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

[John Corbett]

"Perceived problems"?! Your comment is further proof that you are an uninformed, unserious troll.

And still nobody cares.

[Michael T. Griffith]

And still nobody cares.

Translation: "I still don't care, or at least I say I don't care, because I have no idea how to explain the evidence that you're presenting. I know it's ludicrous to claim that three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist, 'missed' the high fragment trail or mistook it for the low fragment trail. Of course I know that's preposterous, and I know there's not even a remotely plausible innocent explanation for the fact that there's no low fragment trail on the skull x-rays, but I can't admit these things without demolishing my position on the JFK case.

"And, yes, I know the FPP said the brain photos undeniably refute the EOP entry site, and I know the EOP site must be wrong if the brain photos are authentic, and I know the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the tiny amount of missing brain shown in the brain photos, but I don't dare admit that the brain photos are fake, even though the autopsy photographer said he did not take them. Come on. We both know that I don't dare admit these things because this would demolish my position on the JFK case."

[John Corbett]

Translation: "I still don't care, or at least I say don't care, because I have no idea how to explain the evidence that you're presenting.

I'm not presenting the medical evidence. That's your gig. You did write in the last line of your previous post in this thread the following:

"Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting."

So once again you are trying to shift the burden to ME to explain the assertions YOU made.

The simple fact of the matter which I have explained to you many times is that I am not qualified to interpret the medical evidence from the autopsy which is why I don't try. I leave it to the qualified people to do that and then cite the findings of those people. You aren't qualified to interpret the medical evidence either but that doesn't stop you from trying. .

[Michael T. Griffith]

I'm not presenting the medical evidence. That's your gig. You did write in the last line of your previous post in this thread the following:

"Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting."

So once again you are trying to shift the burden to ME to explain the assertions YOU made.

The simple fact of the matter which I have explained to you many times is that I am not qualified to interpret the medical evidence from the autopsy which is why I don't try. I leave it to the qualified people to do that and then cite the findings of those people. You aren't qualified to interpret the medical evidence either but that doesn't stop you from trying.

So once again you're floating this phony argument and ignoring the fact that these are not just my assertions but the assertions of many medical experts, including the FPP, the autopsy doctors, and the ARRB's forensic experts.

It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (Humes, the entire FPP, the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the ARRB's forensic experts, etc., etc.).

It's not just little ole me saying the brain photos, if authentic, categorically refute the EOP site (the FPP, Mantik, Aguilar, Chesser, Henkelmann, etc.).

It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain missing (Hodges, Humes, Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Lattimer, etc.) but that the autopsy brain photos show only "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue (Baden, Bugliosi, etc.).

You don't need a medical degree to understand that either the EOP site is valid or the brain photos are fraudulent, that either the skull x-rays are fraudulent or the brain photos are fraudulent, that it's wildly implausible to theorize that three autopsy pathologists and the radiologist "missed" the high fragment trail or mistook it for a fragment trail 5 inches lower and in a different part of the skull, that it's preposterous to suggest that three autopsy pathologists and the autopsy photographer mistook an entry wound in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda, for a wound 1 cm above the EOP, nearly 4 inches below the rear edge of the parietal bone, when they had the EOP and lambda as reference points, when they reflected the scalp, and when they examined both sides of the wound in the skull after they reflected the scalp.

[John Corbett]

So once again you're floating this phony argument and ignoring the fact that these are not just my assertions but the assertions of many medical experts, including the FPP, the autopsy doctors, and the ARRB's forensic experts.

It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (Humes, the entire FPP, the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the ARRB's forensic experts, etc., etc.).

It's not just little ole me saying the brain photos, if authentic, categorically refute the EOP site (the FPP, Mantik, Aguilar, Chesser, Henkelmann, etc.).

It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain missing (Hodges, Humes, Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Lattimer, etc.) but that the autopsy brain photos show only "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue (Baden, Bugliosi, etc.).

You don't need a medical degree to understand that either the EOP site is valid or the brain photos are fraudulent, that either the skull x-rays are fraudulent or the brain photos are fraudulent, that it's wildly implausible to theorize that three autopsy pathologists and the radiologist "missed" the high fragment trail or mistook it for a fragment trail 5 inches lower and in a different part of the skull, that it's preposterous to suggest that three autopsy pathologists and the autopsy photographer mistook an entry wound in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda, for a wound 1 cm above the EOP, nearly 4 inches below the rear edge of the parietal bone, when they had the EOP and lambda as reference points, when they reflected the scalp, and when they examined both sides of the wound in the skull after they reflected the scalp.

You seem to jump back and forth from criticizing the FPP to embracing their findings. Which is it?

There is one thing they all agree on and which you reject. JFK was shot twice from behind and there is no medical evidence of him being shot from any other direction.  But I suppose we should dismiss what all these qualified people have to say and accept your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence.