JFK Assassination Forum

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.

I'm not suggesting anything. 

I am pointing out that President Kennedy never touched his throat like just about everyone claims when they mention his reaction to the first shot.  Clearly, he never went for his throat.  Ever.  His right hand and arm jerk upward, his hand is open, giving the appearance that his hand is covering his mouth, while his arm is splayed upward and folded at the elbow.
 
Too many people watch the Zapruder film at slower than normal speed because too many people post the Zapruder film onto YouTube at a speed slower than 18.3 frames per second and overlook how fast his right comes up in front of his face to mouth level. The left hand is clearly not touching his throat either. as can clearly be seen.

I'm not suggesting anything. 

I am pointing out that President Kennedy never touched his throat like just about everyone claims when they mention his reaction to the first shot.  Clearly, he never went for his throat.  Ever.  His right hand and arm jerk upward, his hand is open, giving the appearance that his hand is covering his mouth, while his arm is splayed upward and folded at the elbow.
 
Too many people watch the Zapruder film at slower than normal speed because too many people post the Zapruder film onto YouTube at a speed slower than 18.3 frames per second and overlook how fast his right comes up in front of his face to mouth level. The left hand is clearly not touching his throat either. as can clearly be seen.

Oh my goodness, this is hilarious. Here we have John Corbett, who is truly and literally a know-nothing troll, attacking Lance Payette for showing some open-mindedness on two widely believed and credible conspiracy scenarios (Mafia and Cuban G2).

As usual, the adamance and arrogance in Corbett's arguments are matched only by his raw ignorance of JFK assassination research.

Regarding Gus Russo and his book Live By the Sword, I reviewed the book back in 2012. Here's a little bit of what I said about the book in my review:

I would like to stress that, in spite of the problems discussed above, I believe Russo's Live by the Sword is an important, worthwhile book. It contains a great deal of new information on key aspects of the JFK assassination. Russo does a superb job on the possible involvement of Cuban intelligence in Kennedy's death, on the reports that Oswald had contacts with Cuban intelligence in Mexico City, on the possibility that some intelligence elements had foreknowledge that Kennedy was going to be killed, on the flaws in the Warren Commission's investigation, on the conflicts among the Warren Commission's staff and members, on Lyndon Johnson's political standing with John Kennedy at the time of the shooting, on the suspicious activities at Red Bird Airport, and on several other subjects. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1juiglUsXuJrapG3c9CSsam7Qp8F0UD7B/view)

Not a coincidence at all.  They are both reacting to the same shot.  The zfilm does not tell you that JBC is reacting to being hit by it.

The  evidence tells you that JBC is reacting to hearing it.