JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Corbett on June 24, 2026, 05:30:44 PM
-
A skull is comprised of multiple bones fused together. Whereas most people use layman's terms to describe various parts of the head (forehead, temples, etc.) medical professionals use the scientific names for the various parts of the skull. When I first stared reading the medical evidence related to the headshot, I didn't know just where the various terms were referring to until I saw a diagram like this one:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=2w%2fPyM0n&id=97843A74E06F41302B017670983169A9153F1866&thid=OIP.2w_PyM0nULa23sbUY2F1zAHaGv&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwellnesslifezone.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2019%2f04%2fBONE_Skull.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.db0fcfc8cd2750b6b6dec6d4636175cc%3frik%3dZhg%252fFalpMZhwdg%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1866&expw=2048&q=bones+of+the+skull+diagram&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=FDD8D913AEF4C678E6199ECCDB4C2287&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.
-
The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.
Once again you show you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. Umm, no, no, no, the FPP most certainly did not identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Where in the world do you get that?! Obviously, you haven't even looked at the FPP's wound diagrams of the skull damage or read the FPP's report. They did not put any of the skull fragments in the frontal bone. Go look at their own drawings and figures in 7 HSCA, for crying out loud.
The FPP put the large triangular fragment in the parietal bone, not in the frontal bone, even though their skull reconstruction expert, Dr. Lawrence Angel, told them this was wrong. Dr. Angel correctly put the fragment in the frontal bone, and his diagrams show that it extended nearly to the hairline, but the FPP simply ignored him, even though FPP radiology consultants also noted a substantial amount of missing frontal bone.
I just discussed this fact in a reply in my thread "Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence," to which you responded with the juvenile line "Nobody cares"--yeah, you obviously don't care about facts. Here's the link to my reply:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5041.msg181243.html#msg181243
Interested readers can find the HSCA's diagrams and figures, along with Dr. Angel's diagrams and report, in John Hunt's famous article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which, by the way, I have cited to Corbett at least three times. Here's the link to the article:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
The only "missing bone" that the FPP identified in the frontal bone was part of the tiny hole that straddles the coronal suture, at the rear of the frontal bone and the front of the parietal bone; the hole is partly in the frontal bone and partly in the parietal bone.
-
Once again you show you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. Umm, no, no, no, the FPP most certainly did not identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Where in the world do you get that?!
It was in one of the documents you cited. It was in Dr. G. M. McDonnel's report to the FPP:
"The findings and interpretation of the skull films are:
1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."
You don't seem to even know what is in the documents you have cited.
Drawings and figures in 7 HSCA, for crying out loud.
The FPP put the large triangular fragment in the parietal bone, not in the frontal bone, even though their skull reconstruction expert, Dr. Lawrence Angel, told them this was wrong. Dr. Angel correctly put the fragment in the frontal bone, and his diagrams show that it extended nearly to the hairline, but the FPP simply ignored him, even though FPP radiology consultants also noted a substantial amount of missing frontal bone.
I just discussed this fact in a reply in my thread "Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence," to which you responded with the juvenile line "Nobody cares"--yeah, you obviously don't care about facts. Here's the link to my reply:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5041.msg181243.html#msg181243
Interested readers can find the HSCA's diagrams and figures, along with Dr. Angel's diagrams and report, in John Hunt's famous article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which, by the way, I have cited to Corbett at least three times. Here's the link to the article:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
The only "missing bone" that the FPP identified in the frontal bone was part of the tiny hole that straddles the coronal suture, at the rear of the frontal bone and the front of the parietal bone; the hole is partly in the frontal bone and partly in the parietal bone.
Let me help you out here. "rear of the frontal bone" means the same as "posterior of the frontal bone".
No charge for the lesson.
-
It was in one of the documents you cited. It was in Dr. G. M. McDonnel's report to the FPP:
Wow, talk about naked dishonesty. IOW, you will never admit when you're wrong, even when you're caught in an undeniable, bald-faced blunder.
You said the FPP identified a piece of skull that was missing from the frontal bone, but they did no such thing, as I've proved, and as anyone can confirm by viewing the FPP's diagrams. Your entire reply is a sorry effort to deflect attention from your inexcusable gaffe.
"The findings and interpretation of the skull films are:
1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."
Yikes! Ho, ho, ho! Please forgive me for chortling and making light of yet another one of your blunders. Let's begin:
First off, the FPP ignored McDonnel's statement about a loss of bone in the rear part of the frontal bone! How did you "forget" this?
Second, you've quoted from McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays, which obscured some of the damage. I guess you didn't bother to scroll down and read his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which actually show some of the damage more clearly. He said those those x-rays show "a nearly complete loss of structure" of the right frontal and parietal bone! Let me quote him:
1. A nearly complete loss of structure of the right frontal and parietal bone. (7 HSCA 221)
This agrees with Dr. Angel's demonstrably correct identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone. Were you even able to bring yourself to look at Dr. Angel's diagrams, which show that the amount of missing frontal bone, i.e., the triangular fragment, extends nearly to the hairline? You can find his diagrams in Hunt's article (Figure H-12) and in 7 HSCA 230.
You understand that the average male forehead covers about 5-8 cm (2-3 inches) of the frontal bone, right? You know this, right? You understand that the triangular fragment was 7-8 cm x 6 cm x 4.5-5 cm, right? Right? That's at least 2.75 inches x 2.36 inches x 1.9 inches, and it was entirely frontal bone.
Third, Dr. McDonnel only analyzed the skull x-rays, whereas Dr. Angel analyzed the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments.
And, again, you said the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as coming from the frontal bone, when they did nothing of the sort.
You don't seem to even know what is in the documents you have cited.
That's a hoot, given that you didn't even bother to read McDonnel's entire report and didn't know what he said about the frontal bone damage in the unenhanced skull x-rays. And I notice you skipped over the fact that McDonnel's description of missing frontal bone contradicts the FPP's claim about the frontal bone.
BTW, speaking of knowing what's in the documents I've cited, did you read where Dr. McDonnel said that the bullet that hit the back of the skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218)? Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains. And, as the FBI's chief firearms expert Robert Frazier acknowledged to the WC, Oswald's alleged rifle was a low-velocity weapon.
Did you also read where McDonnel said the bullet "penetrated the right occipital bone" (7 HSCA 218)? But the FPP said the bullet penetrated the parietal bone, about 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. And, umm, the FPP also emphatically said that any bullet that penetrated the right occipital bone could not have avoided tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, and that since the brain photos showed zero damage to that part of the lobe, there was no way a bullet could have penetrated the skull in the right occipital bone.
Oh, shucks, sorry: I forgot your dodge--err, position--that you "don't need explain the medical evidence." My bad.
Let me help you out here. "rear of the frontal bone" means the same as "posterior of the frontal bone".
Dealing with you is like dealing with a teenager who can't stand to admit when he's been caught in an embarrassing blunder.
Let me help you out: You blunderingly claimed the FPP identified a piece of missing skull as coming from frontal bone, when in fact they did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone, and when their diagrams show no fragment of skull missing from the frontal bone.
No charge for the lesson.
Oh, yeah, you really gave me a "lesson" alright. Uh-huh. A lesson in juvenile evasion.
I think this thread will stand as bright monument to the fact that you have no business discussing the JFK case in a public forum while pretending to be anything other than a novice on the subject, and while presuming to pass judgment on research you haven't even read and to attack scholars who've done far, far, far more research than you have done or ever will do.
-
Wow, talk about naked dishonesty. IOW, you will never admit when you're wrong, even when you're caught in an undeniable, bald-faced blunder.
You said the FPP identified a piece of skull that was missing from the frontal bone, but they did no such thing, as I've proved, and as anyone can confirm by viewing the FPP's diagrams. Your entire reply is a sorry effort to deflect attention from your inexcusable gaffe.
Yikes! Ho, ho, ho! Please forgive me for chortling and making light of yet another one of your blunders. Let's begin:
First off, the FPP ignored McDonnel's statement about a loss of bone in the rear part of the frontal bone! How did you "forget" this?
Second, you've quoted from McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays, which obscured some of the damage. I guess you didn't bother to scroll down and read his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which actually show some of the damage more clearly. He said those those x-rays show "a nearly complete loss of structure" of the right frontal and parietal bone! Let me quote him:
1. A nearly complete loss of structure of the right frontal and parietal bone. (7 HSCA 221)
This agrees with Dr. Angel's demonstrably correct identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone. Were you even able to bring yourself to look at Dr. Angel's diagrams, which show that the amount of missing frontal bone, i.e., the triangular fragment, extends nearly to the hairline? You can find his diagrams in Hunt's article (Figure H-12) and in 7 HSCA 230.
You understand that the average male forehead covers about 5-8 cm (2-3 inches) of the frontal bone, right? You know this, right? You understand that the triangular fragment was 7-8 cm x 6 cm x 4.5-5 cm, right? Right? That's at least 2.75 inches x 2.36 inches x 1.9 inches, and it was entirely frontal bone.
Third, Dr. McDonnel only analyzed the skull x-rays, whereas Dr. Angel analyzed the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments.
