Graves goes back and forth between calling me "Comrade" (a witting Russian asset) and "Useful Idiot" (an unwitting Russian asset).

Yeah, uh-huh. This is just another display of your pitiful knowledge of the evidence, and of your penchant for distortion, evasion, and omission. It is also another display of your embarrassing inability to correctly format your replies. I guess the simple push-button formatting commands are just too complicated for you to figure out.

Your entire answer for the historic hard scientific evidence of the OD measurements is to note that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, as if that somehow proves the OD measurements are invalid, when in fact it makes them all the more compelling because a big part of his job is making and correctly analyzing OD measurements. Plus, as I know you know, two other medical experts, Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. Gary Aguilar, did their own OD measurements, which confirmed Mantik's OD measurements.

I should add that all three of those medical experts have done a great deal of reading in forensic science literature, which is why their writings, especially Dr. Mantik's, contain many references to forensic sources. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read their research.

I notice you ignored the fact that Dr. Artwohl, a staunch WC defender, admitted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the exact spot of the cowlick site, just as Dr. Riley observed, and just as Dr. Mantik confirmed. Do you somehow not grasp that this debunks the cowlick site?

In response to the fact that Dr. Ebersole said a large late-arriving skull fragment was occipital bone, and to the fact that Dr. Boswell said part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments, you say "the defect did extend into the occipital bone," but then a few paragraphs later you once again dishonestly appeal to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP," even though the FPP denied that the wound extended into the occiput!

I've pointed out the contradictory, dishonest nature of your use of the FPP's findings on several occasions, but you continue to peddle your distortions. 

Furthermore, you obviously do not understand that the occipital fragment that Dr. Boswell said contained part of the rear head entry wound would have had to come from the middle part of the occiput, since the wound was only 1 cm above the EOP. Humes and Finck never, ever said the large head wound extended that far into the occiput, much less that a large amount of occipital bone was missing.

Boswell, however, to his great credit, did admit via his wound diagram for the ARRB that a sizable piece of occipital bone was missing, confirming Dr. Ebersole's disclosure to the HSCA that a large late-arriving fragment from Dallas was occipital bone.

Moreover, you keep refusing to face the fact that you cannot accept the EOP entry site, much less believe that the large head wound extended even slightly into the occiput, without repudiating the autopsy brain photos as utterly fraudulent. Do you just not have the education necessary to understand the implication of the fact that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the right and left occipital lobes?

It is specious and dishonest of you to keep selectively appealing to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP" when the FPP themselves pointed out that the brain photos categorically make it impossible to accept the EOP entry site -- assuming, of course, that the brain photos are authentic.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no bullet could have entered the EOP site without tearing through the right occipital lobe, just as the FPP correctly noted?

However, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos as bogus and embrace the cowlick site. But, uh-oh, the autopsy photos refute the cowlick site because they show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the cowlick site's location.

Additionally, if the large head wound extended even slightly into the occipital bone from the right parietal bone, how in the world could the right occipital lobe have remained undamaged? Here, again, the FPP's conclusions wreak havoc with your position, since the FPP correctly noted that the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe (indeed, they cited this as another objection to the EOP site).

Are you really incapable of understanding the self-evident fact that if a bullet blasted even a tiny amount of skull from the top part of the occiput, this would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (and probably would have caused some damage to the left lobe as well), since the occipital lobe lies directly behind the top half of the occiput? 

I see that you also punted on the fact that the only way anyone could have seen damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid dripping from the cerebellum, would have been if occipital bone was missing in the area of the cerebellum, which is the lower half of the occiput. 

You keep hiding behind the phony argument that no one who is not a doctor is qualified to make this point, yet you ignore the fact that many medical doctors have also made this point.

You don't have to hold medical agree to look at diagrams of the skull and of the brain and see where the cerebellum is located inside the skull. You can look in hundreds of online medical sources on anatomy and see that the cerebellum is located only at the lower half of the occipital bone and nowhere else.

If you just do a Google search, you'll learn the following:

The cerebellum sits directly beneath the occipital lobe at the lower back of the brain, and both structures are protected by the occipital bone of the skull (the occiput).

For your education, here are some medical diagrams of the occiput, the cerebellum, and the occipital lobe:

OCCIPUT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral2.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_-_animation_02.gif

CEREBELLUM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg

https://www.flintrehab.com/cerebellum-brain-damage/

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23418-cerebellum

OCCIPITAL LOBE

https://www.flintrehab.com/occipital-lobe-stroke/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/lobes-brain

And, just FYI (but more for the benefit of other readers), I've read many, many sources on forensic science and wound ballistics, as well as on anatomy and physiology. In contrast, it is obvious you know next to nothing about these subjects.

It does fly.  A)  Look at the Zapruder film.  B) Look at the autopsy photos (or are these "fake" as your party says) C.  Use common sense.  Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that any blood or brain tissue that would landed on the back rest of the back seat would have been immediately severely disturbed when Mrs. Kennedy raised out of the seat and attempted to climb from seat onto the trunk. LOOK AT Mrs. Kennedy's POSITION AGAINST THE BACK SEAT Brian. Are going to deny that Mrs. Kennedy's hips and lower body are right up against the seat in the very location your "blood splatter" is on the seat?  Come on! Your entire theory is ludicrous and ridiculous.