This is starting to remind me of the final scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
IOW, you don't have the character or the maturity to just admit you royally goofed. You said (1) that the FPP identified a piece of skull missing from the frontal bone, and (2) that the area of missing frontal bone goes nowhere near the hairline but is limited to a small part of the rear area of the frontal bone.
Both claims are demonstrably false, not to mention inexcusable. The FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone; their wound diagrams show the frontal bone intact from the hairline back to the coronal suture, with no missing skull fragments. In doing so, the FPP ignored all of their own expert consultants who described a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and even ignored Dr. Angel's diagrams showing that the triangular fragment was frontal bone and that it extended nearly to the hairline.
The FPP could not admit that a sizable chunk of frontal bone is in the skull x-rays missing because the autopsy photos of the face show the area behind and in front of the hairline to be intact. There's not even a hint of a loss of structure there. That's a physical impossibility if the skull x-rays are accurate. At the very least, the top of the forehead and the area right behind the hairline should show some visible degree of depression/indentation. This is why Dr. Ubelaker "noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos."
Dr. David Mantik:
The HSCA skull reconstruction: The frontal bone (yellow arrow) is intact here, in gross disagreement with Angel—and also in disagreement with the skull X-rays.
The HSCA’s mistake (relied upon by Baden—quite possibly even initiated by him) was its opinion that frontal bone was fully intact immediately anterior to the coronal suture (Figure 4). That opinion can be refuted via the following items: (1) the AP skull X-ray (Figure 10), (2) optical density (OD) data from the AP X-ray (Figure 11—my sketch of absent frontal bone), (3) Boswell’s skull diagram for the ARRB (Figure 12), (4) Boswell’s sketch from the autopsy (Figure 13), and (5) the opinion of the ARRB forensic radiologist, John J. Fitzpatrick: showDoc.html (maryferrell.org). The AP X-ray also clearly shows where right frontal bone was missing (even though Baden oddly claimed that it was present). . . .
Figure 11 shows missing right frontal bone, a conclusion that is based on OD data that I took at the Archives. Boswell’s sketch for the ARRB also shows missing frontal bone. Furthermore, notice the close agreement (regarding the missing frontal bone) between my sketch (Figure 11) and Boswell’s sketches (Figures 12 and 13). He did one (Figure 12) for the ARRB, while the other one (Figure 13) was prepared at the autopsy. . . .
That missing frontal bone is quite obvious on the x-rays (and even on Boswell’s sketches); even Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist, disagreed with Baden’s reconstruction. . . .
HSCA Exhibit F-66 [Baden's reconstruction] shows the frontal bone intact all the way back to the coronal suture. . . .
The coronal suture would, of course, fit with Lawrence Angel’s view that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. It would also be consistent with Fitzpatrick’s (and my) conclusion that right frontal bone was missing all the way to JFK’s hairline. . . . . . .
RR [following Baden] places the triangular fragment into the right parietal area. But it cannot fit there. In particular, I have demonstrated, with detailed reconstructions via successive iterations of fluoroscopy images, exactly where bone islands lie on both the AP and lateral JFK X-rays. RR's proposed site for the triangular fragment is already occupied by two significant bone islands, and simply cannot accommodate another large bone fragment. That is a powerful reason—independent of Angel—that the triangular fragment must derive from frontal bone. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, pp. 7, 15-16, 56, 96, 151-152)When you say "I don't have to explain the medical evidence," what you really mean, but won't admit, is that you
can't explain the glaring, incriminating contradictions in the medical evidence.