And, again, you said the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as coming from the frontal bone, when they did nothing of the sort.
That's a hoot, given that you didn't even bother to read McDonnel's entire report and didn't know what he said about the frontal bone damage in the unenhanced skull x-rays. And I notice you skipped over the fact that McDonnel's description of missing frontal bone contradicts the FPP's claim about the frontal bone.
BTW, speaking of knowing what's in the documents I've cited, did you read where Dr. McDonnel said that the bullet that hit the back of the skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218)? Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains. And, as the FBI's chief firearms expert Robert Frazier acknowledged to the WC, Oswald's alleged rifle was a low-velocity weapon.
Did you also read where McDonnel said the bullet "penetrated the right occipital bone" (7 HSCA 218)? But the FPP said the bullet penetrated the parietal bone, about 1 cm above the lambda and the lambdoid suture. And, umm, the FPP also emphatically said that any bullet that penetrated the right occipital bone could not have avoided tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, and that since the brain photos showed zero damage to that part of the lobe, there was no way a bullet could have penetrated the skull in the right occipital bone.
Oh, shucks, sorry: I forgot your dodge--err, position--that you "don't need explain the medical evidence." My bad.
Dealing with you is like dealing with a teenager who can't stand to admit when he's been caught in an embarrassing blunder.
Let me help you out: You blunderingly claimed the FPP identified a piece of missing skull as coming from frontal bone, when in fact they did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone, and when their diagrams show no fragment of skull missing from the frontal bone.
Oh, yeah, you really gave me a "lesson" alright. Uh-huh. A lesson in juvenile evasion.
I think this thread will stand as bright monument to the fact that you have no business discussing the JFK case in a public forum while pretending to be anything other than a novice on the subject, and while presuming to pass judgment on research you haven't even read and to attack scholars who've done far, far, far more research than you have done or ever will do.
Your pettiness is reaching new lows. After citing Dr. G.M. McDonnel to support your narrative, you turn around and chastise me for quoting from his report which you provided the link to.
-
I think this thread will stand as bright monument to the fact that you have no business discussing the JFK case in a public forum while pretending to be anything other than a novice on the subject, and while presuming to pass judgment on research you haven't even read and to attack scholars who've done far, far, far more research than you have done or ever will do.
It's quite fascinating how often this sort of statement is made by CT extremists (the most charitable term I can think of) like MTG, Dan O'Meara and Royell Storing. If you don't see what they see, you are a novice, unserious, unworthy, even dumb. You lack the deep, arcane knowledge and understanding that only they possess.
I was blessed by this on another thread today from Dan. The topic was the cosmically unimportant distinction, if any, between the phrases "right in front" and "almost directly in front" as applied to women standing on Elm when JFK's limo passed by:
"Your truly sad attempt to pass them off as the same thing is yet another example of the dumbness that plagues your every post."
Really? I won't strut my IQ or academic honors again (except by request! :D), but "dumbness" is not something of which I've ever been accused or that most people think shines through my writing.
One could, of course, fill pages with the number of times Royell has told others they are out of touch, out of date, unable to grasp the brilliance of his "research."
Why do CT extremists do this? It isn't that your POSITION is flawed or even silly - no, it's that YOU are a novice, unserious, uninformed, unworthy and just flat dumb.
The answer is in what psychologists call the "social" dimension of the conspiracy-prone mindset. As with many religions and cults, CTers are prone to thinking they are special, that they are the keepers of secret knowledge, that only they see and possess the dark truths that the mass of sheeple fail to see. The corollary - again, common to many religions and cults - is that the sheeple are uninformed, unworthy, even dumb.
Pay attention and you will be astounded at how often this card is played by CT extremists like MTG, Dan and Royell. Weirdly - or perhaps not - it's most commonly played against opponents whom the characterization pretty obviously DOESN'T FIT AT ALL. I might think Jim DiEugenio (just to cite an example) is neck-deep in the conspiracy-prone mindset and capable of believing things I find unbelievable, but I would say more about myself than him if I characterized him as a novice, unserious, uninformed, unworthy and dumb.
-
It's quite fascinating how often this sort of statement is made by CT extremists (the most charitable term I can think of) like MTG, Dan O'Meara and Royell Storing. If you don't see what they see, you are a novice, unserious, unworthy, even dumb. You lack the deep, arcane knowledge and understanding that only they possess.
I was blessed by this on another thread today from Dan. The topic was the cosmically unimportant distinction, if any, between the phrases "right in front" and "almost directly in front" as applied to women standing on Elm when JFK's limo passed by:
"Your truly sad attempt to pass them off as the same thing is yet another example of the dumbness that plagues your every post."
Really? I won't strut my IQ or academic honors again (except by request! :D), but "dumbness" is not something of which I've ever been accused or that most people think shines through my writing.
One could, of course, fill pages with the number of times Royell has told others they are out of touch, out of date, unable to grasp the brilliance of his "research."
Why do CT extremists do this? It isn't that your POSITION is flawed or even silly - no, it's that YOU are a novice, unserious, uninformed, unworthy and just flat dumb.
The answer is in what psychologists call the "social" dimension of the conspiracy-prone mindset. As with many religions and cults, CTers are prone to thinking they are special, that they are the keepers of secret knowledge, that only they see and possess the dark truths that the mass of sheeple fail to see. The corollary - again, common to many religions and cults - is that the sheeple are uninformed, unworthy, even dumb.
Pay attention and you will be astounded at how often this card is played by CT extremists like MTG, Dan and Royell. Weirdly - or perhaps not - it's most commonly played against opponents whom the characterization pretty obviously DOESN'T FIT AT ALL. I might think Jim DiEugenio (just to cite an example) is neck-deep in the conspiracy-prone mindset and capable of believing things I find unbelievable, but I would say more about myself than him if I characterized him as a novice, unserious, uninformed, unworthy and dumb.
One problem with this polemic is that John Corbett is unserious, and is uninformed. Although he is technically not a novice since he has been debating the JFKA for a long time, he talks like a novice; he repeatedly talks like someone who is new to the case and who has read very little on the case. Did you not just read his severe blunder of claiming the FPP identified a piece of missing skull as frontal bone when in fact they did nothing of the sort (and, indeed, denied there was any missing frontal bone)? Did you miss that?
He also erroneously claimed, based on his incomplete reading of McDonnel, that the only area of missing frontal bone is nowhere near the hairline, when Dr. Angel's diagrams of the missing frontal bone refute this notion (and when numerous other experts have noted the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of missing bone, contrary to the FPP's fiction).
I only label WC apologists as unserious and uninformed if they prove they are unserious and uninformed. I do not automatically apply those labels to anyone who disagrees with me. I have acknowledged several times that some lone-gunman theorists are well read on the case and are willing to read pro-conspiracy research.
You, on the other hand, label anyone who posits a conspiracy in the case as an extremist and as a part of the lunatic fringe, and you've even said that conspiracy theorists suffer from warped brains and from a form of mental illness. You've even claimed that Greg Doudna, one of the most careful and thorough researchers around, a scholar who has even earned the respect of many lone-gunman theorists--you've labeled him as part of "the lunatic fringe."
And, I notice that you have not said one word about Corbett's embarrassing blunder, not to mention his transparently dishonest dodge to my previous reply to him. You pull this stunt all the time.
One of your comments about those who posit a conspiracy deserves special attention:
only they see and possess the dark truths that the mass of sheeple fail to see. The corollary - again, common to many religions and cults - is that the sheeple are uninformed, unworthy, even dumb.
LOL! This is exactly your attitude. Let me remind you that innumerable surveys, going clear back into the late 1960s up to our day, show that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western believes JFK was killed by a conspiracy. I've lost count of how many times your fellow WC apologists have responded to this fact by saying that Americans and Europeans have been "misled by conspiracy documentaries," that they "don't know all the facts," that they "haven't studied the case," that they don't know what pro-WC scholars have written, that they've succumbed to "Internet conspiracy mythology," etc., etc.
And, again, you've gone even further. You've claimed that anyone who believes JFK was killed by a plot must have a warped mind, must have a form of mental illness, must already be prone to see a conspiracy in major events, must have developed faulty neural pathways, etc., etc.
I have to chuckle at your assertion that conspiracy theorists claim to have some secret, arcane knowledge, (1) when the last federal investigation into the assassination concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, etc., etc., (2) when conspiracy theorists have published their research in books that became best sellers, and (3) when the ranks of conspiracy theorists include credentialed historians, forensic pathologists, ballistics experts, physicists, physiologists, federal prosecutors, federal investigators, radiation oncologists, research scientists, acoustical scientists, law professors, neurologists, neuroscientists, surgeons, etc., etc.
Your pettiness is reaching new lows. After citing Dr. G.M. McDonnel to support your narrative, you turn around and chastise me for quoting from his report which you provided the link to.
No, your dishonesty and immaturity are reaching new lows. As anyone with a grasp of English can readily see, I did not chastise you for quoting from Dr. McDonnel's report. I chastised you (1) for only quoting his analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays, which obscure some of the damage; (2) for failing to acknowledge that the FPP even ignored Dr. McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced x-rays, not to mention his analysis of the unenhanced x-rays; and (3) for dishonestly trying to avoid admitting that you badly blundered in claiming that the FPP identified a piece of missing skull as frontal bone, when they did no such thing.
