The bones of the skull

[John Corbett]

A skull is comprised of multiple bones fused together. Whereas most people use layman's terms to describe various parts of the head (forehead, temples, etc.) medical professionals use the scientific names for the various parts of the skull. When I first stared reading the medical evidence related to the headshot, I didn't know just where the various terms were referring to until I saw a diagram like this one:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=2w%2fPyM0n&id=97843A74E06F41302B017670983169A9153F1866&thid=OIP.2w_PyM0nULa23sbUY2F1zAHaGv&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwellnesslifezone.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2019%2f04%2fBONE_Skull.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.db0fcfc8cd2750b6b6dec6d4636175cc%3frik%3dZhg%252fFalpMZhwdg%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1866&expw=2048&q=bones+of+the+skull+diagram&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=FDD8D913AEF4C678E6199ECCDB4C2287&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

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. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.

Once again you show you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. Umm, no, no, no, the FPP most certainly did not identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Where in the world do you get that?! Obviously, you haven't even looked at the FPP's wound diagrams of the skull damage or read the FPP's report. They did not put any of the skull fragments in the frontal bone. Go look at their own drawings and figures in 7 HSCA, for crying out loud.

The FPP put the large triangular fragment in the parietal bone, not in the frontal bone, even though their skull reconstruction expert, Dr. Lawrence Angel, told them this was wrong. Dr. Angel correctly put the fragment in the frontal bone, and his diagrams show that it extended nearly to the hairline, but the FPP simply ignored him, even though FPP radiology consultants also noted a substantial amount of missing frontal bone.

I just discussed this fact in a reply in my thread "Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence," to which you responded with the juvenile line "Nobody cares"--yeah, you obviously don't care about facts. Here's the link to my reply:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5041.msg181243.html#msg181243

Interested readers can find the HSCA's diagrams and figures, along with Dr. Angel's diagrams and report, in John Hunt's famous article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which, by the way, I have cited to Corbett at least three times. Here's the link to the article:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

The only "missing bone" that the FPP identified in the frontal bone was part of the tiny hole that straddles the coronal suture, at the rear of the frontal bone and the front of the parietal bone; the hole is partly in the frontal bone and partly in the parietal bone.

[John Corbett]

Once again you show you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. Umm, no, no, no, the FPP most certainly did not identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Where in the world do you get that?!

It was in one of the documents you cited. It was in Dr. G. M. McDonnel's report to the FPP:

"The findings and interpretation of the skull films are:

1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."

You don't seem to even know what is in the documents you have cited.

Drawings and figures in 7 HSCA, for crying out loud.

The FPP put the large triangular fragment in the parietal bone, not in the frontal bone, even though their skull reconstruction expert, Dr. Lawrence Angel, told them this was wrong. Dr. Angel correctly put the fragment in the frontal bone, and his diagrams show that it extended nearly to the hairline, but the FPP simply ignored him, even though FPP radiology consultants also noted a substantial amount of missing frontal bone.

I just discussed this fact in a reply in my thread "Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence," to which you responded with the juvenile line "Nobody cares"--yeah, you obviously don't care about facts. Here's the link to my reply:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5041.msg181243.html#msg181243

Interested readers can find the HSCA's diagrams and figures, along with Dr. Angel's diagrams and report, in John Hunt's famous article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which, by the way, I have cited to Corbett at least three times. Here's the link to the article:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

The only "missing bone" that the FPP identified in the frontal bone was part of the tiny hole that straddles the coronal suture, at the rear of the frontal bone and the front of the parietal bone; the hole is partly in the frontal bone and partly in the parietal bone.

Let me help you out here. "rear of the frontal bone" means the same as "posterior of the frontal bone".

No charge for the lesson.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It was in one of the documents you cited. It was in Dr. G. M. McDonnel's report to the FPP:

Wow, talk about naked dishonesty. IOW, you will never admit when you're wrong, even when you're caught in an undeniable, bald-faced blunder.

You said the FPP identified a piece of skull that was missing from the frontal bone, but they did no such thing, as I've proved, and as anyone can confirm by viewing the FPP's diagrams. Your entire reply is a sorry effort to deflect attention from your inexcusable gaffe.

"The findings and interpretation of the skull films are:

1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."

Yikes! Ho, ho, ho! Please forgive me for chortling and making light of yet another one of your blunders. Let's begin:

First off, the FPP ignored McDonnel's statement about a loss of bone in the rear part of the frontal bone! How did you "forget" this?

