LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Michael T. Griffith]

Zapruder, about 40 feet away, views and films the assassination. Immediately after he has that film - and three copies - made. He views the original film at the studio. He then gives two copies - copies not the original - to the Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent. Sorrels - "thuh government" doesn't take all four. No, they take - are given - two copies. Zapruder keeps the original and shows it the next day to potential buyers.

Fast forward to the Clay Shaw trial in 1967. At the trial Zapruder shows the film to the jury. It's shown multiple times. It shows the explosion on JFK's head at the top/right not the back. Again, not the back. Zapruder doesn't see this change? The original film supposedly shows the explosion out of the back. Here, the film shows the top/side. It's been changed by the CIA from back to top? Zapruder doesn't see this?

You have be quite a fantasist to think Zapruder saw a blowout in the back of the head on the original but then *doesn't* notice that it has changed to the top/right in the film shown at the trial.

Fantasists indeed.

You are yet another WC apologist who seems to be living in the 1960s and who appears to be unaware of the numerous disclosures and discoveries that have occurred since then. Do the terms "Hawkeyeworks," "NPIC," "Dino Brugioni," "Homer McMahon," etc., ring a bell? Educate yourself:

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

You cite Zapruder's alleged failure to notice the change in the head wounding from what he saw from 40 feet away with his eye up against the camera's viewfinder vs. what he later saw in the film. We could spend some time talking about the point that you cannot prove that Zapruder did not notice differences between what he filmed and what was later presented as his film. But, let's assume that he did not notice any differences. If you think that failure is "fantastic," how about the astonishing failure of Nurses Diana Bowron, Doris Nelson, and Patricia Hutton and mortician Tom Robinson to notice the gaping, shredded wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos? Hey?

Bowron and Robinson handled the skull. Bowron helped Nurse Henchliffe wash the head and packed the large right-rear wound with gauze, and then wrapped sheets around the head. She did not see any other large wound on the head and said the autopsy photos do not show the wound that she saw.

Robinson viewed the autopsy and then helped to reconstruct JFK's skull after the autopsy. He was specifically asked if he saw any other large wounds other than the back-of-head wound that he described, and he said no, he did not. He watched and helped with the reconstruction of the skull. How in the world could he have failed to notice the brazenly obvious horrific wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos? How?

Nurse Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital. She got a good look at JFK's head. In 1981, in a recorded interview, journalist Ben Bradlee asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson said she got "a fairly good look. . . . When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the autopsy photographs that show the back of the head intact, she was incredulous, saying,

"No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw)

Bradlee even had Nelson draw the wound on an artificial skull. She put the wound in the right-rear part of the skull. Then, Bradlee asked her if the autopsy photos showed the head wound that she saw, and she said "No." Bradlee then asked her specifically about the large wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos. She rejected it, saying,

"There was a large hole, but it was right back there" [indicating the right-rear side of the head]. (url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2PPHt9KBw[/url])

Ignoring all this, WC apologists give complete precedence to the one and only time that Nurse Nelson demonstrated the wound as being only on the right side of the head and not at all on the back of the head, which she did when she was interviewed by a LIFE reporter two years after she had described and drawn the wound as being in the right-rear area of the head. The reporter asked her to show him where the wound was, and she put her hand only on the right side of the head. WC apologists of course accept this spur-of-the-moment demonstration and reject her prolonged interview with Bradlee where she repeatedly said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head, drew the wound on an artificial skull, and expressly rejected the head wound shown in the autopsy photos.

Just after JFK was wheeled into the ER, Nurse Patricia Hutton was asked to place a pressure dressing on the head wound because "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head." But, she said, the pressure dressing was ineffective "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (11/22/63 statement, Price Exhibit No. 21, p. 1).

The autopsy photos show a shredded, gaping, bloody wound above the right ear. That wound surely would have been bleeding severely. Please do tell me how you think Hutton could not have noticed it, much less how she could have "mistaken" it for a wound that was 3-4 inches farther back on the head. How could she have seen blood coming from a wound in the back of the head if the wound had been above the right ear? Could she not tell the difference between a large hole in the back of the head and a large hole above the right ear?

