate the use of a high-velocity rifle--they just did not know that the supposed murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. (I suspect that if they had known this, they would have worded that paragraph differently.)

I can tell that when someone is describing damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere", they're not describing a missile path thought the corpus callosum.

Yikes! One, see above. Two, the Clark Panel described both the cortical and subcortical damage but did not specify that the two areas of damage are separate and unconnected; they used wording that indicates that the corpus callosum damage is separate from the other damage they were describing, but they did not make the discontinuous nature of the two damaged areas clear--nor did they explain how the subcortical damage could have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, a site that was far removed from the damage.

My "side" don't take damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere" and falsely apply it to invent a missile path thought the corpus callosum.

One, Dr. Riley did not do that, as we have just seen--rather, you engaged in your usual distortion and omission by ignoring the cursory nature of the HSCA FPP's description of the subcortical damage, and then by ignoring Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the subcortical damage. Two, you said nothing about the damage below the corpus callosum. You ignored it because you can't explain it. Three, you said nothing about the fact that there is no connection between the cortical and subcortical damage, that the two areas of damage are separate and distinct. Four, you did not cite a single source that has challenged Dr. Riley's description of the cortical and subcortical damage. Your entire argument amounts to an argument from silence based only on your own inferences.

You made your false argument in response to the following questions that I posed to you:

(1) Does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage?

(2) Can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?

Are you going to answer these two straightforward questions?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Just giving this thread a bump after the few abortive attempts by WC apologists to explain the two separate wound paths in the brain.

Now is a good time to quote from another one of Dr. Riley's articles, "What Struck John," in which, among other things, he described the two separate areas of damage, damage that could not have been done caused by a single bullet:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. The argument that the cavitation wound was produced by non-specific damage is illogical.

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

The point that the cavitation wound, i.e., the subcortical damage, is consistent with the autopsy doctors' observations helps us to understand why the autopsy doctors felt compelled, or were ordered, to ignore the high fragment trail and the cortical damage. Amazingly, not one word about this upper-skull damage appears in the autopsy report.

This also helps to understand why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report vanished from the skull x-rays after the autopsy. It is significant that when the autopsy doctors reported on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy x-rays and photos, they said nothing about the low fragment trail. In their January 1967 report on their five-hour review, they were clearly trying to justify and confirm their EOP location for the rear head entry wound, yet they said nothing about the low fragment trail, even though the trail would be strong evidence for the pathologists' EOP entry site.

Either the autopsy doctors simply fabricated the low fragment trail to support the EOP entry site, or the fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays at some point after the autopsy and before the doctors' November 1966 review. Obviously, three pathologists and a radiologist would not have mistaken the high fragment trail for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and that was nowhere near their EOP entry site.

[Jack Nessan]

Just giving this thread a bump after the few abortive attempts by WC apologists to explain the two separate wound paths in the brain.

Now is a good time to quote from another one of Dr. Riley's articles, "What Struck John," in which, among other things, he described the two separate areas of damage, damage that could not have been done caused by a single bullet:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. The argument that the cavitation wound was produced by non-specific damage is illogical.

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

The point that the cavitation wound, i.e., the subcortical damage, is consistent with the autopsy doctors' observations helps us to understand why the autopsy doctors felt compelled, or were ordered, to ignore the high fragment trail and the cortical damage. Amazingly, not one word about this upper-skull damage appears in the autopsy report.

This also helps to understand why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report vanished from the skull x-rays after the autopsy. It is significant that when the autopsy doctors reported on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy x-rays and photos, they said nothing about the low fragment trail. In their January 1967 report on their five-hour review, they were clearly trying to justify and confirm their EOP location for the rear head entry wound, yet they said nothing about the low fragment trail, even though the trail would be strong evidence for the pathologists' EOP entry site.

Either the autopsy doctors simply fabricated the low fragment trail to support the EOP entry site, or the fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays at some point after the autopsy and before the doctors' November 1966 review. Obviously, three pathologists and a radiologist would not have mistaken the high fragment trail for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and that was nowhere near their EOP entry site.

What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.

[John Mytton]

What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.

Yeah, Griffith is really struggling with the basics, and I don't recall too many, if any of his eyewitnesses, who say there was an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.

At the end of the day, 95% of earwitnesses heard three shots or less and 94% of these earwitnesses only recall hearing shots from only one direction and since we know that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind, therefore logically ALL the shots came from behind!
Besides a sniper in front when your Patsy was behind makes about as much sense as a Screen Door on a Submarine or a Chocolate Teapot!

95% of earwitnesses heard 3 or less shots



94% of Earwitnesses heard shots from only 1 direction.



JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

Yeah, Griffith is really struggling with the basics, and I don't recall too many, if any of his eyewitnesses, who say there was an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.

At the end of the day, 95% of earwitnesses heard three shots or less and 94% of these earwitnesses only recall hearing shots from only one direction and since we know that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind, therefore logically ALL the shots came from behind!
Besides a sniper in front when your Patsy was behind makes about as much sense as a Screen Door on a Submarine or a Chocolate Teapot!

95% of earwitnesses heard 3 or less shots



94% of Earwitnesses heard shots from only 1 direction.



JohnM

Exactly right.

If JFK's head had been hit by two bullets there would not have been a brain left to examine, let alone separate tracts or whatever it is he is rambling on about. I think he has himself all caught up in using big medical terms and doesn't apply simple logic and common sense to it all. I think Dr. Riley should have been institutionalized. He obviously did not have both feet firmly planted in reality. Is Dr Riley the guy who was an ophthalmologist or was it one of the other "experts" MTG quotes?