MG: 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.
JC: Oh, so these are facts.
Folks, just a heads-up that, as you'll see below, Corbett cannot say which of the four skull fragments the FPP identified as frontal bone.
Why? Because the FPP did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone. In fact, they used their wound diagrams to lead people to believe there was no bone missing from the frontal bone. They also absurdly put the triangular fragment in the parietal bone instead of in the frontal bone where Dr. Angel correctly placed it.
The FPP were careful not to come out and say this, because they knew that some of their expert consultants said there was a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and because they felt compelled to include their consultants' reports and interviews in the FPP report's addendums.
I should clarify something about the FPP and their report. FPP members Baden and Weston were the primary authors of the FPP's report. Dr. Wecht authored the lone dissent to the report, but had no other input into the report. The other FPP members had minimal if any involvement in writing the FPP's report.
So when we talk about the FPP's report, we're mainly talking about what Baden and Weston said and allowed to be diagrammed in the report.
It couldn't be your misunderstanding of what these professionals had to say. You cite Angel saying there was damage to the frontal bone near JFK's hairline. Which hairline. The one above his forehead or the one around his temples. Because the leaked photos show evidence of the latter. I know of no photos showing damage to the hairline above his forehead. My guess is you read "hairline" and "frontal bone" and you assumed they were talking about his forehead but maybe there is another explanation for your confusion.
Oh my goodness. Just stop. If you somehow, someway really did not understand that I was clearly referring to the hairline on the forehead, you seriously need to take a junior-high-level reading comprehension course.
MG: 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.
JC: 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.
MG: 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.
JC: Oh, so after telling us the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone, you're now telling us "the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report.". Can't you even keep your story straight?
More juvenile evasion and dissembling. The FPP did doggedly deny there was missing frontal bone--that's why they produced bogus diagrams that show no missing frontal bone. You still haven't read John Hunt's article on this subject, have you?
The issue of missing frontal bone was a serious point of contention between Dr. McDonnel and Dr. Angel on the one hand and Dr. Baden and Dr. Weston on the other hand. It got to the point where Dr. McDonnel suspected that Dr. Weston would misrepresent his findings. Hunt discusses these and other facts.
Moreover, another major point of contention was the placement of the triangular fragment. Dr. Angel correctly identified it as "clearly frontal bone," a finding that Dr. Mantik has confirmed. But the FPP could not tolerate this and absurdly put the fragment in the parietal bone. Equally absurdly, the FPP put the Harper fragment in the lower front part of the parietal bone, right below and touching the triangular fragment!
If you weren't so blindly biased and dogmatic and could have brought yourself to read Hunt's article two weeks ago when I first cited and linked it to you, you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself so badly. (Well, actually, maybe you still would be, but your evasion and dissembling would be even more inexcusable.)
I notice you keep ducking the fact that the FPP's diagrams show no missing frontal bone and that this false portrayal ignores what McDonnel and Angel told the HSCA--and that it also ignores what Dr. Boswell twice diagrammed and what Dr. Finck said after the autopsy. I should add that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements prove that a large chunk of frontal bone is missing.
MG: 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!
JC: This is fascinating. A few posts ago you were telling us Dr. Angel said the missing frontal bone was not limited to the posterior of the bone. Now you have changed course again and going with Dr. McDonnel's conclusions. Why can't you come up with one story and stick to it?
Oh, boy. I guess you just don't care that readers will readily see that you're lying again. They will see that you keep citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays and ignoring his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and that he identified a larger amount of missing frontal bone in the unenhanced x-rays than is seen in the enhanced x-rays.
I've already pointed out to you that the enhanced skull x-rays obscure the right-frontal cloud of tiny bullet fragments, and that the enhanced x-rays fooled Dr. Sturdivan into believing there was no such cloud of tiny fragments.
This is important because Sturdivan told the HSCA that a right-frontal hit by a frangible bullet would have left numerous fragments near its entry point in that region. The FPP didn't bother to inform Sturdivan that the unenhanced x-rays clearly show just such a right-frontal cloud of tiny fragments.
Readers will also see that I have told you several times that Dr. McDonnel only viewed the skull x-rays but that Dr. Angel viewed both the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments. And, again, for the umpteenth time, Dr. McDonnel identified a larger amount of missing frontal bone on the unenhanced x-rays than he did on the enhanced x-rays.
So you really should stop the dishonest posturing that I have "changed course" between Angel and McDonnel.
MG: "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."
JC: I was pointing out that the FPP included Dr. McDonnel's report in their findings. You have claimed that the FPP "doggedly denied" there was missing frontal bone, an assertion you can't support with an actual quote.
Why am I not surprised that you're still hiding behind this misleading strawman argument?
Anyway, so, umm, tell me: How do you explain the fact that the FPP produced a bunch of wound diagrams that show no missing frontal bone, that put the triangular fragment in the top front part of the parietal bone, and that put the Harper fragment in the lower front part of the parietal bone?
MG: 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.
JC: McDonnel said the missing piece of frontal bone was from the posterior. He wasn't any more specific than that.
One, that doesn't answer my question, and your answer ignores the fact that the FPP said that the four skull fragments completed the exit wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing."
Two, McDonnel did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone.
Three, in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, McDonnel did not limit the missing frontal bone to the rear area of the bone. Again, he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in that analysis, a fact that you keep ducking.
Four, the FPP ignored both of McDonnel's analyses and showed no missing frontal bone in any of their wound diagrams. Needless to say, they also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis and diagrams.
Five, the fact that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone destroys the FPP's reconstruction of the large head wound.
I'm curious. Why did you earlier cite McDonnel's report to support your position and now are disputing his conclusions.
I'm even more curious: Do you think readers are so illiterate or unintelligent that they will not notice that you keep ignoring the fact that Dr. McDonnel described a larger amount of missing frontal bone in his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ducking the fact that the FPP ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses, and also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis and diagrams?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ducking the fact that the FPP's identification of the triangular fragment as parietal bone is ludicrous and inexcusable?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ignoring the fact that the correct placement of the triangular fragment means that the area of missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline, if not up to it? (Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fact with OD measurements, but of course you've rejected the science of OD measurement in the JFK case because it destroys your version of the shooting and your denial of a cover-up.)
Anyway, to come back full circle, I will again point out that you clearly and undeniably blundered when you claimed that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone. They did no such thing. In fact, they refused to accept the fact that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, and they refused to accept Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone.
Your continued refusal to man up and admit you were wrong, clearly wrong, doesn't say much for your character and credibility.
