So whose version of the missing frontal bone do you endorse, McDonnel's or Angel's. McDonnel said the missing piece was from the posterior of the frontal bone which is nowhere near the hairline.
So you're still trying to lie your way out of admitting your blunder.
As you know, I've already pointed out to you that you're only citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced x-rays, which don't show some of the damage as clearly, and are ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced x-rays. I've also pointed out to you that Angel had the advantage of using the photos of the skull fragments, whereas McDonnel was not shown those photos and was only asked to read the x-rays.
But of course you just keep ignoring these facts.
I asked you for a quote to support your assertion that the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone. Omitting a piece of the posterior of the frontal bone from their diagram of the head wound is not what I would call doggedly denying it.
You're lying again. The FPP produced diagrams showing no missing bone from the frontal bone, and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone, even though they knew better from their own radiology and forensic consultants. In fact, the FPP did not place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone.
[/quote]If you are unable to provide a quote to support your assertion, I can only conclude that you overspoke when you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone.[/quote]
No, this is just further proof of your lack of candor and of your poor knowledge of the medical evidence. As I've mentioned, the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report. They carefully avoided
saying anything about the amount of missing frontal bone in their report.
But, again, they produced diagrams that showed no bone missing from the frontal bone, diagrams that put all four of the skull fragments in other parts of the skull, not one in the frontal bone (see, for example, HSCA JFK Exhibit F-66).
And your response is to argue (with a straight face?) that this doesn't constitute denying there was missing frontal bone!
Yeah, never mind that even the least problematic x-ray reading from the FPP's expert consultants said a sizable piece of bone was missing from the rear of the frontal bone! And never mind that the FPP's expert consultant in skull-fragment identification and skull reconstruction said the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone" and produced diagrams showing that the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline!
"Yeah, exactly. The FPP wasn't denying anything when they produced wound diagrams that showed no missing frontal bone, that didn't place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone, and that ignored what McDonnel and Angel told them," to paraphrase your silly dodge.
Let's approach your discrediting evasion by asking you a simple question regarding your blundering statement in your OP for this thread. You said,
The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone.Okay,
which piece of skull did they identify as missing from the rear part of the frontal bone? Which one of the four skull fragments was it? And keep in mind that the FPP claimed that
those four fragments completed the large head wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing" (HSCA RN 180-10120-10023, p. 2), so you have no wiggle room.
