JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on January 07, 2024, 01:06:01 PM
-
Let us examine in more detail the lone-gunman theory’s inability to explain the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back.
The cortical damage was described in detail by the HSCA FPP (7 HSCA 131). The subcortical damage was described in detail by the autopsy doctors in the supplemental autopsy report (CE 391, p. 1). Incredibly, however, the HSCA FPP never specifically described the subcortical damage, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage! More on this in a minute.
In his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy, explained the problem posed for the lone-gunman theory by these two separate areas of damage:
In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissue damaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well, extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. . . .
To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel [the HSCA FPP] provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report. Clearly, the "high" entrance wound does not and cannot account for the observed subcortical damage. (“The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 10-11, 14, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
Dr. Riley phrased it this way in his article “What Struck John”:
In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . . The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors [i.e., the EOP entry site’s trajectory].
The exit wound is not and cannot be located where the HSCA Forensics Panel places it. Similarly, the autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at where government panels have claimed there was a "high" entrance wound. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html) (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)))
Dr. Riley also noted that the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report cannot account of for all the fragments and the damage to the cerebral cortex (i.e., the outer layer of brain tissue/the cerebrum’s outer layer):
The fragments distributed in and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot described by Humes et al.; the wounds are discontinuous. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html))
Here is one of Dr. Riley’s diagrams of the subcortical damage from his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries”:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing)
British researcher Martin Hay puts it this way:
. . . There were two separate and distinct areas of damage to the President’s brain, in the cortical and subcortical regions, and “no evidence of continuity” between the two. “An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage.” As Dr. Riley concluded, “The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy’s head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet.” (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/robert-a-wagner-the-assassination-of-jfk-perspectives-half-a-century-later (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/robert-a-wagner-the-assassination-of-jfk-perspectives-half-a-century-later))
Revealingly, the HSCA FPP gave only a brief, superficial description of the subcortical damage, a description that, incredibly, gave the reader no idea that the damage was subcortical, that it was well below the cortical damage (7 HSCA 129)! On the other hand, the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage, just as they said nothing about the high fragment trail! Why these glaring omissions? Because the HSCA FPP and the autopsy doctors were only willing to acknowledge one bullet strike to the head and thus only one entry site. To make matters worse, the HSCA FPP refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the now-debunked cowlick entry site, and the autopsy doctors refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the EOP entry site.
And what have the leading WC apologists said about the two clearly separate cortical and subcortical wound paths in the brain? Nothing. Not one word. Vincent Bugliosi said nothing about it in his error-riddled tome Reclaiming History. Similarly, Gerald Posner says nothing about it in his mistitled propaganda book Case Closed. Crickets. Not one syllable.
One of the important disclosures that came from the ARRB releases in the mid-1990s is the evidence that the autopsy doctors were aware that there were two separate bullet-damage trajectories through the skull that intersected at the EOP site. We learned that two “angle lines” were drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray by the autopsy radiologist, Dr. John Ebersole. The lines converge at the EOP site. In their report on their late-1966 review of the autopsy materials, the autopsy doctors specifically described those lines as “angle lines.” One of the lines goes upward at a 32-degree angle from the EOP site to a spot on the high point of the forehead. Crucially, the other line goes straight through the area of the subcortical damage.
When the HSCA FPP asked Dr. Ebersole about these lines, he came up with the cockamamie cover story (or he repeated the cover story that was given to him) that the lines were merely anatomical landmarks that would be recognized by an artist for preparing a sculpture of JFK’s head. This, of course, makes no sense for several reasons, the most obvious being that any sculpture of JFK’s head would not have been based on x-rays of his badly damaged, blasted skull but on premortem x-rays of his intact, undamaged skull. Martin Hay discusses the disclosure of the trajectory lines on the right lateral skull x-ray in his 2013 article “The Head Wounds Revisited” (https://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-head-wounds-revisited.html (https://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-head-wounds-revisited.html)).
Also, regarding the right-frontal cloud of fragments seen on the unenhanced skull x-rays, this is indicative of a right-frontal shot. Why? Because, in conformity with the laws of physics, when a bullet disintegrates after striking a skull, the smaller, dust-like fragments are found closer to the entry point, while the larger particles are found closer to the exit. Naturally, the larger fragments, having greater mass, have more momentum and are carried farther away from the point of entry. In the skull x-rays, we see a cloud of small particles at the right temple, whereas the larger fragments are farther away, toward the upper rear part of the skull, revealing a front-to-rear trajectory.
-
Let us examine in more detail the lone-gunman theory’s inability to explain the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back.
The cortical damage was described in detail by the HSCA FPP (7 HSCA 131). The subcortical damage was described in detail by the autopsy doctors in the supplemental autopsy report (CE 391, p. 1). Incredibly, however, the HSCA FPP never specifically described the subcortical damage, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage! More on this in a minute.
In his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy, explained the problem posed for the lone-gunman theory by these two separate areas of damage:
Dr. Riley phrased it this way in his article “What Struck John”:
Dr. Riley also noted that the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report cannot account of for all the fragments and the damage to the cerebral cortex (i.e., the outer layer of brain tissue/the cerebrum’s outer layer):
Here is one of Dr. Riley’s diagrams of the subcortical damage from his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries”:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing)
British researcher Martin Hay puts it this way:
Revealingly, the HSCA FPP gave only a brief, superficial description of the subcortical damage, a description that, incredibly, gave the reader no idea that the damage was subcortical, that it was well below the cortical damage (7 HSCA 129)! On the other hand, the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage, just as they said nothing about the high fragment trail! Why these glaring omissions? Because the HSCA FPP and the autopsy doctors were only willing to acknowledge one bullet strike to the head and thus only one entry site. To make matters worse, the HSCA FPP refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the now-debunked cowlick entry site, and the autopsy doctors refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the EOP entry site.
And what have the leading WC apologists said about the two clearly separate cortical and subcortical wound paths in the brain? Nothing. Not one word. Vincent Bugliosi said nothing about it in his error-riddled tome Reclaiming History. Similarly, Gerald Posner says nothing about it in his mistitled propaganda book Case Closed. Crickets. Not one syllable.
One of the important disclosures that came from the ARRB releases in the mid-1990s is the evidence that the autopsy doctors were aware that there were two separate bullet-damage trajectories through the skull that intersected at the EOP site. We learned that two “angle lines” were drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray by the autopsy radiologist, Dr. John Ebersole. The lines converge at the EOP site. In their report on their late-1966 review of the autopsy materials, the autopsy doctors specifically described those lines as “angle lines.” One of the lines goes upward at a 32-degree angle from the EOP site to a spot on the high point of the forehead. Crucially, the other line goes straight through the area of the subcortical damage.
When the HSCA FPP asked Dr. Ebersole about these lines, he came up with the cockamamie cover story (or he repeated the cover story that was given to him) that the lines were merely anatomical landmarks that would be recognized by an artist for preparing a sculpture of JFK’s head. This, of course, makes no sense for several reasons, the most obvious being that any sculpture of JFK’s head would not have been based on x-rays of his badly damaged, blasted skull but on premortem x-rays of his intact, undamaged skull. Martin Hay discusses the disclosure of the trajectory lines on the right lateral skull x-ray in his 2013 article “The Head Wounds Revisited” (https://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-head-wounds-revisited.html (https://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-head-wounds-revisited.html)).
Also, regarding the right-frontal cloud of fragments seen on the unenhanced skull x-rays, this is indicative of a right-frontal shot. Why? Because, in conformity with the laws of physics, when a bullet disintegrates after striking a skull, the smaller, dust-like fragments are found closer to the entry point, while the larger particles are found closer to the exit. Naturally, the larger fragments, having greater mass, have more momentum and are carried farther away from the point of entry. In the skull x-rays, we see a cloud of small particles at the right temple, whereas the larger fragments are farther away, toward the upper rear part of the skull, revealing a front-to-rear trajectory.
Only some crackpot from Deep Politics thinks there can be two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets. This is what i came to realize it was, just nonsense.
-
Only some crackpot from Deep Politics thinks there can be two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets. This is what i came to realize it was, just nonsense.
HUH?! LOL! You literally act like you don't understand half of the words you're reading. Or maybe you meant to respond to another post but accidentally posted your response here?!
Pray tell, who says there are "no exit wounds and no bullets"? Who has ever said such a thing?
How do you explain the cortical and subcortical damage? What entry wound could have caused the subcortical damage? I've asked you these questions several times, and you keep ducking them.
How do you explain the angle lines that the autopsy radiologist drew on the right lateral skull x-ray?
-
HUH?! LOL! You literally act like you don't understand half of the words you're reading. Or maybe you meant to respond to another post but accidentally posted your response here?!
Pray tell, who says there are "no exit wounds and no bullets"? Who has ever said such a thing?
How do you explain the cortical and subcortical damage? What entry wound could have caused the subcortical damage? I've asked you these questions several times, and you keep ducking them.
How do you explain the angle lines that the autopsy radiologist drew on the right lateral skull x-ray?
If I was you, I would try to distance myself from this theory too.
-
If I was you, I would try to distance myself from this theory too.
I asked you to name one researcher who has proposed that nutty theory, and this is your reply. As usual, you act like you don't understand half of what you're reading. The only person who has even mentioned that nutty theory is you. You created that absurd strawman out of thin air to avoid answering straightforward questions about documented evidence. Let me pose them again:
What entry wound can explain both the cortical damage and the subcortical damage, given that they are separate and unconnected? You realize that the subcortical damage is described in the supplemental autopsy report, right? And you realize that the cortical damage is described in the HSCA FPP report, right? You understand these basic facts, right? Right?
What entry wound can explain just the subcortical damage? If you reject the EOP entry wound, how can you explain the subcortical damage? (But, of course, if you accept the EOP entry wound, you must reject the debunked cowlick site, and you must assume that a bullet that entered at a 15-degree downward angle somehow magically veered sharply upward and rightward immediately after penetrating the skull or that JFK was leaning forward by over 50 degrees when the bullet struck. You must also explain why the entry wound was smaller than the caliber of the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, especially given the fact that entry wounds in skulls are always considerably larger than the bullet's caliber--the entry wound in the one available photo of one of the skulls from the WC's wound ballistics test is 8 mm in diameter.)