Finally, a few points regarding the nonsensical claims being made by Jerry Organ and others about the autopsy doctors and the debunked cowlick entry site:

-- Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)

-- Dr. Finck told the ARRB that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound from outside the skull and from inside the skull, which, by the way, is a standard autopsy procedure, and then Finck noted that he did not see these photos in the collection of autopsy photos that he examined.

-- Humes, Finck, Boswell, the guys who actually handled the skull and saw the entry wound up close, insisted that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was not the entry wound. Two of the three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the red spot is not a bullet entry wound.

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the supposed cowlick entry wound. This has been confirmed by Dr. Robert Artwohl and by Dr. David Mantik, both of whom have studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives. As Riley notes, "What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html). How could the cerebral cortex be intact just beneath the cowlick site if a bullet penetrated there?

-- We should keep in mind that the autopsy doctors identified the rear head entry wound both by a wound in the scalp and by a beveled wound directly beneath the scalp wound.

-- Only the EOP entry site can explain the subcortical damage, as Dr. Riley and other experts have explained.

-- The 11/22/63 autopsy face sheet marked by Dr. Boswell puts the entry wound very near the EOP and just slightly above ear level, whereas the cowlick entry site is at least 3 inches above ear level.

-- Dr. Sturdivan has noted another problem with the cowlick entry site: The autopsy skull x-rays show extensive cracks/fractures extending down from the cowlick site, but wound ballistics tests show no such extensive cracking extending from entry holes. Sturdivan notes that the Biophysics Lab test skulls do not show extensive cracking from the entry wounds, even though those skulls were dried, post-mortem skulls and were more brittle than live skulls (JFK Myths, pp. 193-194).

Are we starting to realize why even Pat Speer has rejected the cowlick entry site?

[Andrew Mason]

Would you care to re-check this data for accuracy?

I took this from the survey data in CE884:


The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).

At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).

From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet.  So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle.  I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much.   So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.

Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet.  So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..

[Michael T. Griffith]

I took this from the survey data in CE884:

The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).

At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).

From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet.  So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle.  I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much.   So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.

Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet.  So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..

Is this supposed to be a response to the facts I've presented to you?

Allow me to repeat, again, that when I noted that CE 388 shows JFK's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, you said this was similar to ("kind of like") the position of his head in the Muchmore frame. Anyone can look at CE 388 and see immediately that JFK's forward tilt is far greater than it is in the Muchmore frame or in any pre-Z313 frame. This is too obvious to credibly deny.

I notice you are still avoiding the HSCA FPP's wound trajectory diagram. Have you even looked at it yet? This was the FPP's attempt to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit and then exited JFK's head in the way they were claiming it did, and they were assuming the entry point was the cowlick entry site.

Speaking of which, when are you going to address all the problems that have been documented with the cowlick entry site? Problems such as intact cerebral cortex right beneath the wound, subcortical tissue damage far below the cowlick site and unconnected with the much higher cortical damage, the fact that every single autopsy witness who commented on the rear head entry wound's location said it was slightly above the EOP (just where the autopsy doctors placed it), the presence of two bullet fragments below the cowlick site when the bullet would have entered from above the site, the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has ever deposited fragments from its cross section on the outer table and between the galea and the outer table, the extreme unlikelihood that three pathologists (after reflecting the scalp and having photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull) could "mistake" a wound visibly above the lambda for a wound nearly 4 inches lower and slightly above the solid reference point of the EOP, etc., etc.

If you ditch the cowlick site and accept the EOP site, as most other researchers have done (even the super-cautious Pat Speer has done so), then you're faced with all the glaring contradictions between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos, IF you believe the brain photos are authentic and unaltered. If you're willing to acknowledge that the brain photos do not shows JFK's brain, then there are no objections to the EOP site's existence.