I could have also pointed out in my reply that you also wrongly claimed, based on your incomplete reading of McDonnel, that the missing frontal bone was nowhere near the hairline, even though I had already pointed out to you in another thread that Dr. Angel's diagrams of the missing frontal bone show that it extended nearly to the hairline and consisted of a large part of the frontal bone.
BTW, Dr. Doug Ubelaker, a renowned forensic anthropologist with the Smithsonian Institution who studied the autopsy materials at the invitation of the ARRB, has noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos:
. . . the apparent absence of bone in much of the anterior portion of these x-rays seems inconsistent with the intact appearance of the right forehead in the photos. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)
When I noted this fact in another thread, you responded by calling Dr. Ubelaker a "clown" and dismissing his analysis because he is "only" a forensic anthropologist. Yeah, never mind that forensic anthropologists are frequently asked to examine forensic evidence in criminal cases and to testify as forensic experts in criminal trials. Never mind that forensic anthropologists are trained in forensic radiology. Never mind that Dr. Ubelaker has written articles on forensic science that have been published in peer-reviewed forensic journals, including Forensic Science International, Journal of Forensic Sciences, and Forensic Sciences Research.
I guess it never occurred you to ask yourself why the ARRB asked Dr. Ubelaker to examine the autopsy materials, just as it doesn't seem to have occurred to you to ask yourself why the HSCA FPP asked forensic anthropologist Dr. Lawrence Angel to study the skull x-rays and the skull fragments to help them reconstruct the skull damage.
-
This is starting to remind me of the final scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
-
This is starting to remind me of the final scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
IOW, you don't have the character or the maturity to just admit you royally goofed. You said (1) that the FPP identified a piece of skull missing from the frontal bone, and (2) that the area of missing frontal bone goes nowhere near the hairline but is limited to a small part of the rear area of the frontal bone.
Both claims are demonstrably false, not to mention inexcusable. The FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone; their wound diagrams show the frontal bone intact from the hairline back to the coronal suture, with no missing skull fragments. In doing so, the FPP ignored all of their own expert consultants who described a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and even ignored Dr. Angel's diagrams showing that the triangular fragment was frontal bone and that it extended nearly to the hairline.
The FPP could not admit that a sizable chunk of frontal bone is in the skull x-rays missing because the autopsy photos of the face show the area behind and in front of the hairline to be intact. There's not even a hint of a loss of structure there. That's a physical impossibility if the skull x-rays are accurate. At the very least, the top of the forehead and the area right behind the hairline should show some visible degree of depression/indentation. This is why Dr. Ubelaker "noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos."
Dr. David Mantik:
The HSCA skull reconstruction: The frontal bone (yellow arrow) is intact here, in gross disagreement with Angel—and also in disagreement with the skull X-rays.
The HSCA’s mistake (relied upon by Baden—quite possibly even initiated by him) was its opinion that frontal bone was fully intact immediately anterior to the coronal suture (Figure 4). That opinion can be refuted via the following items: (1) the AP skull X-ray (Figure 10), (2) optical density (OD) data from the AP X-ray (Figure 11—my sketch of absent frontal bone), (3) Boswell’s skull diagram for the ARRB (Figure 12), (4) Boswell’s sketch from the autopsy (Figure 13), and (5) the opinion of the ARRB forensic radiologist, John J. Fitzpatrick: showDoc.html (maryferrell.org). The AP X-ray also clearly shows where right frontal bone was missing (even though Baden oddly claimed that it was present). . . .
Figure 11 shows missing right frontal bone, a conclusion that is based on OD data that I took at the Archives. Boswell’s sketch for the ARRB also shows missing frontal bone. Furthermore, notice the close agreement (regarding the missing frontal bone) between my sketch (Figure 11) and Boswell’s sketches (Figures 12 and 13). He did one (Figure 12) for the ARRB, while the other one (Figure 13) was prepared at the autopsy. . . .
That missing frontal bone is quite obvious on the x-rays (and even on Boswell’s sketches); even Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist, disagreed with Baden’s reconstruction. . . .
HSCA Exhibit F-66 [Baden's reconstruction] shows the frontal bone intact all the way back to the coronal suture. . . .
The coronal suture would, of course, fit with Lawrence Angel’s view that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. It would also be consistent with Fitzpatrick’s (and my) conclusion that right frontal bone was missing all the way to JFK’s hairline. . . . . . .
RR [following Baden] places the triangular fragment into the right parietal area. But it cannot fit there. In particular, I have demonstrated, with detailed reconstructions via successive iterations of fluoroscopy images, exactly where bone islands lie on both the AP and lateral JFK X-rays. RR's proposed site for the triangular fragment is already occupied by two significant bone islands, and simply cannot accommodate another large bone fragment. That is a powerful reason—independent of Angel—that the triangular fragment must derive from frontal bone. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, pp. 7, 15-16, 56, 96, 151-152)
When you say "I don't have to explain the medical evidence," what you really mean, but won't admit, is that you can't explain the glaring, incriminating contradictions in the medical evidence.
-
IOW, you don't have the character or the maturity to just admit you royally goofed.
You're projecting again. You said (1) that the FPP identified a piece of skull missing from the frontal bone, and (2) that the area of missing frontal bone goes nowhere near the hairline but is limited to a small part of the rear area of the frontal bone.
Both claims are demonstrably false, not to mention inexcusable. The FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone; [/quote]
Please quote this denial. The FPP did not try to piece together the skull fragments and were largely silent on the matter. They did include both McDonnel's and Angel's reports in their records, reports which you cited to bolster one of your silly arguments and now want to walk away from. their wound diagrams show the frontal bone intact from the hairline back to the coronal suture, with no missing skull fragments. In doing so, the FPP ignored all of their own expert consultants who described a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and even ignored Dr. Angel's diagrams showing that the triangular fragment was frontal bone and that it extended nearly to the hairline.
The FPP could not admit that a sizable chunk of frontal bone is in the skull x-rays missing because the autopsy photos of the face show the area behind and in front of the hairline to be intact. There's not even a hint of a loss of structure there. That's a physical impossibility if the skull x-rays are accurate. At the very least, the top of the forehead and the area right behind the hairline should show some visible degree of depression/indentation. This is why Dr. Ubelaker "noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos."
You seem to be impeaching Angel's report which you have cited in the past. Angel is the only one who said the missing frontal bone was near the hairline. McDonnel said it was from the posterior of the frontal bone and the FPP was largely silent on the issue. So which one of the doctors whom you have cited in the past are you now throwing under the bus, Angel or McDonnel?
-
You're projecting again. You said (1) that the FPP identified a piece of skull missing from the frontal bone, and (2) that the area of missing frontal bone goes nowhere near the hairline but is limited to a small part of the rear area of the frontal bone.
Both claims are demonstrably false, not to mention inexcusable. The FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone;
Please quote this denial. The FPP did not try to piece together the skull fragments and were largely silent on the matter. They did include both McDonnel's and Angel's reports in their records, reports which you cited to bolster one of your silly arguments and now want to walk away from. their wound diagrams show the frontal bone intact from the hairline back to the coronal suture, with no missing skull fragments. In doing so, the FPP ignored all of their own expert consultants who described a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and even ignored Dr. Angel's diagrams showing that the triangular fragment was frontal bone and that it extended nearly to the hairline.
The FPP could not admit that a sizable chunk of frontal bone is in the skull x-rays missing because the autopsy photos of the face show the area behind and in front of the hairline to be intact. There's not even a hint of a loss of structure there. That's a physical impossibility if the skull x-rays are accurate. At the very least, the top of the forehead and the area right behind the hairline should show some visible degree of depression/indentation. This is why Dr. Ubelaker "noted the inconsistency between the amount of missing frontal bone and the intact appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos."
You seem to be impeaching Angel's report which you have cited in the past. Angel is the only one who said the missing frontal bone was near the hairline. McDonnel said it was from the posterior of the frontal bone and the FPP was largely silent on the issue. So which one of the doctors whom you have cited in the past are you now throwing under the bus, Angel or McDonnel?
LOL! Oh my goodness. You STILL have not looked at the FPP's skull damage illustrations, have you?! Again, for the umpteenth time, those diagrams show no bone missing from the frontal bone. It is incredible that you keep dodging this fact.
Yes, the FPP included their consultants' reports in Volume 7, at the very end of the volume, but, as many scholars have also pointed out, they ignored most of their consultants' findings in their analysis. Indeed, they flat-out misrepresented Dr. Angel's findings.
And, for the sake of any newcomers to this thread, here is what you said in the OP on the issue of the FPP and missing frontal bone:
The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.
No, the FPP most certainly did NOT identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Their own diagrams refute this nonsense, and they said nothing about missing frontal bone in their report.
No, the "missing piece of frontal bone" would not have been "nowhere the forehead." Again, look at Angel's and Mantik's diagrams. Mantik had the advantage of being able to use OD measurements to determine the full extent of the amount and location of missing frontal bone. And did you miss Dr. Mantik's point that Dr. Boswell diagrammed the missing frontal bone as nearing the hairline, and his point that Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said frontal bone was missing right up to the hairline? Did you miss all that? Were you hoping that everyone else would miss it?