Given that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick entry site, and given that the high fragment trail is above the cowlick site, what entry wound can explain the high fragment trail, especially given the fact that the smallest fragments in the trail, i.e., the tiny particles in the fragment cloud, are at the opposite end of the skull, far from the supposed entry site, in violation of the laws of physics?
Keeping in mind that, per the laws of physics, the heaviest fragments would be farther away from the entry point and the smallest fragments would be nearest the entry point, is not the cloud of tiny particles in the right-frontal region evidence that a bullet struck there, given the fact that the larger fragments in the high fragment trail are farther toward the back of the head?
What entry wound can explain the small fragment within the 6.5 mm object's image and the McDonnel fragment in the back of the head? Given the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table or in the scalp when penetrating a skull, does not this prove that those two fragments did not come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used?
Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the cause of the subcortical damage? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP did not even make it clear that the subcortical damage was well below the cortical damage?
Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors not only said nothing about the high fragment trail but also said nothing about the cortical damage in the autopsy report?
Given that the autopsy skull x-rays show "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing, given that we know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, and given the numerous accounts that a large part of JFK's brain was missing, is it not obvious that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent since they show only 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing? Or do you claim that the skull x-rays are fraudulent and that the brain photos show the brain as it actually was?
How do you explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray at the autopsy? Is it just a coincidence that one of the lines goes straight through the subcortical damage? Is it just a coincidence that the other line goes to a point at the top of the forehead, close to the site of the right-frontal entry wound that some experts have identified in the skull x-rays? Is it just a coincidence that several witnesses, including one of the morticians, reported seeing a small wound in the right temple? Is it just a coincidence that Dr. Burkley told White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that a bullet entered in the right temple, and that Kilduff demonstrated this in his 11/22 press conference by pointing to his own right temple?
-
I asked you to name one researcher who has proposed that nutty theory, and this is your reply. As usual, you act like you don't understand half of what you're reading. The only person who has even mentioned that nutty theory is you. You created that absurd strawman out of thin air to avoid answering straightforward questions about documented evidence. Let me pose them again:
What entry wound can explain both the cortical damage and the subcortical damage, given that they are separate and unconnected? You realize that the subcortical damage is described in the supplemental autopsy report, right? And you realize that the cortical damage is described in the HSCA FPP report, right? You understand these basic facts, right? Right?
What entry wound can explain just the subcortical damage? If you reject the EOP entry wound, how can you explain the subcortical damage? (But, of course, if you accept the EOP entry wound, you must reject the debunked cowlick site, and you must assume that a bullet that entered at a 15-degree downward angle somehow magically veered sharply upward and rightward immediately after penetrating the skull or that JFK was leaning forward by over 50 degrees when the bullet struck. You must also explain why the entry wound was smaller than the caliber of the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, especially given the fact that entry wounds in skulls are always considerably larger than the bullet's caliber--the entry wound in the one available photo of one of the skulls from the WC's wound ballistics test is 8 mm in diameter.)
Given that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick entry site, and given that the high fragment trail is above the cowlick site, what entry wound can explain the high fragment trail, especially given the fact that the smallest fragments in the trail, i.e., the tiny particles in the fragment cloud, are at the opposite end of the skull, far from the supposed entry site, in violation of the laws of physics?
Keeping in mind that, per the laws of physics, the heaviest fragments would be farther away from the entry point and the smallest fragments would be nearest the entry point, is not the cloud of tiny particles in the right-frontal region evidence that a bullet struck there, given the fact that the larger fragments in the high fragment trail are farther toward the back of the head?
What entry wound can explain the small fragment within the 6.5 mm object's image and the McDonnel fragment in the back of the head? Given the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table or in the scalp when penetrating a skull, does not this prove that those two fragments did not come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used?
Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the cause of the subcortical damage? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP did not even make it clear that the subcortical damage was well below the cortical damage?
Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors not only said nothing about the high fragment trail but also said nothing about the cortical damage in the autopsy report?
Given that the autopsy skull x-rays show "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing, given that we know that bits of JFK's brain were splattered onto 16 surfaces, and given the numerous accounts that a large part of JFK's brain was missing, is it not obvious that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent since they show only 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing? Or do you claim that the skull x-rays are fraudulent and that the brain photos show the brain as it actually was?
How do you explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray at the autopsy? Is it just a coincidence that one of the lines goes straight through the subcortical damage? Is it just a coincidence that the other line goes to a point at the top of the forehead, close to the site of the right-frontal entry wound that some experts have identified in the skull x-rays? Is it just a coincidence that several witnesses, including one of the morticians, reported seeing a small wound in the right temple? Is it just a coincidence that Dr. Burkley told White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that a bullet entered in the right temple, and that Kilduff demonstrated this in his 11/22 press conference by pointing to his own right temple?
Good luck with this. Life is to short to waste a second more of time babysitting a grown man pretending to be clever.
There are two wounds on his head and you propose two shooters. The exit wound is clearly visible on film. Do the math.
-
Good luck with this. Life is to short to waste a second more of time babysitting a grown man pretending to be clever.
There are two wounds on his head and you propose two shooters. The exit wound is clearly visible on film. Do the math.
Translation: You have no earthly clue how to explain the evidence I've presented to you, so you're going to pretend it's meaningless and ignore it.
Oh, the exit wound is "clearly visible on film," hey? Really? Even if we assume this claim for the sake of argument (and therefore assume that the dozens of witnesses who said they saw a large right-rear head wound were all hallucinating), how does this explain the cortical and subcortical damage, the two back-of-head bullet fragments, the high fragment trail, the right-frontal cloud of metal particles, the trajectory lines on the right lateral skull x-ray, etc., etc., etc.?
-
Translation: You have no earthly clue how to explain the evidence I've presented to you, so you're going to pretend it's meaningless and ignore it.
Beyond some cut and paste technobabble, you haven't presented a damn thing, it's about time you extract yourself from last century and learn how to present your evidence in the visual realm, it seems that all your evidence comes from the suddenly "authentic" -cough- photo record so why don't you graphically plot the course of the two bullet paths, so for those of us with "high school" educations can follow along.
If it's so blatantly obvious, this simple visual representation should be a piece of cake!
JohnM
-
Beyond some cut and paste technobabble, you haven't presented a damn thing,
Translation: You can't explain the evidence either. I guess you're hoping that most readers are either as brainwashed as you are or that they will only read your replies and not mine. "Technobabble"? Really? Is the material that far over your head?
it's about time you extract yourself from last century and learn how to present your evidence in the visual realm, it seems that all your evidence comes from the suddenly "authentic" -cough- photo record so why don't you graphically plot the course of the two bullet paths, so for those of us with "high school" educations can follow along. If it's so blatantly obvious, this simple visual representation should be a piece of cake! JohnM
Uhhhh, Dr. Riley already did this! I linked one of his diagrams in the OP. The cortical and subcortical damage paths are described in government sources. The HSCA FPP even provided some graphics to illustrate the cortical damage. Ditto for the high fragment trail and the small fragment within the image of the AP x-rays 6.5 mm object. The large amount of missing right brain in the skull x-rays was first documented by Dr. Hodges and has been confirmed by several other medical experts.
Do you really need graphics to understand this stuff? If so, perhaps you don't belong here.
-
"Subcortical damage" is not a missile path. What reputable source claims there is an open missile channel that passed through the corpus callosum?
The superficial tears were probably caused by several factors, such as coup damage and the right hemisphere being jostled violently by the passage of the bullet that entered the cowlick area. A part of the brain also spills forward (then back into the brain case) in the Zapruder film just after the head shot.
If Quack Riley thinks the corpus callosum damage was some distance from the the large primary laceration, he either doesn't understand the metric system or he shares your aversion to perspective and visualization.
-
Translation: You can't explain the evidence either. I guess you're hoping that most readers are either as brainwashed as you are or that they will only read your replies and not mine. "Technobabble"? Really? Is the material that far over your head?
Uhhhh, Dr. Riley already did this! I linked one of his diagrams in the OP. The cortical and subcortical damage paths are described in government sources. The HSCA FPP even provided some graphics to illustrate the cortical damage. Ditto for the high fragment trail and the small fragment within the image of the AP x-rays 6.5 mm object. The large amount of missing right brain in the skull x-rays was first documented by Dr. Hodges and has been confirmed by several other medical experts.
Do you really need graphics to understand this stuff? If so, perhaps you don't belong here.
You can't explain the evidence either.
What's to explain, a heap of Forensic Scientist's have studied the genuine Autopsy material and as one have come to one conclusion that Kennedy was struck once from behind in the head!
Whereas you trawl through the internet and find some Kook who isn't a Forensic Scientist and who is basically a brain theorist and without the proper experience in trauma and gunshot wounds espouses a belief that other paranoid Kooks can then cream their jeans, and claim some nasty unseen conspiracy, and some of these gullible supporters can even try to sell a book or two! This industry of praying on the feeble minded really is abhorrent, are you proud of yourself?
I guess you're hoping that most readers are either as brainwashed as you are or that they will only read your replies and not mine.
Ohhh that's it isn't it, the elitist syndrome, when someone doesn't buy your Kooky theories, they're obviously not thinking for themselves and are now brainwashed!? Hilarious
"Technobabble"? Really? Is the material that far over your head?
Again this reinforces my previous point, the reason you copy and paste all these technical terms that you obviously don't understand, is that you have a massive chip on your shoulder and you want to prove to Daddy that you are finally becoming a Man!
At the end of the day, the many Forensic Scientist's who by definition have been peer reviewed, all came to the same conclusion whereas your outlier 1 specialist without the proper training begs to differ! Give me a break!
Uhhhh, Dr. Riley already did this! I linked one of his diagrams in the OP.