Second, you've quoted from McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays, which obscured some of the damage. I guess you didn't bother to scroll down and read his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which actually show some of the damage more clearly. He said those those x-rays show "a nearly complete loss of structure" of the right frontal and parietal bone! Let me quote him:

1. A nearly complete loss of structure of the right frontal and parietal bone. (7 HSCA 221)

This agrees with Dr. Angel's demonstrably correct identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone. Were you even able to bring yourself to look at Dr. Angel's diagrams, which show that the amount of missing frontal bone, i.e., the triangular fragment, extends nearly to the hairline? You can find his diagrams in Hunt's article (Figure H-12) and in 7 HSCA 230.

You understand that the average male forehead covers about 5-8 cm (2-3 inches) of the frontal bone, right? You know this, right? You understand that the triangular fragment was 7-8 cm x 6 cm x 4.5-5 cm, right? Right? That's at least 2.75 inches x 2.36 inches x 1.9 inches, and it was entirely frontal bone.

Third, Dr. McDonnel only analyzed the skull x-rays, whereas Dr. Angel analyzed the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments.

And, again, you said the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as coming from the frontal bone, when they did nothing of the sort.

You don't seem to even know what is in the documents you have cited.

That's a hoot, given that you didn't even bother to read McDonnel's entire report and didn't know what he said about the frontal bone damage in the unenhanced skull x-rays. And I notice you skipped over the fact that McDonnel's description of missing frontal bone contradicts the FPP's claim about the frontal bone.

BTW, speaking of knowing what's in the documents I've cited, did you read where Dr. McDonnel said that the bullet that hit the back of the skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218)? Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains. And, as the FBI's chief firearms expert Robert Frazier acknowledged to the WC, Oswald's alleged rifle was a low-velocity weapon.

Did you also read where McDonnel said the bullet "penetrated the right occipital bone" (7 HSCA 218)? But the FPP said the bullet penetrated the parietal bone, about 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. And, umm, the FPP also emphatically said that any bullet that penetrated the right occipital bone could not have avoided tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, and that since the brain photos showed zero damage to that part of the lobe, there was no way a bullet could have penetrated the skull in the right occipital bone.

Oh, shucks, sorry: I forgot your dodge--err, position--that you "don't need explain the medical evidence." My bad.

Let me help you out here. "rear of the frontal bone" means the same as "posterior of the frontal bone".

Dealing with you is like dealing with a teenager who can't stand to admit when he's been caught in an embarrassing blunder.

Let me help you out: You blunderingly claimed the FPP identified a piece of missing skull as coming from frontal bone, when in fact they did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone, and when their diagrams show no fragment of skull missing from the frontal bone.

No charge for the lesson.

Oh, yeah, you really gave me a "lesson" alright. Uh-huh. A lesson in juvenile evasion.

I think this thread will stand as bright monument to the fact that you have no business discussing the JFK case in a public forum while pretending to be anything other than a novice on the subject, and while presuming to pass judgment on research you haven't even read and to attack scholars who've done far, far, far more research than you have done or ever will do.

[John Corbett]

Wow, talk about naked dishonesty. IOW, you will never admit when you're wrong, even when you're caught in an undeniable, bald-faced blunder.

You said the FPP identified a piece of skull that was missing from the frontal bone, but they did no such thing, as I've proved, and as anyone can confirm by viewing the FPP's diagrams. Your entire reply is a sorry effort to deflect attention from your inexcusable gaffe.

Yikes! Ho, ho, ho! Please forgive me for chortling and making light of yet another one of your blunders. Let's begin:

First off, the FPP ignored McDonnel's statement about a loss of bone in the rear part of the frontal bone! How did you "forget" this?

Second, you've quoted from McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays, which obscured some of the damage. I guess you didn't bother to scroll down and read his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which actually show some of the damage more clearly. He said those those x-rays show "a nearly complete loss of structure" of the right frontal and parietal bone! Let me quote him:

1. A nearly complete loss of structure of the right frontal and parietal bone. (7 HSCA 221)

This agrees with Dr. Angel's demonstrably correct identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone. Were you even able to bring yourself to look at Dr. Angel's diagrams, which show that the amount of missing frontal bone, i.e., the triangular fragment, extends nearly to the hairline? You can find his diagrams in Hunt's article (Figure H-12) and in 7 HSCA 230.

