The bones of the skull

[John Corbett]

This is starting to remind me of the final scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

[John Corbett]

IOW, you don't have the character or the maturity to just admit you royally goofed.

You're projecting again. 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; [/quote]

Please quote this denial. The FPP did not try to piece together the skull fragments and were largely silent on the matter. They did include both McDonnel's and Angel's reports in their records, reports which you cited to bolster one of your silly arguments and now want to walk away from. 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."

You seem to be impeaching Angel's report which you have cited in the past. Angel is the only one who said the missing frontal bone was near the hairline. McDonnel said it was from the posterior of the frontal bone and the FPP was largely silent on the issue. So which one of the doctors whom you have cited in the past are you now throwing under the bus, Angel or McDonnel?

[Michael T. Griffith]

You're projecting again. 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;

Please quote this denial. The FPP did not try to piece together the skull fragments and were largely silent on the matter. They did include both McDonnel's and Angel's reports in their records, reports which you cited to bolster one of your silly arguments and now want to walk away from. 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."

You seem to be impeaching Angel's report which you have cited in the past. Angel is the only one who said the missing frontal bone was near the hairline. McDonnel said it was from the posterior of the frontal bone and the FPP was largely silent on the issue. So which one of the doctors whom you have cited in the past are you now throwing under the bus, Angel or McDonnel?

LOL! Oh my goodness. You STILL have not looked at the FPP's skull damage illustrations, have you?! Again, for the umpteenth time, those diagrams show no bone missing from the frontal bone. It is incredible that you keep dodging this fact. 

Yes, the FPP included their consultants' reports in Volume 7, at the very end of the volume, but, as many scholars have also pointed out, they ignored most of their consultants' findings in their analysis. Indeed, they flat-out misrepresented Dr. Angel's findings.

And, for the sake of any newcomers to this thread, here is what you said in the OP on the issue of the FPP and missing frontal bone:

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.

No, the FPP most certainly did NOT identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Their own diagrams refute this nonsense, and they said nothing about missing frontal bone in their report.

No, the "missing piece of frontal bone" would not have been "nowhere the forehead." Again, look at Angel's and Mantik's diagrams. Mantik had the advantage of being able to use OD measurements to determine the full extent of the amount and location of missing frontal bone. And did you miss Dr. Mantik's point that Dr. Boswell diagrammed the missing frontal bone as nearing the hairline, and his point that Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said frontal bone was missing right up to the hairline? Did you miss all that? Were you hoping that everyone else would miss it?

And, you once again dishonestly only mentioned Dr. McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and also ignoring the fact that the FPP ignored both of his readings and claimed (via their diagrams) there was no missing frontal bone. I mean, do you suffer from amnesia or something? Do you think readers won't notice the misleading way you cite evidence and how often you simply ignore evidence?

I mean, this is just incredible. You plainly made two unambiguous claims that are both demonstrably and inexcusably false. Everyone who understands English and who reads this thread can see this. But, you just can't man up and admit you blundered.

[John Corbett]

LOL! Oh my goodness. You STILL have not looked at the FPP's skull damage illustrations, have you?! Again, for the umpteenth time, those diagrams show no bone missing from the frontal bone. It is incredible that you keep dodging this fact. 

Yes, the FPP included their consultants' reports in Volume 7, at the very end of the volume, but, as many scholars have also pointed out, they ignored most of their consultants' findings in their analysis. Indeed, they flat-out misrepresented Dr. Angel's findings.

And, for the sake of any newcomers to this thread, here is what you said in the OP on the issue of the FPP and missing frontal bone:

No, the FPP most certainly did NOT identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Their own diagrams refute this nonsense, and they said nothing about missing frontal bone in their report.

No, the "missing piece of frontal bone" would not have been "nowhere the forehead." Again, look at Angel's and Mantik's diagrams. Mantik had the advantage of being able to use OD measurements to determine the full extent of the amount and location of missing frontal bone. And did you miss Dr. Mantik's point that Dr. Boswell diagrammed the missing frontal bone as nearing the hairline, and his point that Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said frontal bone was missing right up to the hairline? Did you miss all that? Were you hoping that everyone else would miss it?