Yep, drawing some lines over a drawing of a generic brain is the epitome of a scientific study! -giggle-
(https://i.postimg.cc/fb9kZnC3/Riley-s-rectangle-over-a-brain-drawing.jpg)
The cortical and subcortical damage paths are described in government sources. The HSCA FPP even provided some graphics to illustrate the cortical damage.
Why do you believe this damage was cause by another bullet path? When a bullet passes through a gelatinous mass i.e. the brain, the expended pressure causes a lot of damage. EDIT I just saw Jerry's post which really puts the final nail in this nonsense. Go Jerry, go!
(https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/diesel-effect-ballistics-gel.gif?w=400)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pLwRf0bz/Ballistic-gell.gif)
Do you really need graphics to understand this stuff?
When describing a theory that originated from the visual record, you don't think that graphics using the original source material would help define this analysis, you even posted Riley's crayon drawing in the OP but clearly, this is insufficient.
If so, perhaps you don't belong here.
When I discuss the JFKA visual record I will post graphics and images to illustrate my point, like in another of your threads where my response has so far been ignored.
For example;
JFK was clearly hit from behind.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pd9xyFhr/tink.gif)
And the first frame where JFK was moving back and to the left, there is no back of hole wound and no resulting expulsion of matter, proving once and for all that this motion was not caused by a bullet. And for those who propose a second bullet path based on an unprovable amateur observation really need to re-establish their life goals!
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhdGR8wN/zap-314-315-a.gif)
JohnM
-
Translation: You have no earthly clue how to explain the evidence I've presented to you, so you're going to pretend it's meaningless and ignore it.
Oh, the exit wound is "clearly visible on film," hey? Really? Even if we assume this claim for the sake of argument (and therefore assume that the dozens of witnesses who said they saw a large right-rear head wound were all hallucinating), how does this explain the cortical and subcortical damage, the two back-of-head bullet fragments, the high fragment trail, the right-frontal cloud of metal particles, the trajectory lines on the right lateral skull x-ray, etc., etc., etc.?
I can't believe you are still posting about this. What is it about a bullet passing through his brain and causing all kinds of damage that you do not understand. There is one entrance wound and one exit wound, do the math. I am not pretending it is meaningless. In the real world it is meaningless. Stop listening to these internet oddballs, and I am sure you will figure it out.
-
Beyond some cut and paste technobabble, you haven't presented a damn thing, it's about time you extract yourself from last century and learn how to present your evidence in the visual realm, it seems that all your evidence comes from the suddenly "authentic" -cough- photo record so why don't you graphically plot the course of the two bullet paths, so for those of us with "high school" educations can follow along. If it's so blatantly obvious, this simple visual representation should be a piece of cake! JohnM
I think this obvious dodge deserves further comment. I explained this issue in simple terms that anyone should be able to grasp. So did Dr. Riley. So did Martin Hay. Where was the "technobabble" in any of the statements below from my original post:
Me:
-------------------------------------------------
Let us examine in more detail the lone-gunman theory’s inability to explain the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back.
-------------------------------------------------
Dr. Riley:
-------------------------------------------------
In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well, extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. . . .
-------------------------------------------------
Martin Hay:
-------------------------------------------------
There were two separate and distinct areas of damage to the President’s brain, in the cortical and subcortical regions, and “no evidence of continuity” between the two.
-------------------------------------------------
What don't you understand about these plain statements? Where was the "technobabble" in any of these statements?
We both know that the real problem for you is that you can't explain the two separate wound paths in JFK's brain. Your version of the shooting only allows for one bullet to the head, so you have no way to explain the presence of two separate, unconnected wound paths. Since you've obviously rejected the option of admitting that your shooting scenario is wrong, you've decided to pretend that this hard evidence is meaningless and to ignore it, even though you expose yourself as a propagandist in doing so.
You're doing a similar dance around the issues of the two back-of-head fragments, the high fragment trail, the raw contradiction between the skull x-rays and the brain photos, the absence of the low fragment trail in the extant skull x-rays, the astonishing failure of the autopsy doctors to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage, and the undamaged cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site. We both know that you have no rational, sensible, plausible explanation for these issues, so you duck and dodge and bob and weave around them, constantly going off on strawman diversions and evasions.
Not one of these issues is all that technical or hard to understand. The problem is that your version of the shooting can't explain them. A quick revisiting:
-- The high fragment trail does not end/begin at, or even near, the debunked cowlick entry site. In fact, the high fragment trail is above the cowlick site. Its highest point is toward the back of the head, and from there it goes slightly downward and ends, or begins, in the cloud of tiny metal particles in the right-frontal region. How in the world could a bullet that entered at a 15-degree downward angle at the cowlick site have created that fragment trail when the trail doesn't even extend to/from the site and is above the site?
-- You have no way to explain the two back-of-head fragments--the small fragment on the lateral x-rays that is within the AP x-ray's image of the 6.5 mm object and the McDonnel fragment. Not a single expert has denied the existence of these two fragments. Even Sturdivan has admitted that the lateral x-rays show a small fragment in the back of the head that vertically aligns with the image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. The problem is that that fragment cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object, which is undeniable evidence that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is an artifact.
How did those two fragments get there? What bullet could have deposited them? Not an FMJ bullet. No one has yet found a case where an FMJ bullet deposited a fragment in the outer table or the scalp when penetrating a skull, much less two fragments and much less from its cross section. A lead bullet could have deposited those fragments, but there's no entry point that could have enabled a lead bullet to deposit those fragments. They are 1 cm below the cowlick site, and the McDonnel fragment is even farther away from the site than is the other fragment. The only feasible, scientific explanation is that they are ricochet fragments from the pavement strike.
-- To all but brainwashed WC apologists, the two separate cortical and subcortical wound paths scream two bullets. Those wound paths are a matter of record. The HSCA FPP described both of them, although their description of the subcortical path was suspiciously vague. However, the autopsy doctors described the subcortical damage in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report. Thus, no WC apologist can claim or pretend that there's any doubt about the two wound paths. The problem is that you guys only have one bullet to explain those wound paths.
-- The HSCA FPP acknowledged the subcortical damage but made no effort to explain it. They knew it is well below the cortical damage. They knew that the cortical damage is above the cowlick site and that the subcortical damage is below the cowlick site. And they knew there is no connection between the two paths. So, rather than try to explain how one bullet could have created two separate wound paths, they simply ignored the issue.
-- The autopsy doctors committed an even more egregious omission by failing to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage! They described the subcortical damage in great detail, since that damage is consistent with the EOP entry wound. But, they said nothing about the cortical damage, and nothing about the high fragment trail. Why? Because they could not explain that damage and that fragment trail with the EOP entry wound, and because they were unwilling, or were not allowed, to posit two bullets to the head.
-- The autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, as even Vincent Bugliosi foolishly (and gladly) acknowledged. There is a deep laceration (cut) in the right cerebrum (the right side of the brain), but there is virtually no brain tissue missing. However, in the autopsy skull x-rays, a large portion of the right brain is missing. This was first noticed by Dr. Fred Hodges (a member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel) and has been confirmed by a number of other experts--this has also been confirmed by optical density measurements.
It is not one bit surprising that the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing brain, given the fact that a number of witnesses who saw JFK's head wound (including mortician Tom Robinson) said a large part of the brain was missing, and given the fact that we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces. But WC apologists duck and dodge over these facts because the autopsy brain photos show a brain with virtually no tissue missing (no more than 1-2 ounces).
-- The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that started at the EOP entry site and went upward to a point just above the right orbit. However, no such low fragment trail is seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.
Dr. Hodges said that on the autopsy skull x-rays that he examined, he saw tiny fragments in "a crude pathway between the right occipital bone and the right posterior mid-frontal bone" (p. 2). However, (1) this trail does not quite match the trail described in the autopsy report, although it is roughly similar to it, and (2) no other expert has seen this right-occipital-bone-to-rear-frontal-bone trail. The HSCA FPP didn't see it. The ARRB forensic experts, including the forensic radiologist, didn't see it. And Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc., haven't seen it.
It is possible that Dr. Hodges was shown JFK autopsy skull x-rays that have not been shown to other experts. If some autopsy skull x-rays do show a trail from the right occiput to the rear part of the frontal bone, this is further devastating evidence against the debunked cowlick entry site.
In any event, the bottom line is that no other expert has seen a low fragment trail on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. If such a trail was present in the skull during the autopsy, this is powerful evidence for the EOP site and against the cowlick site. When the ARRB showed Humes the skull x-rays and asked him to identify the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, he was visibly baffled and admitted he saw no fragments in the area described in the autopsy report.
-
To get a clearer picture of the stark difference between the two wound paths, we should keep in mind a fact that WC apologists never discuss, i.e., that the high fragment trail is a whopping 5 cm/1.96 inches above the cowlick entry site. The Clark Panel wrongly claimed that the trail aligned with the cowlick site. To its credit, the HSCA FPP acknowledged the trail's correct location, albeit only after one of its consulting radiologists, Dr. David O. Davis, identified the correct location.
In an editorial published in the journal Neurosurgery, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Gary Aguilar, and Rex Bradford discuss the location of the high fragment trail:
The radiologist for the Clark Panel, a group that preferred a 10-cm higher in-shoot, reported the fragment trail aligns perfectly with that higher position [the cowlick site], well above the lambda in parietal bone (31). It was not until HSCA consultant, David O. Davis, M.D., described it that the trail’s true location received official recognition—a full 5-cm higher than Clark had it and 15-cm higher than the pathologists reported. (After inspection of the original x-rays at the National Archives, both Drs. Wecht and Aguilar affirm the accuracy of Dr. Davis’s high placement of this quite obvious trail of fragments [Fig. C9].) ("A Neuroforensic Analysis of the Wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A Study of the Available Evidence, Eyewitness Correlations, Analysis, and Conclusions," Neurosurgery, September 2005, p. 12, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
The cortical brain damage is above the high fragment trail. No wonder Dr. Humes omitted both the high fragment trail and the cortical damage from the autopsy report.
