The bones of the skull

[Michael T. Griffith]

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?

LOL and Holy Cow! So the FPP's own head-wound diagrams don't count?!

And, umm, I already said that the FPP did not discuss the amount of missing frontal bone in their report. They "said" nothing specific about it, but in their diagrams they depicted the frontal bone as undamaged and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.

Have you STILL not looked at the FPP head-wound diagrams?

You have danced around the issue so much I don't even know which side you are taking.

Oh my! I have danced around the issue?! You must have written this howler in juvenile-teenager-provocation mode.

You've done nothing but dance and duck and dodge to avoid admitting you severely blundered in claiming that the FPP "identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone," when their own diagrams prove they did no such thing.

Do you side with the FPP who you CLAIM denied there was missing frontal bone or with McDonnel and Angel who said there was?

People who read this silliness are going to conclude that you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or that you are incapable of being candid and credible.

You cannot be so illiterate as to not understand that I have plainly and repeatedly said that the FPP was demonstrably wrong (1) for denying that the x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, (2) for ignoring McDonnel's and Angel's conclusions about the amount of missing frontal bone, and (3) for bogusly placing the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.

[John Corbett]

LOL and Holy Cow! So the FPP's own head-wound diagrams don't count?!

And, umm, I already said that the FPP did not discuss the amount of missing frontal bone in their report. They "said" nothing specific about it, but in their diagrams they depicted the frontal bone as undamaged and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.

Have you STILL not looked at the FPP head-wound diagrams?
 

Oh my! I have danced around the issue?! You must have written this howler in juvenile-teenager-provocation mode.

You've done nothing but dance and duck and dodge to avoid admitting you severely blundered in claiming that the FPP "identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone," when their own diagrams prove they did no such thing.

People who read this silliness are going to conclude that you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or that you are incapable of being candid and credible.

You cannot be so illiterate as to not understand that I have plainly and repeatedly said that the FPP was demonstrably wrong (1) for denying that the x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, (2) for ignoring McDonnel's and Angel's conclusions about the amount of missing frontal bone, and (3) for bogusly placing the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.

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.

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. 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.