And, you once again dishonestly only mentioned Dr. McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and also ignoring the fact that the FPP ignored both of his readings and claimed (via their diagrams) there was no missing frontal bone. I mean, do you suffer from amnesia or something? Do you think readers won't notice the misleading way you cite evidence and how often you simply ignore evidence?

I mean, this is just incredible. You plainly made two unambiguous claims that are both demonstrably and inexcusably false. Everyone who understands English and who reads this thread can see this. But, you just can't man up and admit you blundered.

I asked you for a quote that "FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone". Unable to provide such a quote, you followed your standard practice of trying to shift the burden of proof onto me to find the support for your assertion. It's hard to take someone seriously who consistently resorts to such an intellectually dishonest practice.

[Michael T. Griffith]

For those who want to view the HSCA's skull-damage diagrams, they are as follows: HSCA Exhibit F-58, HSCA Exhibit F-66, HSCA Exhibit F-65, Figure 29 (7 HSCA 125), Figure 30 (7 HSCA 126), and Figure 31 (7 HSCA 127).

HSCA Exhibits F-58, F-65, F-66 were not published in the HSCA volumes but were placed in the National Archives. John Hunt scanned them at the National Archives. They can be found in Hunt's article:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm#_edn38

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h8_lrg.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h16_lrg.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h4_lrg.jpg

HSCA Figures 29, 30, and 31 were published in Volume 7 of the HSCA volumes and can be found here:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0069a.htm

You can see that these diagrams depict no missing frontal bone, except for an extremely small defect consisting of half of the small hole that straddles the coronal suture about 2.5 cm/1.0 inch above the squamous suture.

Even Dr. McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays describes far more missing frontal bone than this, not to mention his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which describes even more missing frontal bone. The FPP simply ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses regarding the amount of missing frontal bone.

Dr. Angel correctly identified the large triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, whereas the FPP unbelievably said it was parietal bone. This is especially curious because Dr. Angel was much more qualified in this area than any of the FPP members. Dr. Angel's diagrams show that part of the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline.

Dr. David Mantik has removed all reasonable doubt, if there ever was any, about Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, proving that it can only be frontal bone:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Robertson.pdf 

You can find Dr. Angel's diagram of the missing frontal bone in Hunt's article and in 7 HSCA 230:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h12_lrg.jpg

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120b.htm

Anyone who wants to read about the medical and scientific evidence of a frontal shot to the head should read Dr. Mantik's paper "The Medical Evidence Decoded," from which I quote the following excerpt:

Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head, described a wound, about 1/4 inch across, above the right eye, near the hairline, where he had to place wax to disguise it. He added that this wound was so close to the hairline that the hair could easily cover it, which may explain why more witnesses did not see it. And Joe O'Donnell [White House photographer], who viewed autopsy photographs within the first week, witnessed an obvious wound above the right eye in a photograph, which he interpreted as the entry for the bullet that had caused the large hole at the right rear.

But the most objective evidence for precisely such a frontal shot lies on the skull X-rays. It should first be noted that the trail of debris obviously does not match a bullet entry near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), the site preferred by the pathologists. . . . (My own view is that one headshot did enter near the EOP, just as the pathologists said, but that there was also a subsequent, frontal shot.)

Instead current, lone-gunman advocates now necessarily support the HSCA's much higher entry wound (the red spot).But this does not work, either. First, the lateral x-ray (Figure 11) shows the 6 .5 mm fragment lying one centimeter below the "entry" site (which lies where the skull has been fractured), but the trail of debris is noticeably higher than even this "entry" site and even higher than the 6.5 mm object. No lone-gunman supporter has ever explained this discrepancy: it is simply ignored.

Even worse, though, the Warren Commission claimed (17 H 257) that the nose and tail of this bullet were found inside the limousine, meaning that this supposed bullet cross section must have come from inside the bullet (sic). Although no ballistics expert has ever seen a cross section from the outside of a bullet deposited at an entry site, the Warren Commission has done better than that. By placing an internal cross section not at the entry site (but one centimeter inferior to the entry site), they have surpassed all prior case in two separate measures at the same time, a truly remarkable achievement.