These facts raise a question: Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? Where is the trail that the autopsy doctors insisted started near the EOP site and extended to a point just above the right orbit? It boggles the mind to think that they were describing the high fragment trail, whose lowest point is at least 3 inches above the EOP site and whose highest point is about 4 inches above the EOP site. Did they fabricate the low fragment trail? Or, was the low fragment trail removed from the skull x-rays after the autopsy?
-
Only some crackpot from Deep Politics thinks there can be two entrance wounds and no exit wounds and no bullets. This is what i came to realize it was, just nonsense.
Allow me to bump this thread by circling back to this confused, unseemly dodge.
Are you actually claiming that Dr. Joseph N. Riley was a "crackpot"? FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.
You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.
Anyway, why do you suppose the HSCA FPP was so vague about the subcortical damage and made no effort to explain how it could have been caused by the same bullet that caused the cortical damage? The FPP described the cortical damage in detail, but gave only a brief, vague description of the subcortical damage, and made no effort to explain how the alleged Oswald headshot bullet could have caused the subcortical wound path. Why?
The Clark Panel described both the cortical and the subcortical damage but, like the HSCA FPP, made no effort to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage. In fact, the Clark Panel made the astoundingly erroneous claim that the high fragment trail was consistent with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail somehow also aligned with the cowlick entry site! Of course, we now know that the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and about 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP entry site.
Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail in the autopsy report and in the supplemental autopsy report? They described the subcortical damage in detail in the supplemental autopsy report, but uttered not a single word about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. They insisted that they saw a low fragment trail that started "slightly above" the EOP and extended to a point just above the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the existing skull x-rays.
Isn't it obvious that the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail and the cortical damage because they knew they could not be associated with the EOP entry site and therefore indicated that two bullets hit the skull? Isn't it obvious that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP failed to explain how the subcortical damage could be associated with the cowlick site because they recognized that the subcortical damage was too low to have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, since there is no connection whatsoever--no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing--between the subcortical damage and the cortical damage?
We should keep in mind that the autopsy evidence was not supposed to be seen by skeptical or independent experts for decades. Thus, the autopsy doctors believed they could get away with ignoring two obvious, problematic areas of damage in the skull. Similarly, the Clark Panel believed they could get away with claiming that the high fragment trail on the skull x-rays matches the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail aligns with the cowlick site.
But, then along came the HSCA FPP, who, for all their many errors and omissions, (1) at least identified the high fragment trail's actual location in relation to the EOP site, (2) acknowledged that the back wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC placed it, and (3) acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered at an upward angle and traveled upward from there. (If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit, never mind that no photo or footage shows JFK leaning that far forward during any of the proposed times for the SBT hit.)
Also, three of the HSCA FPP's expert consultants provided a number of crucial new findings: Dr. David O. Davis determined that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick site, and that the trail is well above the cowlick site (5 cm/1.9 inches above it, to be exact). Dr. Gerald McDonnel noted that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone, and he detected a previously unrecognized fragment on the back of the skull lodged between the outer table and the galea to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the cowlick site. And, Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized that the triangular skull fragment is frontal bone and that there is a gap between the frontal defect and the parietal-temporal defect.
Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.
-
Allow me to bump this thread by circling back to this confused, unseemly dodge.
Are you actually claiming that Dr. Joseph N. Riley was a "crackpot"? FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.
You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.
Anyway, why do you suppose the HSCA FPP was so vague about the subcortical damage and made no effort to explain how it could have been caused by the same bullet that caused the cortical damage? The FPP described the cortical damage in detail, but gave only a brief, vague description of the subcortical damage, and made no effort to explain how the alleged Oswald headshot bullet could have caused the subcortical wound path. Why?
The Clark Panel described both the cortical and the subcortical damage but, like the HSCA FPP, made no effort to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage. In fact, the Clark Panel made the astoundingly erroneous claim that the high fragment trail was consistent with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail somehow also aligned with the cowlick entry site! Of course, we now know that the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and about 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP entry site.
Why do you suppose the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail in the autopsy report and in the supplemental autopsy report? They described the subcortical damage in detail in the supplemental autopsy report, but uttered not a single word about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. They insisted that they saw a low fragment trail that started "slightly above" the EOP and extended to a point just above the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the existing skull x-rays.
Isn't it obvious that the autopsy doctors suppressed the high fragment trail and the cortical damage because they knew they could not be associated with the EOP entry site and therefore indicated that two bullets hit the skull? Isn't it obvious that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP failed to explain how the subcortical damage could be associated with the cowlick site because they recognized that the subcortical damage was too low to have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, since there is no connection whatsoever--no wound path, no fragment trail, no nothing--between the subcortical damage and the cortical damage?
We should keep in mind that the autopsy evidence was not supposed to be seen by skeptical or independent experts for decades. Thus, the autopsy doctors believed they could get away with ignoring two obvious, problematic areas of damage in the skull. Similarly, the Clark Panel believed they could get away with claiming that the high fragment trail on the skull x-rays matches the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and that the high fragment trail aligns with the cowlick site.
But, then along came the HSCA FPP, who, for all their many errors and omissions, (1) at least identified the high fragment trail's actual location in relation to the EOP site, (2) acknowledged that the back wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC placed it, and (3) acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered at an upward angle and traveled upward from there. (If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit, never mind that no photo or footage shows JFK leaning that far forward during any of the proposed times for the SBT hit.)
Also, three of the HSCA FPP's expert consultants provided a number of crucial new findings: Dr. David O. Davis determined that the high fragment trail does not extend to/from the cowlick site, and that the trail is well above the cowlick site (5 cm/1.9 inches above it, to be exact). Dr. Gerald McDonnel noted that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone, and he detected a previously unrecognized fragment on the back of the skull lodged between the outer table and the galea to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the cowlick site. And, Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized that the triangular skull fragment is frontal bone and that there is a gap between the frontal defect and the parietal-temporal defect.
Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.
“You have no expert on your side who can touch Dr. Riley's qualifications in neuroscience, and yet you make the scurrilous, comical claim that he was a "crackpot" because he, like many other private medical experts, concluded that two bullets penetrated JFK's skull.””
Who needs someone like Dr. Riley. A crackpot is someone who ignores the fact that the bullet was fired from the TSBD and there was just one entrance wound and one exit wound but talks about two shooters and two bullets anyway. Why is that so hard to understand? All the medical jargon and supposed expert opinion does not change this fact. Back to explain the two entrance and exit wounds. Do you really not understand why this is important and talking about all this brain damage when only one bullet caused the damage is silly.
----------------------------------------
“the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.”
This endless high pitched squeal seems to be the basis of your whole theory. A bullet was fragmenting as it went through his brain. Were you expecting no damage. There bullet fragments by his eye.
--------------------------------
“If you're wondering how Dr. Baden could still support the SBT after admitting the bullet had an upward trajectory, he demonstrated his solution on national TV by leaning about 50 degrees forward and assumed that JFK was leaning that far forward when the bullet hit”
Brehm stated he was leaning forward when the first shot hit making Baden correct.
“When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded”
----------------------------------------------
“Then, starting in the 1990s, private experts who were not determined to uphold the lone-gunman theory were able to examine the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and these experts have made historic discoveries about those materials.”
The private experts are not limited to just medical people. The Medical opinion in the JFK assassination is nothing more than a carnival game where you can spin the wheel and get any answer you want to support your opinion. You spin and spin and spin the opinion wheel until the most unbelievable answer comes up that somehow fits this theory you have created. Then you claim it is the truth.
There is another opinion and another expert you seem to have ignored, who was allowed to view Archive evidence, was Dr E Forrest Chapman. He concluded there was only two shots fired by LHO. He concluded, by the indentation on the primer of CE543, that CE 543 was “dryfired”. Unless you can explain what Chapman and the WC’s Joseph Nicol both believed, which is confirmed by your own paper on the subject, I am not sure where you get this wild eyed theory of an additional headshot. Do you not believe what you yourself wrote?
I should not have to explain the significance of CE 543 as you have written and published a paper on The Dented Shell. You are a fan of Howard Donahue who also determined the same fact. You can post all the adverse medical information you want but the assassination viewed through a two shot lense doesn’t allow for all the differing explanations you offer.
---------------------------
In your essay dated December of 1997, you quoted both Howard Donahue and Chris Mills as proof there were only two shots from the SN.
In your Nov 2023 post you again claim there were only two shots from the SN.
Michael Griffith
Posted November 16, 2023 (edited)
The main point of the chapter is that the dented shell could not have fired a bullet on 11/22/63.
The shallow back wound could have been caused by a short shot, a shot that was traveling at a greatly reduced speed. Since the throat shot was the first hit, JFK's back muscles would have been very tight from stress and tension--this would have helped to prevent the back-wound bullet from penetrating more than a short distance. (JFK starts the motion of reaching for his throat at around Z202 in response to the throat shot, long before he is obviously hit in the back and jolted forward at Z226-232.
Science tells us that bullets that are traveling as "slowly" as 165-200 fps can penetrate skin. A bullet traveling at 200 fps has a max effective range of about 75-100 feet. A bullet moving at 400 fps has a max effective range of about 150-200 feet. A bullet moving at 600 fps has a max effective range of about 200-300 feet. If the back wound was caused by a short shot, I would guess that its velocity was somewhere around 600 fps when it left the barrel. JFK's greatly tightened back muscles would have contributed to the bullet's shallow penetration.
As many researchers have noted, a number of witnesses commented that one of the shots sounded noticeably different from the others. This could have been a short shot.
One thing that is crystal clear from the ARRB releases is that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined via prolonged probing and body manipulation that the back wound had no exit point and that the bullet did not penetrate the pleural cavity. This, of course, is why one of the drafts of the autopsy report said that the throat wound was made by an exiting fragment from the head shot.