And, you once again dishonestly only mentioned Dr. McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and also ignoring the fact that the FPP ignored both of his readings and claimed (via their diagrams) there was no missing frontal bone. I mean, do you suffer from amnesia or something? Do you think readers won't notice the misleading way you cite evidence and how often you simply ignore evidence?
I mean, this is just incredible. You plainly made two unambiguous claims that are both demonstrably and inexcusably false. Everyone who understands English and who reads this thread can see this. But, you just can't man up and admit you blundered.
-
LOL! Oh my goodness. You STILL have not looked at the FPP's skull damage illustrations, have you?! Again, for the umpteenth time, those diagrams show no bone missing from the frontal bone. It is incredible that you keep dodging this fact.
Yes, the FPP included their consultants' reports in Volume 7, at the very end of the volume, but, as many scholars have also pointed out, they ignored most of their consultants' findings in their analysis. Indeed, they flat-out misrepresented Dr. Angel's findings.
And, for the sake of any newcomers to this thread, here is what you said in the OP on the issue of the FPP and missing frontal bone:
No, the FPP most certainly did NOT identify "a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone." Their own diagrams refute this nonsense, and they said nothing about missing frontal bone in their report.
No, the "missing piece of frontal bone" would not have been "nowhere the forehead." Again, look at Angel's and Mantik's diagrams. Mantik had the advantage of being able to use OD measurements to determine the full extent of the amount and location of missing frontal bone. And did you miss Dr. Mantik's point that Dr. Boswell diagrammed the missing frontal bone as nearing the hairline, and his point that Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said frontal bone was missing right up to the hairline? Did you miss all that? Were you hoping that everyone else would miss it?
And, you once again dishonestly only mentioned Dr. McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and also ignoring the fact that the FPP ignored both of his readings and claimed (via their diagrams) there was no missing frontal bone. I mean, do you suffer from amnesia or something? Do you think readers won't notice the misleading way you cite evidence and how often you simply ignore evidence?
I mean, this is just incredible. You plainly made two unambiguous claims that are both demonstrably and inexcusably false. Everyone who understands English and who reads this thread can see this. But, you just can't man up and admit you blundered.
I asked you for a quote that "FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone". Unable to provide such a quote, you followed your standard practice of trying to shift the burden of proof onto me to find the support for your assertion. It's hard to take someone seriously who consistently resorts to such an intellectually dishonest practice.
-
For those who want to view the HSCA's skull-damage diagrams, they are as follows: HSCA Exhibit F-58, HSCA Exhibit F-66, HSCA Exhibit F-65, Figure 29 (7 HSCA 125), Figure 30 (7 HSCA 126), and Figure 31 (7 HSCA 127).
HSCA Exhibits F-58, F-65, F-66 were not published in the HSCA volumes but were placed in the National Archives. John Hunt scanned them at the National Archives. They can be found in Hunt's article:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm#_edn38
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h8_lrg.jpg
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h16_lrg.jpg
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h4_lrg.jpg
HSCA Figures 29, 30, and 31 were published in Volume 7 of the HSCA volumes and can be found here:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0069a.htm
You can see that these diagrams depict no missing frontal bone, except for an extremely small defect consisting of half of the small hole that straddles the coronal suture about 2.5 cm/1.0 inch above the squamous suture.
Even Dr. McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays describes far more missing frontal bone than this, not to mention his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which describes even more missing frontal bone. The FPP simply ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses regarding the amount of missing frontal bone.
Dr. Angel correctly identified the large triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, whereas the FPP unbelievably said it was parietal bone. This is especially curious because Dr. Angel was much more qualified in this area than any of the FPP members. Dr. Angel's diagrams show that part of the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline.
Dr. David Mantik has removed all reasonable doubt, if there ever was any, about Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, proving that it can only be frontal bone:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Robertson.pdf
You can find Dr. Angel's diagram of the missing frontal bone in Hunt's article and in 7 HSCA 230:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h12_lrg.jpg
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120b.htm
Anyone who wants to read about the medical and scientific evidence of a frontal shot to the head should read Dr. Mantik's paper "The Medical Evidence Decoded," from which I quote the following excerpt:
Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head, described a wound, about 1/4 inch across, above the right eye, near the hairline, where he had to place wax to disguise it. He added that this wound was so close to the hairline that the hair could easily cover it, which may explain why more witnesses did not see it. And Joe O'Donnell [White House photographer], who viewed autopsy photographs within the first week, witnessed an obvious wound above the right eye in a photograph, which he interpreted as the entry for the bullet that had caused the large hole at the right rear.
But the most objective evidence for precisely such a frontal shot lies on the skull X-rays. It should first be noted that the trail of debris obviously does not match a bullet entry near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), the site preferred by the pathologists. . . . (My own view is that one headshot did enter near the EOP, just as the pathologists said, but that there was also a subsequent, frontal shot.)
Instead current, lone-gunman advocates now necessarily support the HSCA's much higher entry wound (the red spot).But this does not work, either. First, the lateral x-ray (Figure 11) shows the 6 .5 mm fragment lying one centimeter below the "entry" site (which lies where the skull has been fractured), but the trail of debris is noticeably higher than even this "entry" site and even higher than the 6.5 mm object. No lone-gunman supporter has ever explained this discrepancy: it is simply ignored.
Even worse, though, the Warren Commission claimed (17 H 257) that the nose and tail of this bullet were found inside the limousine, meaning that this supposed bullet cross section must have come from inside the bullet (sic). Although no ballistics expert has ever seen a cross section from the outside of a bullet deposited at an entry site, the Warren Commission has done better than that. By placing an internal cross section not at the entry site (but one centimeter inferior to the entry site), they have surpassed all prior case in two separate measures at the same time, a truly remarkable achievement.
Although no proposed, posterior entry site matches this trail of metallic debris, on the other hand, a bullet that entered the right forehead, near the hairline, directly over the outer edge of the right eye socket, would match this bullet trail with remarkable precision. Furthermore, a close look at the frontal view on the diagram that Boswell drew for the ARRB (Figure 9A-D) shows a notch in the frontal bone at just this site (where the bullet entered).
As further confirmation that this notch is no accident, examine Boswell's sketch from the night of the autopsy (Figure 4A). The notch is also there!
When I examined the frontal x-ray, I used a bright light to highlight the outside of the skull. I could then easily see the top edge of the remaining frontal bone (high in the forehead).
Furthermore, with the optical densitometer, I measured the transmission of light above and below this edge over a long distance. The area above the (supposed) bone edge was darker (and the optical density values higher), implying less bone, whereas the area below it was lighter (the optical density values were lower), which implied residual frontal bone.
These measurements therefore verified what I had seen with my naked eyes with the bright light: I had identified the edge of the frontal bone. I could now trace the remaining frontal bone with good accuracy. This sketch is shown in Figure 12, the same sketch that was published in 1995, well before Boswell made his sketch for the ARRB. The same notch is also shown in my x-ray based sketch. This notch is therefore a critical piece of evidence: the frontal bullet knocked out a small fragment of bone here.
In summary, the X-rays, especially in conjunction with Boswell's sketches, provide powerful confirmation of a shot from the front. Five lines of evidence support such a frontal shot, near the hairline, above the outer border of the right orbit:
1. A wound was seen in the scalp (attested to by Kilduff, Crenshaw, Stewart, McClelland, Akin, Kantor, and O’Donnell).
2. The notch in the frontal bone was still recalled by Boswell for the ARRB.
3. The notch is actually seen on the X-rays.
4. The trail of metallic debris on the X-rays is more consistent with such a frontal shot than with it is with any posterior shot proposed to date.
5. Close examination of fragments in this debris strongly suggests that, overall; the larger ones are located closer to the rear. This would be expected for a shot from the front (but not for a shot from the rear) because the larger ones initially contained more energy (energy is proportional to mass); they should have traveled farther. (pp. 35-38)
-
For those who want to view the HSCA's skull-damage diagrams, they are as follows: HSCA Exhibit F-58, HSCA Exhibit F-66, HSCA Exhibit F-65, Figure 29 (7 HSCA 125), Figure 30 (7 HSCA 126), and Figure 31 (7 HSCA 127).
HSCA Exhibits F-58, F-65, F-66 were not published in the HSCA volumes but were placed in the National Archives. John Hunt scanned them at the National Archives. They can be found in Hunt's article:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm#_edn38
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h8_lrg.jpg
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h16_lrg.jpg
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h4_lrg.jpg
HSCA Figures 29, 30, and 31 were published in Volume 7 of the HSCA volumes and can be found here:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0069a.htm
You can see that these diagrams depict no missing frontal bone, except for an extremely small defect consisting of half of the small hole that straddles the coronal suture about 2.5 cm/1.0 inch above the squamous suture.
Even Dr. McDonnel's analysis of the enhanced skull x-rays describes far more missing frontal bone than this, not to mention his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays, which describes even more missing frontal bone. The FPP simply ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses regarding the amount of missing frontal bone.