You understand that the average male forehead covers about 5-8 cm (2-3 inches) of the frontal bone, right? You know this, right? You understand that the triangular fragment was 7-8 cm x 6 cm x 4.5-5 cm, right? Right? That's at least 2.75 inches x 2.36 inches x 1.9 inches, and it was entirely frontal bone.

Third, Dr. McDonnel only analyzed the skull x-rays, whereas Dr. Angel analyzed the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments.

And, again, you said the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as coming from the frontal bone, when they did nothing of the sort.

That's a hoot, given that you didn't even bother to read McDonnel's entire report and didn't know what he said about the frontal bone damage in the unenhanced skull x-rays. And I notice you skipped over the fact that McDonnel's description of missing frontal bone contradicts the FPP's claim about the frontal bone.

BTW, speaking of knowing what's in the documents I've cited, did you read where Dr. McDonnel said that the bullet that hit the back of the skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218)? Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains. And, as the FBI's chief firearms expert Robert Frazier acknowledged to the WC, Oswald's alleged rifle was a low-velocity weapon.

Did you also read where McDonnel said the bullet "penetrated the right occipital bone" (7 HSCA 218)? But the FPP said the bullet penetrated the parietal bone, about 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. And, umm, the FPP also emphatically said that any bullet that penetrated the right occipital bone could not have avoided tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, and that since the brain photos showed zero damage to that part of the lobe, there was no way a bullet could have penetrated the skull in the right occipital bone.

Oh, shucks, sorry: I forgot your dodge--err, position--that you "don't need explain the medical evidence." My bad.

Dealing with you is like dealing with a teenager who can't stand to admit when he's been caught in an embarrassing blunder.

Let me help you out: You blunderingly claimed the FPP identified a piece of missing skull as coming from frontal bone, when in fact they did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone, and when their diagrams show no fragment of skull missing from the frontal bone.

Oh, yeah, you really gave me a "lesson" alright. Uh-huh. A lesson in juvenile evasion.

I think this thread will stand as bright monument to the fact that you have no business discussing the JFK case in a public forum while pretending to be anything other than a novice on the subject, and while presuming to pass judgment on research you haven't even read and to attack scholars who've done far, far, far more research than you have done or ever will do.

Your pettiness is reaching new lows. After citing Dr. G.M. McDonnel to support your narrative, you turn around and chastise me for quoting from his report which you provided the link to.

[Lance Payette]

I think this thread will stand as bright monument to the fact that you have no business discussing the JFK case in a public forum while pretending to be anything other than a novice on the subject, and while presuming to pass judgment on research you haven't even read and to attack scholars who've done far, far, far more research than you have done or ever will do.

It's quite fascinating how often this sort of statement is made by CT extremists (the most charitable term I can think of) like MTG, Dan O'Meara and Royell Storing. If you don't see what they see, you are a novice, unserious, unworthy, even dumb. You lack the deep, arcane knowledge and understanding that only they possess.

I was blessed by this on another thread today from Dan. The topic was the cosmically unimportant distinction, if any, between the phrases "right in front" and "almost directly in front" as applied to women standing on Elm when JFK's limo passed by:

"Your truly sad attempt to pass them off as the same thing is yet another example of the dumbness that plagues your every post."

Really? I won't strut my IQ or academic honors again (except by request!  ), but "dumbness" is not something of which I've ever been accused or that most people think shines through my writing.

One could, of course, fill pages with the number of times Royell has told others they are out of touch, out of date, unable to grasp the brilliance of his "research."

Why do CT extremists do this? It isn't that your POSITION is flawed or even silly - no, it's that YOU are a novice, unserious, uninformed, unworthy and just flat dumb.

The answer is in what psychologists call the "social" dimension of the conspiracy-prone mindset. As with many religions and cults, CTers are prone to thinking they are special, that they are the keepers of secret knowledge, that only they see and possess the dark truths that the mass of sheeple fail to see. The corollary - again, common to many religions and cults - is that the sheeple are uninformed, unworthy, even dumb.

Pay attention and you will be astounded at how often this card is played by CT extremists like MTG, Dan and Royell. Weirdly - or perhaps not - it's most commonly played against opponents whom the characterization pretty obviously DOESN'T FIT AT ALL. I might think Jim DiEugenio (just to cite an example) is neck-deep in the conspiracy-prone mindset and capable of believing things I find unbelievable, but I would say more about myself than him if I characterized him as a novice, unserious, uninformed, unworthy and dumb.