===========
Unbelievable, I keep telling you to stop listening to these internet clowns and think for yourself. Look at what you posted. This whole medical nonsense is so much crap. What you have stated here, is that of the three shells found on the 6th floor, only two were fired. A short shot is beyond the realm of even ridiculous bordering on complete stupidity. Exactly explain the physics of firing a round without sufficient powder to even create a known trajectory to accurately aim the rifle for the shot. The whole idea of having aimed the rifle in a normal fashion and firing off a round like what is stated in this post is completely goofy. In reality, this fantasy twilight zone shot does not even enter the conversation because by your own admission there were only two shots fired from the SN, which means shot one is the SBT throat shot, and shot two is the headshot. Nowhere in this bizarre theory is there even an attempt to at an explanation of JBC’s wounds. Do you not understand your own assessment of the shots explains all of JFK’s wounds along with JBC”s without these make believe other shooters.
The shot sounded noticeably different because LHO had the rifle retracted into the room to avoid detection by the Secret Service. No idea where all the dust on BRW’s hair came from? Fire a gun in a room and see how unpleasant that really is if you want to know why the rifle was then stuck out of the window.
-
"Subcortical damage" is not a missile path.
Uh, yes it is. Dr. Riley diagrammed it in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," as I've noted previously. It's described in the supplemental autopsy report--more on this in a moment.
What reputable source claims there is an open missile channel that passed through the corpus callosum?
Umm, much of the subcortical damage was below the body of the corpus callosum. See Dr. Riley's diagram in Figure 2D in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries" (here's the link, again: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)).
Sheesh, you don't even know what you're talking about, as usual. This is just one of the many times you've proved you don't have a handle on the basic facts (or refuse to acknowledge the basic facts) of the issues you're discussing.
The supplemental autopsy report says there was a separate subcortical laceration that went from the genu to the "tail" (splenium) of the corpus callosum. That's a wound path of at least 2 inches right there. The genu is the front end of the corpus callosum. The splenium is the rear end (or tail) of the corpus callosum. In the average male brain, there are at least 2 inches between the genu and the splenium.
Moreover, the supplemental autopsy report adds that this end-to-end laceration of the corpus callosum exposed "the interiors of the right lateral and third ventricles." Do you know where the third ventricle is? It is below the corpus callosum and parallel with the occipital lobe. The right later ventricle is also below the body of the corpus callosum. Did you not bother to read the supplemental autopsy report before you posted your reply?
See Dr. Riley's article, including his diagram of the subcortical damage therein, to educate yourself on the extent of the subcortical wound path.
The superficial tears were probably caused by several factors, such as coup damage and the right hemisphere being jostled violently by the passage of the bullet that entered the cowlick area. A part of the brain also spills forward (then back into the brain case) in the Zapruder film just after the head shot.
"Superficial tears"?! What an absolute joke. As Dr. Riley noted, the subcortical damage was "far more extensive in terms of volume of tissue damaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex" (p. 10). (Just to be clear, Dr. Riley was using the term "superficial" in its medical meaning of "surface." He stipulated that the cortical damage was on the surface of the brain, and that the subcortical damage was well below it.)
Since the subcortical damage was more severe than the cortical damage, your comical explanation is an abortion from the outset. I notice you said nothing about the EOP entry site and the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, which site and trail would explain the subcortical damage.
And since the cortical damage was less severe than the subcortical damage, shall we follow your pitiful logic and theorize that it was caused merely by the brain's being jostled around?! Why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP did not float your ridiculous explanation?
I see you're still peddling the debunked cowlick entry site. If a bullet entered there, why is there no fragment trail that starts or ends near it? Why is the only fragment trail in the upper half of the skull located 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site? If a bullet entered at the cowlick site at any kind of a downward angle, how did two fragments end up 1 cm below the site? Why did every single autopsy witness who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound say that the wound was right next to the EOP and near the hairline, not 4 inches higher in the cowlick? Why did the only three doctors who actually handled the skull after the scalp had been reflected insist that there was no wound in the cowlick? And on and on we could go.
If Quack Riley thinks the corpus callosum damage was some distance from the the large primary laceration, he either doesn't understand the metric system or he shares your aversion to perspective and visualization.
Oh, Dr. Riley was a "quack," huh?! Given your track record of making blunderingly errant claims, you are the last person on Earth to be calling anyone a quack.
FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology. His research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.
But here you are pretending to know more than he did about brain anatomy and claiming that he had an aversion to perspective and visualization! You don't even know the extent and location of the subcortical damage, and yet you pretend that you know more than Dr. Riley did on the subject. Heck, just a few weeks ago, you said the cerebellum was part of the right cerebrum and claimed that Dr. Riley put the cowlick site near the vertex! You are not to be taken seriously.
Tell me, does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage? For that matter, can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?
-
Uh, yes it is. Dr. Riley diagrammed it in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," as I've noted previously. It's described in the supplemental autopsy report--more on this in a moment.
Umm, much of the subcortical damage was below the body of the corpus callosum. See Dr. Riley's diagram in Figure 2D in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries" (here's the link, again: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)).
(https://images2.imgbox.com/31/dc/7Tn13bWv_o.gif)
Almost like something tore at the bulk of the brain's right's side and caused things to tear below.
Sheesh, you don't even know what you're talking about, as usual. This is just one of the many times you've proved you don't have a handle on the basic facts (or refuse to acknowledge the basic facts) of the issues you're discussing.
The supplemental autopsy report says there was a separate subcortical laceration that went from the genu to the "tail" (splenium) of the corpus callosum. That's a wound path of at least 2 inches right there. The genu is the front end of the corpus callosum. The splenium is the rear end (or tail) of the corpus callosum. In the average male brain, there are at least 2 inches between the genu and the splenium.
They don't say it's a missile path with an open tunnel with missing tissue, or say it was caused by a bullet. A laceration can be a tear with no tissue missing. The out-folding of the right cerebrum in the brain photo could have caused the tear to be seen to be open. Or they manually opened the laceration to see how deep it went.
Moreover, the supplemental autopsy report adds that this end-to-end laceration of the corpus callosum exposed "the interiors of the right lateral and third ventricles." Do you know where the third ventricle is? It is below the corpus callosum and parallel with the occipital lobe. The right later ventricle is also below the body of the corpus callosum. Did you not bother to read the supplemental autopsy report before you posted your reply?
See Dr. Riley's article, including his diagram of the subcortical damage therein, to educate yourself on the extent of the subcortical wound path.
"Superficial tears"?! What an absolute joke. As Dr. Riley noted, the subcortical damage was "far more extensive in terms of volume of tissue damaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex" (p. 10). (Just to be clear, Dr. Riley was using the term "superficial" in its medical meaning of "surface." He stipulated that the cortical damage was on the surface of the brain, and that the subcortical damage was well below it.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fb9kZnC3/Riley-s-rectangle-over-a-brain-drawing.jpg)
Riley contends the following HSCA description of a "groove" corresponds to his "subcortical" missile path through the corpus callosum (drawing above).
"On the right cerebral hemisphere is an anterior-posterior cylindrical
groove in which the brain substance is fragmented or absent. This
groove extends from the back of the brain to the right frontal area
of the brain."
But, as one can see, they're describing the "right cerebral hemisphere", particularly the area near the midline, which would be above the corpus callosum. That's where the missing tissue is. However, Riley diminishes the traditional large laceration (whose height extended some 4.5cm from the vertex to its base) by claiming that brain matter, said to be missing and blown out by the HSCA, is actually present in the brain photograph but out-folded. Jack White would be proud.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/id/615318314/it/foto/drawing-of-john-f-kennedys-brain-included-as-an-exhibit-for-the-house-assassinations-committee.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=QA2z99S5oWXB3FTzinMrSneBejozXTjxKNrL2bV1u2I=)
Riley (and Griffith, the Mormon "scholar") apparently know more (or are comfortable with promoting fiction) than the HSCA and Clark Panel, the latter writing of the right cerebral hemisphere:
"It is transected by a broad canal running generally in a posteroanterior
direction and to the right of the midline. Much of the roof of this canal is
missing, as are most of the overlying frontal and parietal gyri."
Since the subcortical damage was more severe than the cortical damage, your comical explanation is an abortion from the outset. I notice you said nothing about the EOP entry site and the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, which site and trail would explain the subcortical damage.
And since the cortical damage was less severe than the subcortical damage, shall we follow your pitiful logic and theorize that it was caused merely by the brain's being jostled around?! Why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP did not float your ridiculous explanation?
I see you're still peddling the debunked cowlick entry site. If a bullet entered there, why is there no fragment trail that starts or ends near it? Why is the only fragment trail in the upper half of the skull located 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site? If a bullet entered at the cowlick site at any kind of a downward angle, how did two fragments end up 1 cm below the site? Why did every single autopsy witness who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound say that the wound was right next to the EOP and near the hairline, not 4 inches higher in the cowlick? Why did the only three doctors who actually handled the skull after the scalp had been reflected insist that there was no wound in the cowlick? And on and on we could go.
Oh, Dr. Riley was a "quack," huh?! Given your track record of making blunderingly errant claims, you are the last person on Earth to be calling anyone a quack.
I can tell that when someone is describing damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere", they're not describing a missile path thought the corpus callosum.
FYI, Dr. Riley was a recognized and respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology. His research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.
But here you are pretending to know more than he did about brain anatomy and claiming that he had an aversion to perspective and visualization! You don't even know the extent and location of the subcortical damage, and yet you pretend that you know more than Dr. Riley did on the subject. Heck, just a few weeks ago, you said the cerebellum was part of the right cerebrum and claimed that Dr. Riley put the cowlick site near the vertex! You are not to be taken seriously.
Tell me, does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage? For that matter, can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?
My "side" don't take damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere" and falsely apply it to invent a missile path thought the corpus callosum.
-
Almost like something tore at the bulk of the brain's right's side and caused things to tear below.
Oh, so a separate extended "tear"--read: wound path--just magically got created through and below the corpus callosum from a wound in the cowlick, never mind that there's no fragment trail within 2 inches of the subcortical damage, and no path or trail between the cortical and subcortical damage! Sorry, wound paths--or separate extended "tears"--don't happen like that.