Dr. Angel correctly identified the large triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, whereas the FPP unbelievably said it was parietal bone. This is especially curious because Dr. Angel was much more qualified in this area than any of the FPP members. Dr. Angel's diagrams show that part of the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline.
Dr. David Mantik has removed all reasonable doubt, if there ever was any, about Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular skull fragment as frontal bone, proving that it can only be frontal bone:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Robertson.pdf
You can find Dr. Angel's diagram of the missing frontal bone in Hunt's article and in 7 HSCA 230:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h12_lrg.jpg
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120b.htm
Anyone who wants to read about the medical and scientific evidence of a frontal shot to the head should read Dr. Mantik's paper "The Medical Evidence Decoded," from which I quote the following excerpt:
Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head, described a wound, about 1/4 inch across, above the right eye, near the hairline, where he had to place wax to disguise it. He added that this wound was so close to the hairline that the hair could easily cover it, which may explain why more witnesses did not see it. And Joe O'Donnell [White House photographer], who viewed autopsy photographs within the first week, witnessed an obvious wound above the right eye in a photograph, which he interpreted as the entry for the bullet that had caused the large hole at the right rear.
But the most objective evidence for precisely such a frontal shot lies on the skull X-rays. It should first be noted that the trail of debris obviously does not match a bullet entry near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), the site preferred by the pathologists. . . . (My own view is that one headshot did enter near the EOP, just as the pathologists said, but that there was also a subsequent, frontal shot.)
Instead current, lone-gunman advocates now necessarily support the HSCA's much higher entry wound (the red spot).But this does not work, either. First, the lateral x-ray (Figure 11) shows the 6 .5 mm fragment lying one centimeter below the "entry" site (which lies where the skull has been fractured), but the trail of debris is noticeably higher than even this "entry" site and even higher than the 6.5 mm object. No lone-gunman supporter has ever explained this discrepancy: it is simply ignored.
Even worse, though, the Warren Commission claimed (17 H 257) that the nose and tail of this bullet were found inside the limousine, meaning that this supposed bullet cross section must have come from inside the bullet (sic). Although no ballistics expert has ever seen a cross section from the outside of a bullet deposited at an entry site, the Warren Commission has done better than that. By placing an internal cross section not at the entry site (but one centimeter inferior to the entry site), they have surpassed all prior case in two separate measures at the same time, a truly remarkable achievement.
Although no proposed, posterior entry site matches this trail of metallic debris, on the other hand, a bullet that entered the right forehead, near the hairline, directly over the outer edge of the right eye socket, would match this bullet trail with remarkable precision. Furthermore, a close look at the frontal view on the diagram that Boswell drew for the ARRB (Figure 9A-D) shows a notch in the frontal bone at just this site (where the bullet entered).
As further confirmation that this notch is no accident, examine Boswell's sketch from the night of the autopsy (Figure 4A). The notch is also there!
When I examined the frontal x-ray, I used a bright light to highlight the outside of the skull. I could then easily see the top edge of the remaining frontal bone (high in the forehead).
Furthermore, with the optical densitometer, I measured the transmission of light above and below this edge over a long distance. The area above the (supposed) bone edge was darker (and the optical density values higher), implying less bone, whereas the area below it was lighter (the optical density values were lower), which implied residual frontal bone.
These measurements therefore verified what I had seen with my naked eyes with the bright light: I had identified the edge of the frontal bone. I could now trace the remaining frontal bone with good accuracy. This sketch is shown in Figure 12, the same sketch that was published in 1995, well before Boswell made his sketch for the ARRB. The same notch is also shown in my x-ray based sketch. This notch is therefore a critical piece of evidence: the frontal bullet knocked out a small fragment of bone here.
In summary, the X-rays, especially in conjunction with Boswell's sketches, provide powerful confirmation of a shot from the front. Five lines of evidence support such a frontal shot, near the hairline, above the outer border of the right orbit:
1. A wound was seen in the scalp (attested to by Kilduff, Crenshaw, Stewart, McClelland, Akin, Kantor, and O’Donnell).
2. The notch in the frontal bone was still recalled by Boswell for the ARRB.
3. The notch is actually seen on the X-rays.
4. The trail of metallic debris on the X-rays is more consistent with such a frontal shot than with it is with any posterior shot proposed to date.
5. Close examination of fragments in this debris strongly suggests that, overall; the larger ones are located closer to the rear. This would be expected for a shot from the front (but not for a shot from the rear) because the larger ones initially contained more energy (energy is proportional to mass); they should have traveled farther. (pp. 35-38)
So unable to provide a quote to support your assertion you use the kitchen sink approach and dump a whole lot of documents and expect me to go through them to find the quote that you claim exists. Specifically, in which of those documents does the FPP doggedly deny there was missing frontal bone?
You have danced around the issue so much I don't even know which side you are taking. Do you side with the FPP who you CLAIM denied there was missing frontal bone or with McDonnel and Angel who said there was?
-
So unable to provide a quote to support your assertion you use the kitchen sink approach and dump a whole lot of documents and expect me to go through them to find the quote that you claim exists. Specifically, in which of those documents does the FPP doggedly deny there was missing frontal bone?
LOL and Holy Cow! So the FPP's own head-wound diagrams don't count?!
And, umm, I already said that the FPP did not discuss the amount of missing frontal bone in their report. They "said" nothing specific about it, but in their diagrams they depicted the frontal bone as undamaged and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.
Have you STILL not looked at the FPP head-wound diagrams?
You have danced around the issue so much I don't even know which side you are taking.
Oh my! I have danced around the issue?! You must have written this howler in juvenile-teenager-provocation mode.
You've done nothing but dance and duck and dodge to avoid admitting you severely blundered in claiming that the FPP "identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone," when their own diagrams prove they did no such thing.
Do you side with the FPP who you CLAIM denied there was missing frontal bone or with McDonnel and Angel who said there was?
People who read this silliness are going to conclude that you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or that you are incapable of being candid and credible.
You cannot be so illiterate as to not understand that I have plainly and repeatedly said that the FPP was demonstrably wrong (1) for denying that the x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, (2) for ignoring McDonnel's and Angel's conclusions about the amount of missing frontal bone, and (3) for bogusly placing the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.
-
LOL and Holy Cow! So the FPP's own head-wound diagrams don't count?!
And, umm, I already said that the FPP did not discuss the amount of missing frontal bone in their report. They "said" nothing specific about it, but in their diagrams they depicted the frontal bone as undamaged and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.
Have you STILL not looked at the FPP head-wound diagrams?
Oh my! I have danced around the issue?! You must have written this howler in juvenile-teenager-provocation mode.
You've done nothing but dance and duck and dodge to avoid admitting you severely blundered in claiming that the FPP "identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone," when their own diagrams prove they did no such thing.
People who read this silliness are going to conclude that you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or that you are incapable of being candid and credible.
You cannot be so illiterate as to not understand that I have plainly and repeatedly said that the FPP was demonstrably wrong (1) for denying that the x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, (2) for ignoring McDonnel's and Angel's conclusions about the amount of missing frontal bone, and (3) for bogusly placing the triangular fragment in the parietal bone.
So whose version of the missing frontal bone do you endorse, McDonnel's or Angel's. McDonnel said the missing piece was from the posterior of the frontal bone which is nowhere near the hairline.
I asked you for a quote to support your assertion that the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone. Omitting a piece of the posterior of the frontal bone from their diagram of the head wound is not what I would call doggedly denying it. If you are unable to provide a quote to support your assertion, I can only conclude that you overspoke when you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone.
-
So whose version of the missing frontal bone do you endorse, McDonnel's or Angel's. McDonnel said the missing piece was from the posterior of the frontal bone which is nowhere near the hairline.
So you're still trying to lie your way out of admitting your blunder.
As you know, I've already pointed out to you that you're only citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced x-rays, which don't show some of the damage as clearly, and are ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced x-rays. I've also pointed out to you that Angel had the advantage of using the photos of the skull fragments, whereas McDonnel was not shown those photos and was only asked to read the x-rays.
But of course you just keep ignoring these facts.
I asked you for a quote to support your assertion that the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone. Omitting a piece of the posterior of the frontal bone from their diagram of the head wound is not what I would call doggedly denying it.
You're lying again. The FPP produced diagrams showing no missing bone from the frontal bone, and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone, even though they knew better from their own radiology and forensic consultants. In fact, the FPP did not place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone.
[/quote]If you are unable to provide a quote to support your assertion, I can only conclude that you overspoke when you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone.[/quote]
No, this is just further proof of your lack of candor and of your poor knowledge of the medical evidence. As I've mentioned, the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report. They carefully avoided saying anything about the amount of missing frontal bone in their report.
But, again, they produced diagrams that showed no bone missing from the frontal bone, diagrams that put all four of the skull fragments in other parts of the skull, not one in the frontal bone (see, for example, HSCA JFK Exhibit F-66).
And your response is to argue (with a straight face?) that this doesn't constitute denying there was missing frontal bone!