[Chris Davidson]

I took this from the survey data in CE884:


The horizontal angle at the first point at A from the rifle to JFK's position on the street is 40º10' (40.167º) and the line of sight distance is 91.6 ft.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position there is 59.1 feet (sin(40.167)x91.6).

At frame z313 the horizontal angle of rifle to JFK is 15º21' (15.35º) and the line of sight distance is 265.3 feet.  That means the height of the rifle above JFK's position is 70.3 feet (sin(15.35)x265.3).

From that we have to estimate the height of JFK's entrance wound above the road, which I estimate to be 5 feet.  So that means the head is 70.3-5=65.3 feet below the rifle.  I didn't work out how much the line of sight distance changes from the road to JFK but I figured it would not be much.   So the horizontal angle would be arcsin(65.3/265.3)=14.25 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.25 degrees.

Working it out now, the line of sight distance is 264.04 feet.  So the actual horizontal angle should be arcsin(65.3/264.04)=14.3 degrees.  Subtracting 3 degrees for the road slope makes the angle of the rifle to the car horizontal 11.3 degrees - not much difference..

Derived from CE884 if it helps:

[Jack Nessan]

Derived from CE884 if it helps:

t looks like all the calculations are already performed and in the survey tabulation. This is not a right triangle but an obtuse triangle because the road slopes away from the TSBD leaving an angle greater than 90 degrees from the horizontal. The height of the shooter would be a constant with the slope of the road appearing to change, based on Z frame being approximately 1 foot horizontal per frame and the resulting elevation changes that are noted.

 https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

A triangle is a polygon that has three vertices. A vertex is a point where two or more curves, lines, or edges meet; in the case of a triangle, the three vertices are joined by three line segments called edges. A triangle is usually referred to by its vertices. Hence, a triangle with vertices a, b, and c is typically denoted as Δabc. Furthermore, triangles tend to be described based on the length of their sides, as well as their internal angles. For example, a triangle in which all three sides have equal lengths is called an equilateral triangle while a triangle in which two sides have equal lengths is called isosceles. When none of the sides of a triangle have equal lengths, it is referred to as scalene, as depicted below.

triangle types

Tick marks on the edge of a triangle are a common notation that reflects the length of the side, where the same number of ticks means equal length. Similar notation exists for the internal angles of a triangle, denoted by differing numbers of concentric arcs located at the triangle's vertices. As can be seen from the triangles above, the length and internal angles of a triangle are directly related, so it makes sense that an equilateral triangle has three equal internal angles, and three equal length sides. Note that the triangle provided in the calculator is not shown to scale; while it looks equilateral (and has angle markings that typically would be read as equal), it is not necessarily equilateral and is simply a representation of a triangle. When actual values are entered, the calculator output will reflect what the shape of the input triangle should look like.

Triangles classified based on their internal angles fall into two categories: right or oblique. A right triangle is a triangle in which one of the angles is 90°, and is denoted by two line segments forming a square at the vertex constituting the right angle. The longest edge of a right triangle, which is the edge opposite the right angle, is called the hypotenuse. Any triangle that is not a right triangle is classified as an oblique triangle and can either be obtuse or acute. In an obtuse triangle, one of the angles of the triangle is greater than 90°, while in an acute triangle, all of the angles are less than 90°, as shown below.

triangle types

[Michael T. Griffith]

Speculating about trajectories and about downward-moving bullets magically veering upward and rightward is a waste of time until you address the fatal problems with the long-since-debunked cowlick entry site. Let's review some of those problems:

-- Dr. Finck advised the ARRB that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, from inside and outside the skull, but those photos never made it into the official record. Dr. Finck himself noted to the ARRB that those photos were not in the collection of autopsy photos that he examined.

-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points, and given the fact that they reflected the scalp and examined the wound in the skull.

-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it.

-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- One of the HSCA's radiologic consultants, Dr. David O. Davis, noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the high fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

-- The back-of-head fragments are below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means they could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the back-of-head fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

-- Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)

-- Humes, Finck, Boswell, the guys who actually handled the skull and saw the entry wound up close, insisted that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was not the entry wound. Two of the three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the red spot is not a bullet entry wound.