Again, why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP made no attempt to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage? Why do you suppose they did not float your ludicrous explanation of the subcortical damage?
Before I continue, allow me to note that you said nothing about your erroneous claim that the subcortical damage was "superficial" ("minor" in your usage). Obviously, you were unaware that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of damaged tissue than the cortical damage. Your claim that the subcortical damage was superficial (minor) was the key assumption of your jostled-brain explanation.
But, as you usually do when you're caught peddling nonsense, you failed to acknowledge your error and continued to float your jostled-brain explanation. Throughout your time in this forum, this cycle has repeated itself over and over. You just bounce from one invalid claim to the next.
Allow me to also note that you said nothing about the damage below the corpus callosum. Not one word. Gee, why not?
Allow me to also note that you said nothing about your bogus claim that the skull x-rays show no missing frontal bone, and that you did not answer any of my questions about the debunked cowlick entry site.
They [the autopsy doctors] don't say it's a missile path with an open tunnel with missing tissue, or say it was caused by a bullet.
LOL! I mean, really? Are you really making this argument, with a straight face?! The autopsy doctors didn't even describe the cortical damage or the high fragment trail, yet you infer from their failure to explicitly specify the cause of the subcortical damage that they didn't think it was caused by a bullet?! How in the world can anyone take your nonsense seriously?
If they didn't think the damage was caused by a bullet, one would think they would have said so. This was, after all, an autopsy report. The only cause of damage to the head that they mentioned was a bullet that entered slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP.
They specified that the bullet deposited a fragment trail that started near the EOP and went upward to a point just above the right orbit, and that the bullet's exit wound was above the right ear. As several scholars have noted, a bullet entering at the EOP site could have caused the subcortical damage--but not the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. This is undoubtedly why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.
A laceration can be a tear with no tissue missing. The out-folding of the right cerebrum in the brain photo could have caused the tear to be seen to be open. Or they manually opened the laceration to see how deep it went.
An amateurish, not-so-clever, dishonest dodge. Did you forget the point that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of the amount of tissue damage than the cortical damage? Did that somehow slip your mind?
It's just amazing how often you pull this stunt of ignoring key contrary facts that have been pointed out to you and then repeating your position as if those facts do not exist.
Riley contends the following HSCA description of a "groove" corresponds to his "subcortical" missile path through the corpus callosum (drawing above).
"On the right cerebral hemisphere is an anterior-posterior cylindrical
groove in which the brain substance is fragmented or absent. This
groove extends from the back of the brain to the right frontal area
of the brain."
But, as one can see, they're describing the "right cerebral hemisphere", particularly the area near the midline, which would be above the corpus callosum. That's where the missing tissue is. However, Riley diminishes the traditional large laceration (whose height extended some 4.5cm from the vertex to its base) by claiming that brain matter, said to be missing and blown out by the HSCA, is actually present in the brain photograph but out-folded. Jack White would be proud.
Another amateurish, not-so-clever, and dishonest dodge. Did you forget the fact that, as Dr. Riley noted, the HSCA FPP said very little about the subcortical damage and provided only a brief, cursory, non-technical description of it? Did that key point slip your mind, or were you hoping that no one would notice your deception? Yet, according to you, Dr. Riley misrepresented the FPP's description of "the right cerebral hemisphere"! What an amazingly erroneous, misleading argument.
Moreover, you have simply ignored Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the FPP's brief, cursory description of the subcortical damage so you can falsely pretend that he misrepresented the FPP's description, when he did no such thing. You quoted the FPP's description but ignored Dr. Riley's three-paragraph explanation. Let's read what Dr. Riley wrote so everyone can see how dishonest and erroneous your argument is:
----------------------------------------------------
A description of all of the neuroanatomical structures involved is beyond the scope of this paper; however, by referring to Fig. 4D, the brain structures mentioned fall within or near the "groove" as described by the Panel. To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. Second, the wound passes near the midline. The brain is a bilateral structure but, for present purposes, it may be viewed as "joined together" except for the cerebral cortex. At the midline, the cortex "dips down" and two corresponding cortical regions (cingulate cortex) are located opposite of each other. A sheet of dura mater, termed the Falx, is located between the cigulate cortex on each hemisphere.
The subcortical damage is illustrated in Fig. 4A (HSCA exhibit F-302). (To the author's knowledge, there are no published photographs of the brain; however, the illustration is sufficient). To understand the relationship between the cortical and subcortical damage, it is crucial to understand what is shown and what is not. F-302 is NOT a view of the cortical damage ("cortical damage", as used here, refers to the dorsomedial cortex described previously upon which bullet fragments were distributed). What is illustrated is partially disrupted cingulate cortex that has shifted apparent location due to the disruption of brain tissue ventral (below) to it. In non-technical language, there is an outfolding of cortex due to its detachment from the brain tissue below it (in this case, largely the corpus callosum). Schematically, this is illustrated in Fig. 4F.
This interpretation is supported by the following evidence. First, the cingulate sulcus and parietooccipital sulcus are clearly evident (Figs. 4A-4D). The "grooves" on the cortical surface (sulci, singular is sulcus) and corresponding "ridges" (gyri, singular is gyrus) are arranged in an ordered and established pattern. The cingulate and parietooccipital sulci are located at the appropriate. position and there is no configuration of sulci on the dorsolateral surface that could account for this configuration. Since it is unlikely that many readers will be experienced neuroanatomists, it must be stressed that the identification of the cingulate sulcus is beyond reasonable doubt. The cigulate sulcus is found at the posteromedial margin of the postcentral gyrus. The precentral gyrus (primary motor cortex), postcentral gyrus (primary somatosensory cortex), and the central sulcus which separates them are well defined and unambiguous cortical landmarks. It is not a matter of differing interpretations; it is a matter of attending to the facts. There is no other valid interpretation. Anatomical landmarks can be obscured or obliterated by bullet wounds; they cannot be created. Second, as reviewed previously, the evidence accumulated by the Panel demonstrates that the cortical wound was relatively superficial; there had to be cortical tissue present for fragments to be distributed so near the surface of the brain. Finally, without discussing the effects of fixation on brain tissue in detail, the increase in surface area in the right hemisphere cannot be accounted for as "flattening" of the brain (see below). ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," pp. 11-12, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf))
----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Riley prefaced the section on the subcortical damage with the following paragraph:
----------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissuedamaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. It will be difficult, without a background in neuroanatomy, to understand the extent of this damage based solely on the written descriptions; however, it is not difficult to understand the wounds when they are placed in their anatomical relationships. (p. 10)
----------------------------------------------------
I might add that not one of the HSCA FPP members was a neuroscientist.
Riley (and Griffith, the Mormon "scholar") apparently know more (or are comfortable with promoting fiction) than the HSCA and Clark Panel, the latter writing of the right cerebral hemisphere:
"It is transected by a broad canal running generally in a posteroanterior
direction and to the right of the midline. Much of the roof of this canal is
missing, as are most of the overlying frontal and parietal gyri."
So you're doubling-down on your amateurish deception.
One, I will again note that none of the HSCA FPP members were neuroscientists. None of the Clark Panel members were neuroscientists, either. Heck, the Clark Panel erroneously claimed that the high fragment trail aligned with the cowlick site and also somehow magically corresponded to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report! As you surely know, the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and at least 10 cm above the starting point of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.
But you're so desperate to make people think that you have an answer for the subcortical damage that you apparently suffered another one of your frequent, convenient memory lapses about problems with your sources.
Two, what does the partial description of the brain damage in the right cerebrum that you quoted have to do with the subcortical damage? Did you notice that it refers to the "roof" (top) of the "canal" to the right of the midline? Did you not notice that it mentions that the "frontal and parietal gyri" are on top of the canal ("overlying frontal and parietal gyri")? Do you not know that these frontal gyri are at the top of the brain?
Either by ignorance or design, you happened to cherry pick the part of the Clark Panel's description of the brain damage that does not relate to the subcortical damage. You either did not realize how badly you were blundering, or else you thought that you could get away with such erroneous cherry-picking.
And, did you not notice that in the next paragraph the panel goes on to say that this damage was caused by a high-velocity bullet ("a single bullet travelling at high velocity") that entered at the cowlick site?! You know that the alleged murder rifle was a low-velocity weapon, as FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier specified to the WC, right? You know this, right? Let's read from Frazier's WC testimony:
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------
The Clark Panel did not even know that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle. They were right about the fact that the skull and brain damage indicate the use of a high-velocity rifle--they just did not know that the supposed murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. (I suspect that if they had known this, they would have worded that paragraph differently.)
I can tell that when someone is describing damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere", they're not describing a missile path thought the corpus callosum.
Yikes! One, see above. Two, the Clark Panel described both the cortical and subcortical damage but did not specify that the two areas of damage are separate and unconnected; they used wording that indicates that the corpus callosum damage is separate from the other damage they were describing, but they did not make the discontinuous nature of the two damaged areas clear--nor did they explain how the subcortical damage could have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, a site that was far removed from the damage.
My "side" don't take damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere" and falsely apply it to invent a missile path thought the corpus callosum.
One, Dr. Riley did not do that, as we have just seen--rather, you engaged in your usual distortion and omission by ignoring the cursory nature of the HSCA FPP's description of the subcortical damage, and then by ignoring Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the subcortical damage. Two, you said nothing about the damage below the corpus callosum. You ignored it because you can't explain it. Three, you said nothing about the fact that there is no connection between the cortical and subcortical damage, that the two areas of damage are separate and distinct. Four, you did not cite a single source that has challenged Dr. Riley's description of the cortical and subcortical damage. Your entire argument amounts to an argument from silence based only on your own inferences.
You made your false argument in response to the following questions that I posed to you:
(1) Does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage?
(2) Can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?
Are you going to answer these two straightforward questions?
-
Just giving this thread a bump after the few abortive attempts by WC apologists to explain the two separate wound paths in the brain.