Yeah, never mind that even the least problematic x-ray reading from the FPP's expert consultants said a sizable piece of bone was missing from the rear of the frontal bone! And never mind that the FPP's expert consultant in skull-fragment identification and skull reconstruction said the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone" and produced diagrams showing that the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline!
"Yeah, exactly. The FPP wasn't denying anything when they produced wound diagrams that showed no missing frontal bone, that didn't place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone, and that ignored what McDonnel and Angel told them," to paraphrase your silly dodge.
Let's approach your discrediting evasion by asking you a simple question regarding your blundering statement in your OP for this thread. You said,
The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone.
Okay, which piece of skull did they identify as missing from the rear part of the frontal bone? Which one of the four skull fragments was it?
And keep in mind that the FPP claimed that those four fragments completed the large head wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing" (HSCA RN 180-10120-10023, p. 2), so you have no wiggle room.
-
So you're still trying to lie your way out of admitting your blunder.
As you know, I've already pointed out to you that you're only citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced x-rays, which don't show some of the damage as clearly, and are ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced x-rays. I've also pointed out to you that Angel had the advantage of using the photos of the skull fragments, whereas McDonnel was not shown those photos and was only asked to read the x-rays.
But of course you just keep ignoring these facts.
Oh, so these are facts. It couldn't be your misunderstanding of what these professionals had to say. You cite Angel saying there was damage to the frontal bone near JFK's hairline. Which hairline. The one above his forehead or the one around his temples. Because the leaked photos show evidence of the latter. I know of no photos showing damage to the hairline above his forehead. My guess is you read "hairline" and "frontal bone" and you assumed they were talking about his forehead but maybe there is another explanation for your confusion.
You're lying again. The FPP produced diagrams showing no missing bone from the frontal bone, and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone, even though they knew better from their own radiology and forensic consultants. In fact, the FPP did not place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone.
If you are unable to provide a quote to support your assertion, I can only conclude that you overspoke when you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone.
No, this is just further proof of your lack of candor and of your poor knowledge of the medical evidence. As I've mentioned, the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report. They carefully avoided saying anything about the amount of missing frontal bone in their report.
Oh, so after telling us the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone, you're now telling us "the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report.". Can't you even keep your story straight?
But, again, they produced diagrams that showed no bone missing from the frontal bone, diagrams that put all four of the skull fragments in other parts of the skull, not one in the frontal bone (see, for example, HSCA JFK Exhibit F-66).
And your response is to argue (with a straight face?) that this doesn't constitute denying there was missing frontal bone!
Yeah, never mind that even the least problematic x-ray reading from the FPP's expert consultants said a sizable piece of bone was missing from the rear of the frontal bone! And never mind that the FPP's expert consultant in skull-fragment identification and skull reconstruction said the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone" and produced diagrams showing that the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline!
This is fascinating. A few posts ago you were telling us Dr. Angel said the missing frontal bone was not limited to the posterior of the bone. Now you have changed course again and going with Dr. McDonnel's conclusions. Why can't you come up with one story and stick to it? [quorw]
"Yeah, exactly. The FPP wasn't denying anything when they produced wound diagrams that showed no missing frontal bone, that didn't place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone, and that ignored what McDonnel and Angel told them," to paraphrase your silly dodge.
Let's approach your discrediting evasion by asking you a simple question regarding your blundering statement in your OP for this thread. You said,
The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone.[/quote]
I was pointing out that the FPP included Dr. McDonnel's report in their findings. You have claimed that the FPP "doggedly denied" there was missing frontal bone, an assertion you can't support with an actual quote.
Okay, which piece of skull did they identify as missing from the rear part of the frontal bone? Which one of the four skull fragments was it?
And keep in mind that the FPP claimed that those four fragments completed the large head wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing" (HSCA RN 180-10120-10023, p. 2), so you have no wiggle room.
McDonnel said the missing piece of frontal bone was from the posterior. He wasn't any more specific than that.
I'm curious. Why did you earlier cite McDonnel's report to support your position and now are disputing his conclusions.
-
MG: So you're still trying to lie your way out of admitting your blunder.
As you know, I've already pointed out to you that you're only citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced x-rays, which don't show some of the damage as clearly, and are ignoring the fact that he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in his reading of the unenhanced x-rays. I've also pointed out to you that Angel had the advantage of using the photos of the skull fragments, whereas McDonnel was not shown those photos and was only asked to read the x-rays.
But of course you just keep ignoring these facts.
JC: Oh, so these are facts.
Folks, just a heads-up that, as you'll see below, Corbett cannot say which of the four skull fragments the FPP identified as frontal bone.
Why? Because the FPP did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone. In fact, they used their wound diagrams to lead people to believe there was no bone missing from the frontal bone. They also absurdly put the triangular fragment in the parietal bone instead of in the frontal bone where Dr. Angel correctly placed it.
The FPP were careful not to come out and say this, because they knew that some of their expert consultants said there was a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and because they felt compelled to include their consultants' reports and interviews in the FPP report's addendums.
I should clarify something about the FPP and their report. FPP members Baden and Weston were the primary authors of the FPP's report. Dr. Wecht authored the lone dissent to the report, but had no other input into the report. The other FPP members had minimal if any involvement in writing the FPP's report.
So when we talk about the FPP's report, we're mainly talking about what Baden and Weston said and allowed to be diagrammed in the report.
It couldn't be your misunderstanding of what these professionals had to say. You cite Angel saying there was damage to the frontal bone near JFK's hairline. Which hairline. The one above his forehead or the one around his temples. Because the leaked photos show evidence of the latter. I know of no photos showing damage to the hairline above his forehead. My guess is you read "hairline" and "frontal bone" and you assumed they were talking about his forehead but maybe there is another explanation for your confusion.
Oh my goodness. Just stop. If you somehow, someway really did not understand that I was clearly referring to the hairline on the forehead, you seriously need to take a junior-high-level reading comprehension course.
MG: You're lying again. The FPP produced diagrams showing no missing bone from the frontal bone, and they absurdly placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone, even though they knew better from their own radiology and forensic consultants. In fact, the FPP did not place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone.
JC: If you are unable to provide a quote to support your assertion, I can only conclude that you overspoke when you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone.
MG: No, this is just further proof of your lack of candor and of your poor knowledge of the medical evidence. As I've mentioned, the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report. They carefully avoided saying anything about the amount of missing frontal bone in their report.
JC: Oh, so after telling us the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone, you're now telling us "the FPP avoided this issue like the plague in the text of their report.". Can't you even keep your story straight?
More juvenile evasion and dissembling. The FPP did doggedly deny there was missing frontal bone--that's why they produced bogus diagrams that show no missing frontal bone. You still haven't read John Hunt's article on this subject, have you?
The issue of missing frontal bone was a serious point of contention between Dr. McDonnel and Dr. Angel on the one hand and Dr. Baden and Dr. Weston on the other hand. It got to the point where Dr. McDonnel suspected that Dr. Weston would misrepresent his findings. Hunt discusses these and other facts.
Moreover, another major point of contention was the placement of the triangular fragment. Dr. Angel correctly identified it as "clearly frontal bone," a finding that Dr. Mantik has confirmed. But the FPP could not tolerate this and absurdly put the fragment in the parietal bone. Equally absurdly, the FPP put the Harper fragment in the lower front part of the parietal bone, right below and touching the triangular fragment!
If you weren't so blindly biased and dogmatic and could have brought yourself to read Hunt's article two weeks ago when I first cited and linked it to you, you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself so badly. (Well, actually, maybe you still would be, but your evasion and dissembling would be even more inexcusable.)
I notice you keep ducking the fact that the FPP's diagrams show no missing frontal bone and that this false portrayal ignores what McDonnel and Angel told the HSCA--and that it also ignores what Dr. Boswell twice diagrammed and what Dr. Finck said after the autopsy. I should add that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements prove that a large chunk of frontal bone is missing.
MG: But, again, they produced diagrams that showed no bone missing from the frontal bone, diagrams that put all four of the skull fragments in other parts of the skull, not one in the frontal bone (see, for example, HSCA JFK Exhibit F-66).
And your response is to argue (with a straight face?) that this doesn't constitute denying there was missing frontal bone!
Yeah, never mind that even the least problematic x-ray reading from the FPP's expert consultants said a sizable piece of bone was missing from the rear of the frontal bone! And never mind that the FPP's expert consultant in skull-fragment identification and skull reconstruction said the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone" and produced diagrams showing that the missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline!
JC: This is fascinating. A few posts ago you were telling us Dr. Angel said the missing frontal bone was not limited to the posterior of the bone. Now you have changed course again and going with Dr. McDonnel's conclusions. Why can't you come up with one story and stick to it?
Oh, boy. I guess you just don't care that readers will readily see that you're lying again. They will see that you keep citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays and ignoring his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and that he identified a larger amount of missing frontal bone in the unenhanced x-rays than is seen in the enhanced x-rays.
I've already pointed out to you that the enhanced skull x-rays obscure the right-frontal cloud of tiny bullet fragments, and that the enhanced x-rays fooled Dr. Sturdivan into believing there was no such cloud of tiny fragments.
