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.

You don't know that. That's just what you want to believe. Since I know it would be a waste of time with you, I won't bother to cite all the evidence of illicit pre-autopsy surgery, of two extra bullets being found during the autopsy (one in the sheets wrapped around JFK's head and on in the limo), and of the receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy (which missile later disappeared and was covered up with the explanation that the federal agents used the word "missile" to refer to fragments--sure, happens all the time).

OMG!!! I didn't even think you were gullible enough to believe that ridiculous story of post-mortem surgery concocted by David Lifton. That is probably the nuttiest conspiracy theory anyone has ever come up with. No one who takes that story seriously should themselves be taken seriously. That includes you. You seem willing to swallow just about any BS story as long as it claims there was a conspiracy.

For those who would like to read some of the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, please see my article on the subject:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing

BTW, why haven't any of the SBT wound ballistics tests, even some of the markedly rigged ones, been able to duplicate the SBT, i.e., produce a bullet that did the same amount of damage that CE 399 allegedly did and emerged in the same virtually pristine condition as CE 399? What's up with that?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that you reject the science of wound ballistics testing when it comes to the JFK case.

Yeah, never mind that Connally said he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Never mind that his visible reactions that start in Z238--the right shoulder drop, the puffing of cheeks, and the pained expression--were involuntary reactions that would not have taken more than four frames to occur after he was hit.

Never mind JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226 which coincided with JFK starting to raise his arms in reaction to being shot. You dodge this inconvenient fact every time it is brought up because you have no explanation for it.

And are you ever going to explain how you can still believe in the SBT when we know there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge?

Whether the bullet did or did not nick the tie upon exiting JFK's throat is not an essential element of the SBT. I believe it did, but the SBT works either way.

Hey, Einstein. If the back wound had no exit and the throat wound had no exit, there should have been two bullets in the body. There were zero.

You don't know that. That's just what you want to believe. Since I know it would be a waste of time with you, I won't bother to cite all the evidence of illicit pre-autopsy surgery, of two extra bullets being found during the autopsy (one in the sheets wrapped around JFK's head and on in the limo), and of the receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy (which missile later disappeared and was covered up with the explanation that the federal agents used the word "missile" to refer to fragments--sure, happens all the time).

For those who would like to read some of the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, please see my article on the subject:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing

BTW, why haven't any of the SBT wound ballistics tests, even some of the markedly rigged ones, been able to duplicate the SBT, i.e., produce a bullet that did the same amount of damage that CE 399 allegedly did and emerged in the same virtually pristine condition as CE 399? What's up with that?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that you reject the science of wound ballistics testing when it comes to the JFK case.

I feel confident in saying the shot struck +/- within one frame of Z222.

Yeah, never mind that Connally said he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Never mind that his visible reactions that start in Z238--the right shoulder drop, the puffing of cheeks, and the pained expression--were involuntary reactions that would not have taken more than four frames to occur after he was hit.

And are you ever going to explain how you can still believe in the SBT when we know there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge?

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?

"Modern scholars" do no such thing. You're talking about "modern" believers in the single-bullet theory (SBT), not "modern scholars" in general, because plenty of modern scholars view the SBT as a silly myth, and for good reason.

For one thing, in 2023, the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done proved the SBT is impossible. It proved that JFK and Connally were never in a position to allow a trajectory back to the sixth-floor window. I refer, of course, to the 2023 SBT trajectory study done by the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratory.

Knott Lab's experts conducted a high-definition laser scan of Dealey Plaza to generate a point cloud of up to 2 million points per second, to accurately measure point-to-point anywhere in the scene. Using a 3D laser scanner (Leica RTC360), Knott Lab's experts did 36 laser scans of Dealey Plaza, producing a digital reconstruction of the plaza that has 851 million data points. No other SBT trajectory analysis has included such a detailed digital model of the plaza and of JFK's and Connally's positions in the limousine.

FYI, Knott Lab's SBT trajectory analysis has been endorsed by the the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and the journal Forensic. Indeed, Forensic did their own documentary on the JFK case using Knott Lab's SBT trajectory study.

Finally, it bears repeating that we now know that the back wound had no exit point, that there was no hole through JFK's tie, that there was no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and that numerous photos show that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band during the Dallas motorcade.

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view

The SBT was destroyed way back when we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge. Poof, there went the SBT up in smoke right then and there. But you SBT believers, acting curiously like Flat Earthers or 9/11 Truthers, simply refuse to process cold hard fact that abjectly refutes your theory.

Hey, Einstein. If the back wound had no exit and the throat wound had no exit, there should have been two bullets in the body. There were zero.