Now is a good time to quote from another one of Dr. Riley's articles, "What Struck John," in which, among other things, he described the two separate areas of damage, damage that could not have been done caused by a single bullet:
The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. The argument that the cavitation wound was produced by non-specific damage is illogical.
The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The point that the cavitation wound, i.e., the subcortical damage, is consistent with the autopsy doctors' observations helps us to understand why the autopsy doctors felt compelled, or were ordered, to ignore the high fragment trail and the cortical damage. Amazingly, not one word about this upper-skull damage appears in the autopsy report.
This also helps to understand why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report vanished from the skull x-rays after the autopsy. It is significant that when the autopsy doctors reported on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy x-rays and photos, they said nothing about the low fragment trail. In their January 1967 report on their five-hour review, they were clearly trying to justify and confirm their EOP location for the rear head entry wound, yet they said nothing about the low fragment trail, even though the trail would be strong evidence for the pathologists' EOP entry site.
Either the autopsy doctors simply fabricated the low fragment trail to support the EOP entry site, or the fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays at some point after the autopsy and before the doctors' November 1966 review. Obviously, three pathologists and a radiologist would not have mistaken the high fragment trail for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and that was nowhere near their EOP entry site.
-
Just giving this thread a bump after the few abortive attempts by WC apologists to explain the two separate wound paths in the brain.
Now is a good time to quote from another one of Dr. Riley's articles, "What Struck John," in which, among other things, he described the two separate areas of damage, damage that could not have been done caused by a single bullet:
The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. The argument that the cavitation wound was produced by non-specific damage is illogical.
The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The point that the cavitation wound, i.e., the subcortical damage, is consistent with the autopsy doctors' observations helps us to understand why the autopsy doctors felt compelled, or were ordered, to ignore the high fragment trail and the cortical damage. Amazingly, not one word about this upper-skull damage appears in the autopsy report.
This also helps to understand why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report vanished from the skull x-rays after the autopsy. It is significant that when the autopsy doctors reported on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy x-rays and photos, they said nothing about the low fragment trail. In their January 1967 report on their five-hour review, they were clearly trying to justify and confirm their EOP location for the rear head entry wound, yet they said nothing about the low fragment trail, even though the trail would be strong evidence for the pathologists' EOP entry site.
Either the autopsy doctors simply fabricated the low fragment trail to support the EOP entry site, or the fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays at some point after the autopsy and before the doctors' November 1966 review. Obviously, three pathologists and a radiologist would not have mistaken the high fragment trail for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and that was nowhere near their EOP entry site.
What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.
-
What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.
Yeah, Griffith is really struggling with the basics, and I don't recall too many, if any of his eyewitnesses, who say there was an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.
At the end of the day, 95% of earwitnesses heard three shots or less and 94% of these earwitnesses only recall hearing shots from only one direction and since we know that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind, therefore logically ALL the shots came from behind!
Besides a sniper in front when your Patsy was behind makes about as much sense as a Screen Door on a Submarine or a Chocolate Teapot!
95% of earwitnesses heard 3 or less shots
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvTvk8mx/jfk-number-of-shots.webp)
94% of Earwitnesses heard shots from only 1 direction.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R09FWqLC/shot-location-jfk.png)
JohnM
-
Yeah, Griffith is really struggling with the basics, and I don't recall too many, if any of his eyewitnesses, who say there was an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.
At the end of the day, 95% of earwitnesses heard three shots or less and 94% of these earwitnesses only recall hearing shots from only one direction and since we know that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind, therefore logically ALL the shots came from behind!
Besides a sniper in front when your Patsy was behind makes about as much sense as a Screen Door on a Submarine or a Chocolate Teapot!
95% of earwitnesses heard 3 or less shots
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvTvk8mx/jfk-number-of-shots.webp)
94% of Earwitnesses heard shots from only 1 direction.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R09FWqLC/shot-location-jfk.png)
JohnM
Exactly right.
If JFK's head had been hit by two bullets there would not have been a brain left to examine, let alone separate tracts or whatever it is he is rambling on about. I think he has himself all caught up in using big medical terms and doesn't apply simple logic and common sense to it all. I think Dr. Riley should have been institutionalized. He obviously did not have both feet firmly planted in reality. Is Dr Riley the guy who was an ophthalmologist or was it one of the other "experts" MTG quotes?
-
What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.
You must be kidding. So you're once again going to fall back on this dodge? What specifically does your question have to do with the two separate wound paths documented in the supplemental autopsy report (subcortical), in the HSCA FPP report (cortical), and in the Clark Panel report (both cortical and subcortical)? When are you going to venture to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have created the subcortical damage (and also deposited the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments that are below that site)?
The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.
Pay attention this time:
There was an entry wound in the right temple. The exit wound for this entry point was the large right occipital-parietal wound that dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, described seeing, and some of them even drew diagrams of the wound. Autopsy photo F8 shows a sizable occipital in the occipital region. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have confirmed with OD measurements that occipital bone is missing in the AP skull x-ray. The AP and lateral x-rays also show a defect in the right temple, and several witnesses, including mortician Tom Robinson, saw a small wound in the right temple.
There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull, which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. However, it is also possible that this bullet, or at least most of it, blew out the trapezoidal parietal skull fragment and the triangular frontal skull fragment and exited through the triangular defect, i.e., that it (or most of it) coursed through the parietal bone and exited from the rear portion of the frontal bone, about 1 inch from the right temple entry point, which would explain the sizable gap between the frontal defect and the parietal defect (the revealing gap that HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Baden was so desperate to hide). Both exit scenarios are plausible. I favor the first scenario but am open to the second one.
Are we clear?
-
You must be kidding. So you're once again going to fall back on this dodge? What specifically does your question have to do with the two separate wound paths documented in the supplemental autopsy report (subcortical), in the HSCA FPP report (cortical), and in the Clark Panel report (both cortical and subcortical)? When are you going to venture to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have created the subcortical damage (and also deposited the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments that are below that site)?
The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.
Pay attention this time:
There was an entry wound in the right temple. The exit wound for this entry point was the large right occipital-parietal wound that dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, described seeing, and some of them even drew diagrams of the wound. Autopsy photo F8 shows a sizable occipital in the occipital region. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have confirmed with OD measurements that occipital bone is missing in the AP skull x-ray. The AP and lateral x-rays also show a defect in the right temple, and several witnesses, including mortician Tom Robinson, saw a small wound in the right temple.
There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull, which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. However, it is also possible that this bullet, or at least most of it, blew out the trapezoidal parietal skull fragment and the triangular frontal skull fragment and exited through the triangular defect, i.e., that it (or most of it) coursed through the parietal bone and exited from the rear portion of the frontal bone, about 1 inch from the right temple entry point, which would explain the sizable gap between the frontal defect and the parietal defect (the revealing gap that HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Baden was so desperate to hide). Both exit scenarios are plausible. I favor the first scenario but am open to the second one.
Are we clear?
Are we clear?
Not hardly. Why don't you flesh this theory out for better understanding. Which shot was first? Where was the mystery shooter located?
The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.
I have read your paper on CE 543 and why there were only two shots. That is all. With that in mind how is it possible that now you have three shots or more. You have two head shots where every eyewitness and several earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza stated there was only one. Garland Slack stated that there were only two shots just by the sound a bullet makes when it hits flesh. He obviously did not hear the muzzle blast or the impact sound of your second headshot.
There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye.
The bullet fragmented in the brain and there are two wound trails in this very explanation of the shot from behind.
This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual,
I would think it would be highly unusual for the bullet to remain. Why would it remain? Maybe another shot without enough powder behind it.
-
Are we clear?
Not hardly. Why don't you flesh this theory out for better understanding. Which shot was first? Where was the mystery shooter located?
What does any of this have to do with the two separate wound paths in the brain? Posing irrelevant questions does not deal with the core issue of the two separate wound paths. You cannot credibly deal with inconvenient facts by resorting to questions about theories.
The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.
I have read your paper on CE 543 and why there were only two shots. That is all. With that in mind how is it possible that now you have three shots or more. You have two head shots where every eyewitness and several earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza stated there was only one. Garland Slack stated that there were only two shots just by the sound a bullet makes when it hits flesh. He obviously did not hear the muzzle blast or the impact sound of your second headshot.
This seems like a diversion and evasion based on your fringe theory of the shooting. There were at least six shots fired:
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view)
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view)
There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye.
The bullet fragmented in the brain and there are two wound trails in this very explanation of the shot from behind.
Did you forget about the high fragment trail, which is nearly 2 inches above the debunked cowlick site and nearly 6 inches above the EOP site?
Anyway, my explanation does not posit two separate wound trails. I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I said. The two trails that my explanation allows would be connected, would be near each other, would diverge from a point near the EOP site, and could be associated with the EOP site. Moreover, my two connected wound trails would not include the high fragment trail.
This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual,
I would think it would be highly unusual for the bullet to remain. Why would it remain? Maybe another shot without enough powder behind it.
No, it is not unusual for bullets to remain in the skull. From an article on the NIH website:
----------------------------------------------------------
Bullets or bullet fragments can cause penetrating injuries to the brain tissue and sometimes remain in the skull. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32671176/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32671176/))
----------------------------------------------------------
Jen Danna, a retired medical researcher who writes on forensic and crime topics, in her article "Forensics 101," notes that bullets that hit skulls "often" cause both an entry wound and an exit wound--"often," not "always":
----------------------------------------------------------
Unlike blunt force trauma, gunshot wounds often cause both an entrance and an exit wound. ("Forensics 101: Bullet Wounds in Bone--the Skull," https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html (https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html))
----------------------------------------------------------
In an article on the Justice Department website, H. Kijewski notes that lead bullets frequently do not create exit wounds when they hit skulls:
----------------------------------------------------------
While hard shell ammunition almost always penetrates both sides of the skull, lead bullets frequently do not. ("Determining Caliber, Bullet Type, and Velocity from the Morphology of the Wound in the Skull," https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/determining-caliber-bullet-type-and-velocity-morphology-wound-skull (https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/determining-caliber-bullet-type-and-velocity-morphology-wound-skull)
----------------------------------------------------------
This is especially interesting because the bullet that struck the Tague curb was a lead bullet--a sample taken from the hole in the curb found no indication of copper or steel. (Of course, this caused the WC to float the crazy theory that a lead fragment from the alleged single headshot bullet, from the bullet's cross-section no less, somehow magically flew over the roll bar, traveled over 200 feet, and hit the curb with enough velocity to chip it or to directly hit Tague's right cheek and cut it.)