This is important because Sturdivan told the HSCA that a right-frontal hit by a frangible bullet would have left numerous fragments near its entry point in that region. The FPP didn't bother to inform Sturdivan that the unenhanced x-rays clearly show just such a right-frontal cloud of tiny fragments.
Readers will also see that I have told you several times that Dr. McDonnel only viewed the skull x-rays but that Dr. Angel viewed both the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments. And, again, for the umpteenth time, Dr. McDonnel identified a larger amount of missing frontal bone on the unenhanced x-rays than he did on the enhanced x-rays.
So you really should stop the dishonest posturing that I have "changed course" between Angel and McDonnel.
MG: "Yeah, exactly. The FPP wasn't denying anything when they produced wound diagrams that showed no missing frontal bone, that didn't place any of the four skull fragments in the frontal bone, and that ignored what McDonnel and Angel told them," to paraphrase your silly dodge.
Let's approach your discrediting evasion by asking you a simple question regarding your blundering statement in your OP for this thread. You said,
"The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone."
JC: I was pointing out that the FPP included Dr. McDonnel's report in their findings. You have claimed that the FPP "doggedly denied" there was missing frontal bone, an assertion you can't support with an actual quote.
Why am I not surprised that you're still hiding behind this misleading strawman argument?
Anyway, so, umm, tell me: How do you explain the fact that the FPP produced a bunch of wound diagrams that show no missing frontal bone, that put the triangular fragment in the top front part of the parietal bone, and that put the Harper fragment in the lower front part of the parietal bone?
MG: Okay, which piece of skull did they identify as missing from the rear part of the frontal bone? Which one of the four skull fragments was it?
And keep in mind that the FPP claimed that those four fragments completed the large head wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing" (HSCA RN 180-10120-10023, p. 2), so you have no wiggle room.
JC: McDonnel said the missing piece of frontal bone was from the posterior. He wasn't any more specific than that.
One, that doesn't answer my question, and your answer ignores the fact that the FPP said that the four skull fragments completed the exit wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing."
Two, McDonnel did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone.
Three, in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, McDonnel did not limit the missing frontal bone to the rear area of the bone. Again, he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in that analysis, a fact that you keep ducking.
Four, the FPP ignored both of McDonnel's analyses and showed no missing frontal bone in any of their wound diagrams. Needless to say, they also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis and diagrams.
Five, the fact that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone destroys the FPP's reconstruction of the large head wound.
I'm curious. Why did you earlier cite McDonnel's report to support your position and now are disputing his conclusions.
I'm even more curious: Do you think readers are so illiterate or unintelligent that they will not notice that you keep ignoring the fact that Dr. McDonnel described a larger amount of missing frontal bone in his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ducking the fact that the FPP ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses, and also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis and diagrams?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ducking the fact that the FPP's identification of the triangular fragment as parietal bone is ludicrous and inexcusable?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ignoring the fact that the correct placement of the triangular fragment means that the area of missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline, if not up to it? (Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fact with OD measurements, but of course you've rejected the science of OD measurement in the JFK case because it destroys your version of the shooting and your denial of a cover-up.)
Anyway, to come back full circle, I will again point out that you clearly and undeniably blundered when you claimed that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone. They did no such thing. In fact, they refused to accept the fact that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, and they refused to accept Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone.
Your continued refusal to man up and admit you were wrong, clearly wrong, doesn't say much for your character and credibility.
-
Folks, just a heads-up that, as you'll see below, Corbett cannot say which of the four skull fragments the FPP identified as frontal bone.
Why? Because the FPP did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone. In fact, they used their wound diagrams to lead people to believe there was no bone missing from the frontal bone. They also absurdly put the triangular fragment in the parietal bone instead of in the frontal bone where Dr. Angel correctly placed it.
The FPP were careful not to come out and say this, because they knew that some of their expert consultants said there was a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, and because they felt compelled to include their consultants' reports and interviews in the FPP report's addendums.
I should clarify something about the FPP and their report. FPP members Baden and Weston were the primary authors of the FPP's report. Dr. Wecht authored the lone dissent to the report, but had no other input into the report. The other FPP members had minimal if any involvement in writing the FPP's report.
So when we talk about the FPP's report, we're mainly talking about what Baden and Weston said and allowed to be diagrammed in the report.
Oh my goodness. Just stop. If you somehow, someway really did not understand that I was clearly referring to the hairline on the forehead, you seriously need to take a junior-high-level reading comprehension course.
More juvenile evasion and dissembling. The FPP did doggedly deny there was missing frontal bone--that's why they produced bogus diagrams that show no missing frontal bone. You still haven't read John Hunt's article on this subject, have you?
The issue of missing frontal bone was a serious point of contention between Dr. McDonnel and Dr. Angel on the one hand and Dr. Baden and Dr. Weston on the other hand. It got to the point where Dr. McDonnel suspected that Dr. Weston would misrepresent his findings. Hunt discusses these and other facts.
Moreover, another major point of contention was the placement of the triangular fragment. Dr. Angel correctly identified it as "clearly frontal bone," a finding that Dr. Mantik has confirmed. But the FPP could not tolerate this and absurdly put the fragment in the parietal bone. Equally absurdly, the FPP put the Harper fragment in the lower front part of the parietal bone, right below and touching the triangular fragment!
If you weren't so blindly biased and dogmatic and could have brought yourself to read Hunt's article two weeks ago when I first cited and linked it to you, you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself so badly. (Well, actually, maybe you still would be, but your evasion and dissembling would be even more inexcusable.)
I notice you keep ducking the fact that the FPP's diagrams show no missing frontal bone and that this false portrayal ignores what McDonnel and Angel told the HSCA--and that it also ignores what Dr. Boswell twice diagrammed and what Dr. Finck said after the autopsy. I should add that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements prove that a large chunk of frontal bone is missing.
Oh, boy. I guess you just don't care that readers will readily see that you're lying again. They will see that you keep citing McDonnel's reading of the enhanced skull x-rays and ignoring his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, and that he identified a larger amount of missing frontal bone in the unenhanced x-rays than is seen in the enhanced x-rays.
I've already pointed out to you that the enhanced skull x-rays obscure the right-frontal cloud of tiny bullet fragments, and that the enhanced x-rays fooled Dr. Sturdivan into believing there was no such cloud of tiny fragments.
This is important because Sturdivan told the HSCA that a right-frontal hit by a frangible bullet would have left numerous fragments near its entry point in that region. The FPP didn't bother to inform Sturdivan that the unenhanced x-rays clearly show just such a right-frontal cloud of tiny fragments.
Readers will also see that I have told you several times that Dr. McDonnel only viewed the skull x-rays but that Dr. Angel viewed both the skull x-rays and the photos of the skull fragments. And, again, for the umpteenth time, Dr. McDonnel identified a larger amount of missing frontal bone on the unenhanced x-rays than he did on the enhanced x-rays.
So you really should stop the dishonest posturing that I have "changed course" between Angel and McDonnel.
Why am I not surprised that you're still hiding behind this misleading strawman argument?
Anyway, so, umm, tell me: How do you explain the fact that the FPP produced a bunch of wound diagrams that show no missing frontal bone, that put the triangular fragment in the top front part of the parietal bone, and that put the Harper fragment in the lower front part of the parietal bone?
One, that doesn't answer my question, and your answer ignores the fact that the FPP said that the four skull fragments completed the exit wound and left "no additional pieces of bone missing."
Two, McDonnel did not identify any of the skull fragments as frontal bone.
Three, in his reading of the unenhanced skull x-rays, McDonnel did not limit the missing frontal bone to the rear area of the bone. Again, he described a larger area of missing frontal bone in that analysis, a fact that you keep ducking.
Four, the FPP ignored both of McDonnel's analyses and showed no missing frontal bone in any of their wound diagrams. Needless to say, they also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis and diagrams.
Five, the fact that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone destroys the FPP's reconstruction of the large head wound.
I'm even more curious: Do you think readers are so illiterate or unintelligent that they will not notice that you keep ignoring the fact that Dr. McDonnel described a larger amount of missing frontal bone in his analysis of the unenhanced skull x-rays?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ducking the fact that the FPP ignored both of Dr. McDonnel's analyses, and also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis and diagrams?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ducking the fact that the FPP's identification of the triangular fragment as parietal bone is ludicrous and inexcusable?
Do you think readers will not notice that you keep ignoring the fact that the correct placement of the triangular fragment means that the area of missing frontal bone extended nearly to the hairline, if not up to it? (Dr. Mantik has confirmed this fact with OD measurements, but of course you've rejected the science of OD measurement in the JFK case because it destroys your version of the shooting and your denial of a cover-up.)
Anyway, to come back full circle, I will again point out that you clearly and undeniably blundered when you claimed that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone. They did no such thing. In fact, they refused to accept the fact that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone, and they refused to accept Dr. Angel's identification of the triangular fragment as frontal bone.
Your continued refusal to man up and admit you were wrong, clearly wrong, doesn't say much for your character and credibility.
I keep reminding you that you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone. I keep asking you for a quote that supports that claim and you keep dodging that request. Now you are claiming that is a strawman argument. That implies you are denying you ever wrote that. Sorry, but you really did write that. Just to remined you, here is the exact quote:
"the FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone".