Although no proposed, posterior entry site matches this trail of metallic debris, on the other hand, a bullet that entered the right forehead, near the hairline, directly over the outer edge of the right eye socket, would match this bullet trail with remarkable precision. Furthermore, a close look at the frontal view on the diagram that Boswell drew for the ARRB (Figure 9A-D) shows a notch in the frontal bone at just this site (where the bullet entered).

As further confirmation that this notch is no accident, examine Boswell's sketch from the night of the autopsy (Figure 4A). The notch is also there!

When I examined the frontal x-ray, I used a bright light to highlight the outside of the skull. I could then easily see the top edge of the remaining frontal bone (high in the forehead).

Furthermore, with the optical densitometer, I measured the transmission of light above and below this edge over a long distance. The area above the (supposed) bone edge was darker (and the optical density values higher), implying less bone, whereas the area below it was lighter (the optical density values were lower), which implied residual frontal bone.

These measurements therefore verified what I had seen with my naked eyes with the bright light: I had identified the edge of the frontal bone. I could now trace the remaining frontal bone with good accuracy. This sketch is shown in Figure 12, the same sketch that was published in 1995, well before Boswell made his sketch for the ARRB. The same notch is also shown in my x-ray based sketch. This notch is therefore a critical piece of evidence: the frontal bullet knocked out a small fragment of bone here.

In summary, the X-rays, especially in conjunction with Boswell's sketches, provide powerful confirmation of a shot from the front. Five lines of evidence support such a frontal shot, near the hairline, above the outer border of the right orbit:

1. A wound was seen in the scalp (attested to by Kilduff, Crenshaw, Stewart, McClelland, Akin, Kantor, and O’Donnell).

2. The notch in the frontal bone was still recalled by Boswell for the ARRB.

3. The notch is actually seen on the X-rays.

4. The trail of metallic debris on the X-rays is more consistent with such a frontal shot than with it is with any posterior shot proposed to date.

5. Close examination of fragments in this debris strongly suggests that, overall; the larger ones are located closer to the rear. This would be expected for a shot from the front (but not for a shot from the rear) because the larger ones initially contained more energy (energy is proportional to mass); they should have traveled farther. (pp. 35-38)

[John Corbett]

For those who want to view the HSCA's skull-damage diagrams, they are as follows: HSCA Exhibit F-58, HSCA Exhibit F-66, HSCA Exhibit F-65, Figure 29 (7 HSCA 125), Figure 30 (7 HSCA 126), and Figure 31 (7 HSCA 127).

HSCA Exhibits F-58, F-65, F-66 were not published in the HSCA volumes but were placed in the National Archives. John Hunt scanned them at the National Archives. They can be found in Hunt's article:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm#_edn38

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h8_lrg.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h16_lrg.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h4_lrg.jpg

HSCA Figures 29, 30, and 31 were published in Volume 7 of the HSCA volumes and can be found here:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0069a.htm

You can see that these diagrams depict no missing frontal bone, except for an extremely small defect consisting of half of the small hole that straddles the coronal suture about 2.5 cm/1.0 inch above the squamous suture.

Even Dr. McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays describes far more missing frontal bone than this, not to mention his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which describes even more missing frontal bone. The FPP simply ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses regarding the amount of missing frontal bone.

Dr. Angel correctly identified the large triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, whereas the FPP unbelievably said it was parietal bone. This is especially curious because Dr. Angel was much more qualified in this area than any of the FPP members. Dr. Angel's diagrams show that part of the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline.

Dr. David Mantik has removed all reasonable doubt, if there ever was any, about Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, proving that it can only be frontal bone:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Robertson.pdf 

You can find Dr. Angel's diagram of the missing frontal bone in Hunt's article and in 7 HSCA 230:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h12_lrg.jpg

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120b.htm

Anyone who wants to read about the medical and scientific evidence of a frontal shot to the head should read Dr. Mantik's paper "The Medical Evidence Decoded," from which I quote the following excerpt:

Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head, described a wound, about 1/4 inch across, above the right eye, near the hairline, where he had to place wax to disguise it. He added that this wound was so close to the hairline that the hair could easily cover it, which may explain why more witnesses did not see it. And Joe O'Donnell [White House photographer], who viewed autopsy photographs within the first week, witnessed an obvious wound above the right eye in a photograph, which he interpreted as the entry for the bullet that had caused the large hole at the right rear.