And notice, too, that Kijewski does not say that hard-shell ammo (i.e., FMJ ammo) always creates exit wounds but that it "almost always" does so--thus, even FMJ ammo will not always make an exit wound.
Even when bullets enter the body through soft tissue, they do not always create an exit wound. From an article on Medscape titled "Forensic Pathology of Firearm Wounds":
----------------------------------------------------------
. . . a bullet may either exit the body, producing both entrance and exit wounds (perforating), or remain in the body. . . . (https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview)
----------------------------------------------------------
An article in the British Medical Journal notes that during WWI, operations were frequently done on headshot victims "when the bullet remained in the skull":
----------------------------------------------------------
Operations were frequently undertaken when the bullet remained in the skull, but when it [the bullet] was not found at once, no extensive search was made for it, for fear of injuring the brain. . . . ("The War: Wounds of the Head and Brain," British Medical Journal, 2/19/1916, p. 287, https://www.google.com/books/edition/British_Medical_Journal/g5BMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bullet+remained+in+the+skull%22&pg=RA1-PA287&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/British_Medical_Journal/g5BMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bullet+remained+in+the+skull%22&pg=RA1-PA287&printsec=frontcover)
----------------------------------------------------------
So, yes, it would have been possible for a bullet to have hit JFK's skull without creating an exit wound.
-
What does any of this have to do with the two separate wound paths in the brain? Posing irrelevant questions does not deal with the core issue of the two separate wound paths. You cannot credibly deal with inconvenient facts by resorting to questions about theories.
This seems like a diversion and evasion based on your fringe theory of the shooting. There were at least six shots fired:
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view)
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view)
Did you forget about the high fragment trail, which is nearly 2 inches above the debunked cowlick site and nearly 6 inches above the EOP site?
Anyway, my explanation does not posit two separate wound trails. I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I said. The two trails that my explanation allows would be connected, would be near each other, would diverge from a point near the EOP site, and could be associated with the EOP site. Moreover, my two connected wound trails would not include the high fragment trail.
No, it is not unusual for bullets to remain in the skull. From an article on the NIH website:
----------------------------------------------------------
Bullets or bullet fragments can cause penetrating injuries to the brain tissue and sometimes remain in the skull. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32671176/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32671176/))
----------------------------------------------------------
Jen Danna, a retired medical researcher who writes on forensic and crime topics, in her article "Forensics 101," notes that bullets that hit skulls "often" cause both an entry wound and an exit wound--"often," not "always":
----------------------------------------------------------
Unlike blunt force trauma, gunshot wounds often cause both an entrance and an exit wound. ("Forensics 101: Bullet Wounds in Bone--the Skull," https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html (https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html))
----------------------------------------------------------
In an article on the Justice Department website, H. Kijewski notes that lead bullets frequently do not create exit wounds when they hit skulls:
----------------------------------------------------------
While hard shell ammunition almost always penetrates both sides of the skull, lead bullets frequently do not. ("Determining Caliber, Bullet Type, and Velocity from the Morphology of the Wound in the Skull," https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/determining-caliber-bullet-type-and-velocity-morphology-wound-skull (https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/determining-caliber-bullet-type-and-velocity-morphology-wound-skull)
----------------------------------------------------------
This is especially interesting because the bullet that struck the Tague curb was a lead bullet--a sample taken from the hole in the curb found no indication of copper or steel. (Of course, this caused the WC to float the crazy theory that a lead fragment from the alleged single headshot bullet, from the bullet's cross-section no less, somehow magically flew over the roll bar, traveled over 200 feet, and hit the curb with enough velocity to chip it or to directly hit Tague's right cheek and cut it.)
And notice, too, that Kijewski does not say that hard-shell ammo (i.e., FMJ ammo) always creates exit wounds but that it "almost always" does so--thus, even FMJ ammo will not always make an exit wound.
Even when bullets enter the body through soft tissue, they do not always create an exit wound. From an article on Medscape titled "Forensic Pathology of Firearm Wounds":
----------------------------------------------------------
. . . a bullet may either exit the body, producing both entrance and exit wounds (perforating), or remain in the body. . . . (https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview)
----------------------------------------------------------
An article in the British Medical Journal notes that during WWI, operations were frequently done on headshot victims "when the bullet remained in the skull":
----------------------------------------------------------
Operations were frequently undertaken when the bullet remained in the skull, but when it [the bullet] was not found at once, no extensive search was made for it, for fear of injuring the brain. . . . ("The War: Wounds of the Head and Brain," British Medical Journal, 2/19/1916, p. 287, https://www.google.com/books/edition/British_Medical_Journal/g5BMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bullet+remained+in+the+skull%22&pg=RA1-PA287&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/British_Medical_Journal/g5BMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bullet+remained+in+the+skull%22&pg=RA1-PA287&printsec=frontcover)
----------------------------------------------------------
So, yes, it would have been possible for a bullet to have hit JFK's skull without creating an exit wound.
This seems like a diversion and evasion based on your fringe theory of the shooting. There were at least six shots fired:
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view
To hell with earwitness and eyewitness accounts. Let's light up Dealey Plaza, 4 shots besides LHO’s two, good thinking, way outside of the box.
-------
Did you forget about the high fragment trail, which is nearly 2 inches above the debunked cowlick site and nearly 6 inches above the EOP site?
Anyway, my explanation does not posit two separate wound trails. I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I said. The two trails that my explanation allows would be connected, would be near each other, would diverge from a point near the EOP site, and could be associated with the EOP site. Moreover, my two connected wound trails would not include the high fragment trail.
Three wound trails. You do not think that is possible given you feel the bullet dramatically fragmented.
--------
No, it is not unusual for bullets to remain in the skull. From an article on the NIH website:
----------------------------------------------------------
Bullets or bullet fragments can cause penetrating injuries to the brain tissue and sometimes remain in the skull. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32671176/)
----------------------------------------------------------
Jen Danna, a retired medical researcher who writes on forensic and crime topics, in her article "Forensics 101," notes that bullets that hit skulls "often" cause both an entry wound and an exit wound--"often," not "always":
----------------------------------------------------------
Unlike blunt force trauma, gunshot wounds often cause both an entrance and an exit wound. ("Forensics 101: Bullet Wounds in Bone--the Skull," https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html)
----------------------------------------------------------
In an article on the Justice Department website, H. Kijewski notes that lead bullets frequently do not create exit wounds when they hit skulls:
----------------------------------------------------------
While hard shell ammunition almost always penetrates both sides of the skull, lead bullets frequently do not. ("Determining Caliber, Bullet Type, and Velocity from the Morphology of the Wound in the Skull," https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/determining-caliber-bullet-type-and-velocity-morphology-wound-skull
----------------------------------------------------------
This is especially interesting because the bullet that struck the Tague curb was a lead bullet--a sample taken from the hole in the curb found no indication of copper or steel. (Of course, this caused the WC to float the crazy theory that a lead fragment from the alleged single headshot bullet, from the bullet's cross-section no less, somehow magically flew over the roll bar, traveled over 200 feet, and hit the curb with enough velocity to chip it or to directly hit Tague's right cheek and cut it.)
And notice, too, that Kijewski does not say that hard-shell ammo (i.e., FMJ ammo) always creates exit wounds but that it "almost always" does so--thus, even FMJ ammo will not always make an exit wound.
Even when bullets enter the body through soft tissue, they do not always create an exit wound. From an article on Medscape titled "Forensic Pathology of Firearm Wounds":
----------------------------------------------------------
. . . a bullet may either exit the body, producing both entrance and exit wounds (perforating), or remain in the body. . . . (https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview)
----------------------------------------------------------
An article in the British Medical Journal notes that during WWI, operations were frequently done on headshot victims "when the bullet remained in the skull":
----------------------------------------------------------
Operations were frequently undertaken when the bullet remained in the skull, but when it [the bullet] was not found at once, no extensive search was made for it, for fear of injuring the brain. . . . ("The War: Wounds of the Head and Brain," British Medical Journal, 2/19/1916, p. 287, https://www.google.com/books/edition/British_Medical_Journal/g5BMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bullet+remained+in+the+skull%22&pg=RA1-PA287&printsec=frontcover
----------------------------------------------------------
So, yes, it would have been possible for a bullet to have hit JFK's skull without creating an exit wound.
Interesting articles but raises more questions than are answered. Basically an entrance wound and a known bullet left in the brain. In this case there is not an entrance wound, exit wound, or bullet.
Can you point out the whole bullet left in JFK’s skull in the X-rays of JFK’s skull.
SHOT 1 WC's
There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull, which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. However, it is also possible that this bullet, or at least most of it, blew out the trapezoidal parietal skull fragment and the triangular frontal skull fragment and exited through the triangular defect, i.e., that it (or most of it) coursed through the parietal bone and exited from the rear portion of the frontal bone...
SHOT 2 MTG
...about 1 inch from the right temple entry point, which would explain the sizable gap between the frontal defect and the parietal defect (the revealing gap that HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Baden was so desperate to hide). Both exit scenarios are plausible. I favor the first scenario but am open to the second one.
Where is the evidence of an entrance and exit wound of shot 2? Where is the shooter located? One time it was in front of the car on the Triple Underpass?
Gary Mack in this video completely disagrees with you about a second shot and no exit wound. He specifically addresses this theory:
(http://Bing Videos-- Gary Mack recreation JFK Assassination - Head shot recreation (Part 1))