Do you understand that if you agree that the rear head entry wound was 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, as the autopsy report says, then you must acknowledge that the autopsy brain photos cannot be photos of JFK's brain? The HSCA FPP proved this beyond any rational doubt. No bullet entering the head at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, yet the brain photos show no damage whatsoever in that area. An EOP-site bullet may have been able to barely miss the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear part of the right occipital lobe.
Furthermore, even if we assume that the EOP-site bullet barely missed the cerebellum, it should have at least caused some visible bleeding in the cerebellum, as FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Finck during Finck's testimony, and Finck had no answer. In fact, let's read Loquvam's exchange with Finck on this key point:
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. ("Testimony of Pierre A. Finck," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 97)
Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, pointed out the conflict between the EOP site and the undamaged condition of the rear part of both occipital lobes. In addition to noting the "intact" condition of the cerebellum, he pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos show no damage to the occipital lobes, i.e., the part of the lobes directly behind the EOP. Let's read Dr. Petty's very politely phrased observation about this huge contradiction:
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes. (7 HSCA 259)
Even a layman can look at diagrams of the brain and the skull and see that the EOP lies directly over the rear part of the right and left occipital lobes. There is just no way on this planet that a bullet entering at the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle could have missed tearing through the rear section of the right occipital lobe.
So, pick your poison: Either admit that the brain photos are fraudulent or repudiate the EOP site. You can't accept the EOP site and still believe the brain photos are authentic.
I explain this fact in more detail in my ongoing thread on the subject:
Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4609.0.html
Just bumping this thread to show that the WC apologists here clearly cannot explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the autopsy skull x-rays, nor can they explain how the brain photos can be authentic if they accept the EOP site since the FPP proved beyond any rational doubt that the brain photos--if authentic--categorically prove that no bullet could have entered the skull at the EOP site.
Regarding the low fragment trail, there are only two options:
1. The autopsy doctors, one of whom was a board-certified forensic pathologist, were so unbelievably incompetent that they made the astonishing blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail that is at least 2 inches above the EOP, that has a downward trajectory, that goes nowhere near either of the proposed rear head entry sites, and that is concentrated in the right-frontal region--that they mistook this fragment trail for a trail that started at the EOP, that ended just behind the right eyebrow, and that had an upward trajectory.
2. The autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail because there was no fragment trail that they could associate with the EOP site.
BTW, as mentioned earlier, the autopsy doctors did not say a word about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, even though a layman can easily see it on the right lateral skull x-ray.
Getting back to the issue of the EOP site vs. the cowlick site, Dr. Joseph N. Riley, a highly regarded neuroanatomist, concluded in the 1990s that the EOP site is valid and that the cowlick site is ruled out by the fact that the autopsy photos show intact brain at the cowlick site. Dr. Riley also noted that the autopsy photos show two separate, unconnected wound paths through the brain, proving that two bullets must have hit the brain.
"What Struck John," by Dr. Joseph N. Riley
https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html
Topic: The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists (Read 2233 times)