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.

Yes, this! And I will add that Vincent Bugliosi’s huge book is worth at least five other books. So, I think essentially this should equal six books….   

I assumed we were talking about a newcomer with a genuine interest in becoming "involved" in the JFKA. Reading the WR report and Bugliosi right off the bat would certainly serve to indoctrinate a newcomer into the LN narrative, but this would be like a CTer suggesting that a newcomer read Doug Horne's or Jim DiEugenio's work first. In my responses, I was not talking about "indoctrinating a newcomer into my view of the truth of the JFKA" but more in the vein of "preparing a newcomer to think rationally about the JFKA" when he dives into the LN and CT literature. To be fair to MTG (eek!) his list is at least somewhat balanced, albeit with books I wouldn't recommend. If I were following his approach, I would've recommended what I regard as the three best LN-oriented books and the three best CT-oriented books, but I really don't think this is the way for a newcomer to begin.

LP--

You are making the irrational assumption that state and private actors always make rational decisions.

Why did Puerto Rican nationals try to assassinate then-President Truman in 1950? Surely, if successful, such an assassination would have only backfired.

Remember, when ideology and nationalism, or ethnocentrism, or ethnic bias get involved, rational thought and behavior often goes out the window. 

The Alpha-66 crowd said that they had been betrayed by JFK, at BoP, and their friends and comrades died for nothing.

The G2-DGI'ers knew that JFK had been trying to assassinate Castro for years.

A couple-three hotheads....a couple guns...all you need.

As for LHO being "nutty"...that might be viewed as a plus. A nutty LHO's testimony might be taken with a grain of salt, and more-easily dismissed, providing plausible deniability.

Anyway, I am not sure LHO was regarded as all that nutty pre-JFKA.

I think a more careful distinction needs to be made between (1) "Castro and/or G2" being behind the JFKA, (2) "Castro and/or G2" encouraging the JFKA, and (3) "a couple of angry pro-Castro wackos who might've thought they were doing something helpful" encouraging Oswald to kill JFK. They all seem to get blended together in the "Castro/Cuba" narrative. Only #3 has any plausibility and would account for the irrationality I'm talking about.

JC--

I am no fan of the Soviet Union then, or Russia now.

But the word "rational" covers a lot of ground.

Trying to start a life in Russia might speak to an ideological bent, in an otherwise rational person.

That is, no one has ever said LHO was schizo, or fabricated memories, or misunderstood basic instructions, etc. Indeed LHO, as Marine, was advanced into relatively high-end radar work at the Atsugi airbase in Japan.

I doubt some whacko would be able to do that.

I do regard someone shooting at major public figures, or any innocent person, as likely mentally ill, even if lucid. I am a layman in these matters.

Tough call on LHO. The DPD'ers who interviewed him post-JFKA thought him lucid, perfidious and abrasive.

As for low-level DGI, G2 or Apha-66'ers, they might regard LHO as very useful.

I don't believe Oswald was insane in a legal sense, but he clearly wasn't playing with a full deck.

You just can't help yourself, can you? This thread is supposed to be a chance for people to list the top six books they would recommend to a newcomer. But, of course, you only list five books and then deluge us with more of your endless, pompous posturing that everyone who disagrees with you is part of the lunatic fringe and/or has a conspiracy-prone mindset and/or has a warped mind and/or has a form of mental illness, blah, blah, blah--after, that is, you announce that you will talk about your supposedly high IQ and academic honors if anyone asks.

Uh, you might want to review my first post here and YOUR response, he of the conveniently short memory. You will see that it was YOU who went off on a tangential rant. You repeatedly - incessantly - mischaracterize what others have said and then respond to that straw man. In my interactions on perhaps 30 internet forums dating back to 1996, you are among the most grimly humorless, thin-skinned, self-important, just-flat-whacked-out characters I have encountered. Fortunately, most here are perceptive enough to see you for what you are.