Translation: "I still don't care, or at least I say don't care, because I have no idea how to explain the evidence that you're presenting.

I'm not presenting the medical evidence. That's your gig. You did write in the last line of your previous post in this thread the following:

"Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting."

So once again you are trying to shift the burden to ME to explain the assertions YOU made.

The simple fact of the matter which I have explained to you many times is that I am not qualified to interpret the medical evidence from the autopsy which is why I don't try. I leave it to the qualified people to do that and then cite the findings of those people. You aren't qualified to interpret the medical evidence either but that doesn't stop you from trying. .

And still nobody cares.

Translation: "I still don't care, or at least I say don't care, because I have no idea how to explain the evidence that you're presenting. I know it's ludicrous to claim that three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist, 'missed' the high fragment trail or mistook it for the low fragment trail. Of course I know that's preposterous, and I know there's not even a remotely plausible innocent explanation for the fact that there's no low fragment trail on the skull x-rays, but I can't admit these things without demolishing my position on the JFK case.

And, yes, I know the FPP said the brain photos undeniably refute the EOP entry site, and I know the EOP site must be wrong if the brain photos are authentic, and I know the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the tiny amount of missing brain shown in the brain photos, but I don't dare admit that the brain photos are fake, even though the autopsy photographer said he did not take them. Come on. We both know that I don't dare admit these things because this would demolish my position on the JFK case."

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.

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.

Yes, of course. Since the substantial majority of Americans, and also Europeans, reject the lone-gunman theory, well, you know, they just must not know the facts; they must not be informed enough about the case; etc., etc.

Uh-huh. It just can't be that they recognize the lone-gunman theory for what it is: an untenable, implausible theory that was cooked up by a government commission in 1964 to placate the public, whose key findings were rejected by a congressional select committee in 1979, and whose key findings were utterly demolished by previously sealed documents that were released by a federal records review board in the 1990s.

If you doubt the vast majority of Americans are woefully uninformed about the JFKA, then it is you who is truly uninformed. In the rare circumstance when the JFKA comes up in conversation outside of online JFKA forums, most of the people I have talked to about it seem to have gotten most if not all their information from Oliver Stone's BS movie. I remember walking out of the theater and overhearing people saying things like, "It's hard to argue with".