Now if you can't find a quote to support that statement, why don't you simply admit you misspoke and overstated your case. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead you choose to go into your Inartful Dodger act and in the process, you make yourself look quite foolish.
-
I keep reminding you that you said the FPP doggedly denied there was missing frontal bone. I keep asking you for a quote that supports that claim and you keep dodging that request. Now you are claiming that is a strawman argument. That implies you are denying you ever wrote that. Sorry, but you really did write that. Just to remined you, here is the exact quote:
"the FPP doggedly denied that any bone was missing from the frontal bone".
Now if you can't find a quote to support that statement, why don't you simply admit you misspoke and overstated your case. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead you choose to go into your Inartful Dodger act and in the process, you make yourself look quite foolish.
Oh my goodness. You are worse than a teenager. Do you really think readers won't see through this silly, dishonest dodge?
I've stated several times now that the FPP did not touch the issue of missing frontal bone in the text of their report, but that they (1) produced several wound diagrams that show no missing frontal bone, (2) ignored McDonnel's and Angel's analyses of the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, (3) ignored Angel's placement of the triangular fragment in the frontal bone, and (4) ludicrously placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone in order to avoid having to admit that substantial frontal bone was missing.
And your teenage response is to cry "but they didn't say in their text that there was no missing frontal bone!" Producing bogus, misleading wound diagrams showing no missing frontal bone is every bit as much of an act of making a false claim as falsely saying in text that there was no missing frontal bone. Producing misleading diagrams is a form of misleading communication, especially if you purposely avoided saying that the diagrams are misleading.
If you bought a house remotely based on photos that a realtor sent you and then you found out that the photos had been photoshopped to conceal damage to the house, imagine what you would think if you confronted that realtor and they said, "Oh, hey, I never said there was no damage to the house!" Yeah, I'm sure you'd be just fine and dandy with that nonsense, right?
I would just again note that you still have not acknowledged your undeniable blunder of claiming that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone. There were only four skull fragments, and the FPP said in writing that they constituted the entire exit wound. They did not identify any of the fragments as frontal bone, even though the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone," as Dr. Angel told them and as Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and others have confirmed.
Finally, if you want to read about the FPP's conflicts with Angel and McDonnel over missing frontal bone and the placement of the triangular fragment and the Harper fragment, I again suggest that you break down and read John Hunt's famous article on the subject. Here's the link again, for your convenience:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
-
Oh my goodness. You are worse than a teenager. Do you really think readers won't see through this silly, dishonest dodge?
I've stated several times now that the FPP did not touch the issue of missing frontal bone in the text of their report, but that they (1) produced several wound diagrams that show no missing frontal bone, (2) ignored McDonnel's and Angel's analyses of the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, (3) ignored Angel's placement of the triangular fragment in the frontal bone, and (4) ludicrously placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone in order to avoid having to admit that substantial frontal bone was missing.
And your teenage response is to cry "but they didn't say in their text that there was no missing frontal bone!" Producing bogus, misleading wound diagrams showing no missing frontal bone is every bit as much of an act of making a false claim as falsely saying in text that there was no missing frontal bone. Producing misleading diagrams is a form of misleading communication, especially if you purposely avoided saying that the diagrams are misleading.
If you bought a house remotely based on photos that a realtor sent you and then you found out that the photos had been photoshopped to conceal damage to the house, imagine what you would think if you confronted that realtor and they said, "Oh, hey, I never said there was no damage to the house!" Yeah, I'm sure you'd be just fine and dandy with that nonsense, right?
I would just again note that you still have not acknowledged your undeniable blunder of claiming that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone. There were only four skull fragments, and the FPP said in writing that they constituted the entire exit wound. They did not identify any of the fragments as frontal bone, even though the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone," as Dr. Angel told them and as Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and others have confirmed.
Finally, if you want to read about the FPP's conflicts with Angel and McDonnel over missing frontal bone and the placement of the triangular fragment and the Harper fragment, I again suggest that you break down and read John Hunt's famous article on the subject. Here's the link again, for your convenience:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
So you think omitting the missing frontal bone from their diagram equates to a dogged denial. <chuckle>
-
Oh my goodness. You are worse than a teenager. Do you really think readers won't see through this silly, dishonest dodge?
I've stated several times now that the FPP did not touch the issue of missing frontal bone in the text of their report, but that they (1) produced several wound diagrams that show no missing frontal bone, (2) ignored McDonnel's and Angel's analyses of the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, (3) ignored Angel's placement of the triangular fragment in the frontal bone, and (4) ludicrously placed the triangular fragment in the parietal bone in order to avoid having to admit that substantial frontal bone was missing.
And your teenage response is to cry "but they didn't say in their text that there was no missing frontal bone!" Producing bogus, misleading wound diagrams showing no missing frontal bone is every bit as much of an act of making a false claim as falsely saying in text that there was no missing frontal bone. Producing misleading diagrams is a form of misleading communication, especially if you purposely avoided saying that the diagrams are misleading.
If you bought a house remotely based on photos that a realtor sent you and then you found out that the photos had been photoshopped to conceal damage to the house, imagine what you would think if you confronted that realtor and they said, "Oh, hey, I never said there was no damage to the house!" Yeah, I'm sure you'd be just fine and dandy with that nonsense, right?
I would just again note that you still have not acknowledged your undeniable blunder of claiming that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone. There were only four skull fragments, and the FPP said in writing that they constituted the entire exit wound. They did not identify any of the fragments as frontal bone, even though the triangular fragment was "clearly frontal bone," as Dr. Angel told them and as Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and others have confirmed.
Finally, if you want to read about the FPP's conflicts with Angel and McDonnel over missing frontal bone and the placement of the triangular fragment and the Harper fragment, I again suggest that you break down and read John Hunt's famous article on the subject. Here's the link again, for your convenience:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
Come to think of it, I should add
-- that the FPP "said" that the triangular skull fragment was in the parietal bone (they also put it in the parietal bone in their diagrams);
-- that the FPP "said" that the triangular fragment was bordered by the Harper fragment below it, and that the two fragments adjoined and completed a single bullet exit hole ("circular perforation");
-- that the FPP "said" that the four fragments constituted the exit wound and that the fragments left "no additional pieces of bone missing" (which is the same thing they depicted in their diagrams);
-- that the FPP "said" that the four fragments all came from the large defect illustrated in HSCA JFK Exhibit F-66, which shows no bone missing from the frontal bone;
-- and that the FPP "said" that the exit wound was located only in the parietal bone (7 HSCA 80, 120, 124; HSCA RN 180-10100-10232, p. 57; HSCA RN 180-10120-10023, p. 2; 1 HSCA 252-254).
So, it is certainly fair to say that the FPP "said" there was no missing frontal bone. To put it another way, their statements about the placement of the four skull fragments and the large exit wound, especially the triangular fragment and the Harper fragment, make it impossible to conclude that the FPP even hinted that any frontal bone was missing.
This fact is confirmed in their wound diagrams, which depict no missing frontal bone and which show all the skull fragments as coming from the parietal bone (e.g., HSCA JFK Exhibit F-66 in 1 HSCA 252).
Yet, Dr. Boswell drew a diagram that depicted a substantial amount of missing frontal bone. Dr. Finck said there was missing frontal bone. Dr. McDonnel said a substantial amount of frontal bone was missing. Dr. Angel said the triangular skull fragment, the largest of the fragments, was frontal bone. Dr. Canning said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone. Dr. Fitzpatrick told the ARRB, albeit in very guarded language, that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone. And, Dr. Mantik has confirmed with optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays that a large amount of frontal bone is missing.
So why did Baden and Weston, the main authors of the FPP's report, so doggedly refuse to acknowledge that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone?
One, they were trying to sustain the revised entry wound location, i.e., the phantom cowlick entry site, and any appreciable amount of missing frontal bone would wreak havoc with the trajectory from the cowlick entry site.
Two, they needed to shrink the size of the exit wound to make it at least theoretically compatible with an exit wound caused by an FMJ bullet striking the back of the head straight on at a downward angle. One of their radiology consultants had already told them that the wound seen in the x-rays was not what he would expect to see from an FMJ bullet striking straight on.
This was Dr. Norman Chase, the chairman of the Department of Radiology at the New York University School of Medicine. Dr. Chase informed the HSCA that the large head wound was "not" what he would expect "from a single, jacketed bullet hitting straight on," and then he suggested the bullet may have been tumbling or may have hit at an angle--which of course was not at all consistent with a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window at Z311-312.
Three, the autopsy photos of the head show no loss of structure whatsoever in the top of the forehead and in the area behind the hairline. One would logically think that there should be at least a modest indentation/loss of structure behind the hairline, if not also at the very top of the forehead. Dr. Ubelaker told the ARRB that "the apparent absence of bone in much of the anterior portion of these x-rays seems inconsistent with the intact appearance of the right forehead in the photos."
Obviously, John Corbett doesn't have the maturity or the character to admit that he blundered. I know he knows he was wrong in saying that the FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, and everyone reading this thread knows it as well. I see no point in wasting more time trying to get him to acknowledge his obvious error. He's never going to admit it.