But the most objective evidence for precisely such a frontal shot lies on the skull X-rays. It should first be noted that the trail of debris obviously does not match a bullet entry near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), the site preferred by the pathologists. . . . (My own view is that one headshot did enter near the EOP, just as the pathologists said, but that there was also a subsequent, frontal shot.)

Instead current, lone-gunman advocates now necessarily support the HSCA's much higher entry wound (the red spot).But this does not work, either. First, the lateral x-ray (Figure 11) shows the 6 .5 mm fragment lying one centimeter below the "entry" site (which lies where the skull has been fractured), but the trail of debris is noticeably higher than even this "entry" site and even higher than the 6.5 mm object. No lone-gunman supporter has ever explained this discrepancy: it is simply ignored.

Even worse, though, the Warren Commission claimed (17 H 257) that the nose and tail of this bullet were found inside the limousine, meaning that this supposed bullet cross section must have come from inside the bullet (sic). Although no ballistics expert has ever seen a cross section from the outside of a bullet deposited at an entry site, the Warren Commission has done better than that. By placing an internal cross section not at the entry site (but one centimeter inferior to the entry site), they have surpassed all prior case in two separate measures at the same time, a truly remarkable achievement.

Although no proposed, posterior entry site matches this trail of metallic debris, on the other hand, a bullet that entered the right forehead, near the hairline, directly over the outer edge of the right eye socket, would match this bullet trail with remarkable precision. Furthermore, a close look at the frontal view on the diagram that Boswell drew for the ARRB (Figure 9A-D) shows a notch in the frontal bone at just this site (where the bullet entered).

As further confirmation that this notch is no accident, examine Boswell's sketch from the night of the autopsy (Figure 4A). The notch is also there!

When I examined the frontal x-ray, I used a bright light to highlight the outside of the skull. I could then easily see the top edge of the remaining frontal bone (high in the forehead).

Furthermore, with the optical densitometer, I measured the transmission of light above and below this edge over a long distance. The area above the (supposed) bone edge was darker (and the optical density values higher), implying less bone, whereas the area below it was lighter (the optical density values were lower), which implied residual frontal bone.

These measurements therefore verified what I had seen with my naked eyes with the bright light: I had identified the edge of the frontal bone. I could now trace the remaining frontal bone with good accuracy. This sketch is shown in Figure 12, the same sketch that was published in 1995, well before Boswell made his sketch for the ARRB. The same notch is also shown in my x-ray based sketch. This notch is therefore a critical piece of evidence: the frontal bullet knocked out a small fragment of bone here.

In summary, the X-rays, especially in conjunction with Boswell's sketches, provide powerful confirmation of a shot from the front. Five lines of evidence support such a frontal shot, near the hairline, above the outer border of the right orbit:

1. A wound was seen in the scalp (attested to by Kilduff, Crenshaw, Stewart, McClelland, Akin, Kantor, and O’Donnell).

2. The notch in the frontal bone was still recalled by Boswell for the ARRB.

3. The notch is actually seen on the X-rays.

4. The trail of metallic debris on the X-rays is more consistent with such a frontal shot than with it is with any posterior shot proposed to date.

5. Close examination of fragments in this debris strongly suggests that, overall; the larger ones are located closer to the rear. This would be expected for a shot from the front (but not for a shot from the rear) because the larger ones initially contained more energy (energy is proportional to mass); they should have traveled farther. (pp. 35-38)

So unable to provide a quote to support your assertion you use the kitchen sink approach and dump a whole lot of documents and expect me to go through them to find the quote that you claim exists. Specifically, in which of those documents does the FPP doggedly deny there was missing frontal bone?

You have danced around the issue so much I don't even know which side you are taking. Do you side with the FPP who you CLAIM denied there was missing frontal bone or with McDonnel and Angel who said there was?