The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists

[Michael T. Griffith]

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

[John Corbett]

Keep bumping. That way you won't pollute this forum with more nonsense.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Keep bumping. That way you won't pollute this forum with more nonsense.

In other words, you are once again declining to engage in serious, credible discussion about clear evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

For any newcomers, just a word about this "John Corbett": He's read almost nothing on the JFK case, routinely condemns scholarly research he hasn't even read, doesn't even know what his own side's leading advocates have said, has published nothing on the case, hosts no website on the case, and has been caught making numerous inexcusable errors but will never admit it.

[John Corbett]

In other words, you are once again declining to engage in serious, credible discussion about clear evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

To do that, I would need a serious, credible person to discuss the evidence with. Do you know of someone?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:

One, the autopsy doctors committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that started a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) lower, (2) that was in a different bone of the skull (parietal vs. occipital), and (3) that ran at a downward angle instead of an upward angle from the back of the head, even though they had the EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the lambda as reference points (keep in mind they reflected the scalp so they could examine the wound in the skull). A first-year medical student would not make such a mind-boggling blunder.

Two, the autopsy doctors saw no low fragment trail. They saw no trail that ran from the EOP to the right eyebrow but falsely said they did (1) because they wanted to strengthen the case for the EOP entry site, (2) because the high fragment trail did not align with the EOP site, and (3) because there was no wound on the back of the head that they could associate with the high fragment trail.

Three, the low fragment trail was removed from the autopsy x-rays, or its fragments were removed from the skull and the skull was then x-rayed again, because some of the people involved in the medical cover-up recognized that the low fragment trail, like the EOP entry site, would pose unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory.

I lean toward the third option. The third option would explain the 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm fragments seen near the right orbit on the right lateral skull x-ray. Those fragments are far removed from the high fragment trail. There are no fragments below them or to their left on the lateral x-ray, and they are at least 1 inch below the high fragment trail. How did they get there? They could be the remnant of the low fragment trail, which Humes said went to a point at the top part of the right orbit (the supraorbital ridge).

At least some WC apologists understand that it is wildly unlikely that three pathologists, one of whom was a board-certified forensic pathologist, could have mistaken an EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail for the high fragment trail when they examined the lateral skull x-rays, especially since they reexamined the skull x-rays in 1966 for five hours and said the x-rays and the photos confirmed the autopsy report's findings.

But, WC apologists also don't want to consider the possibility that the autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail, and they of course know that the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, and that they again said nothing about it after they reexamined the skull x-rays for five hours in 1966.

Yet, WC apologists find even more acceptable the possibility that the low fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays and/or from the skull itself.   

[John Corbett]

Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:

I don't speak for other LNs but my guess is they don't care about your perceived problems any more than I do.