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the supposed cowlick entry wound. This has been confirmed by Dr. Robert Artwohl and by Dr. David Mantik, both of whom have studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives. As neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley notes, "What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html). How could the cerebral cortex be intact just beneath the cowlick site if a bullet penetrated there?

-- We should keep in mind that the autopsy doctors identified the rear head entry wound both by its presence in the scalp and by its beveled presence in the skull directly beneath the scalp wound.

-- Only the EOP entry site can explain the subcortical damage, as Dr. Riley and other experts have explained. The subcortical damage is separate from the cortical damage and is well below the cowlick site.

-- The 11/22/63 autopsy face sheet marked by Dr. Boswell puts the entry wound very near the EOP and just slightly above ear level, whereas the cowlick entry site is at least 3 inches above ear level.

-- Dr. Sturdivan has noted another problem with the cowlick entry site: The autopsy skull x-rays show extensive cracks/fractures extending down from the cowlick site, but wound ballistics tests show no such extensive cracking extending from entry holes. Sturdivan notes that not one of the Biophysics Lab test skulls showed extensive cracking from the entry wounds, even though those skulls were dried, post-mortem skulls and were more brittle than live skulls (JFK Myths, pp. 193-194).

Again, are we starting to realize why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has rejected the cowlick entry site?

And, if you are using the EOP entry site, then you need to address (1) the drastic contradictions between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos, and (2) the EOP site's inability to explain the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments.

Once you free your mind and acknowledge the clear evidence that two bullets entered JFK's skull, you understand that the EOP site explains the subcortical damage and that a separate bullet, a bullet that struck in the right temple, caused the the high fragment trail.

There's an apparent defect in the right-temple area seen in the skull x-rays that is consistent with a bullet entry point, and several witnesses (including mortician Tom Robinson) recalled seeing a small wound in the temple. Moreover, shortly after JFK died, Dr. Burkley told press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that a bullet struck the right temple, and Kilduff demonstrated this on national TV by pointing to his own right temple. I devote an entire chapter in my book to the evidence of a frontal shot.

[Andrew Mason]

Is this supposed to be a response to the facts I've presented to you?

No. That was my previous post. 

I notice you are still avoiding the HSCA FPP's wound trajectory diagram. Have you even looked at it yet? This was the FPP's attempt to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit and then exited JFK's head in the way they were claiming it did, and they were assuming the entry point was the cowlick entry site.

I explained that the wounds to JFK's head do not require a 60 degree forward lean.  Only about a 38 degree forward lean.

Allow me to repeat, again, that when I noted that CE 388 shows JFK's head leaning nearly 60 degrees forward, you said this was similar to ("kind of like") the position of his head in the Muchmore frame. Anyone who is not emotionally committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can look at CE 388 and see immediately that JFK's forward tilt is far greater than it is in the Muchmore frame or in any pre-Z313 frame. This is too obvious to credibly deny. A child could see this.

CE388 shows JFK's head tilted forward at 52 degrees from the Earth horizontal. It shows the bullet trajectory at what I measure to be 16.9 degrees from Earth horizontal or 52-16.9=35.1 degrees to the head horizontal. 


I had the angle through the head at around 26.5 degrees because I had the entrance a bit higher in the back and the exit a bit farther to the front.


If one tilts JFK back about 14 degrees from the position shown in CE388 and adds the 3 degrees of the car downward slope,  it fits the path to the SN of about 11.25 degrees to the car horizontal :



There is, of course, a bit of uncertainty of a few degrees due to uncertainty to the precise location of the wounds and measuring the angles of JFK's forward and leftward lean in the car.  The bottom line, however, is that a shot from the SN is easily within the margins of error of these measurements and generally fits the left to right and upward path through the head using the upright-forward facing head as the frame of reference.

[Michael T. Griffith]

No. That was my previous post.  I explained that the wounds to JFK's head do not require a 60 degree forward lean.  Only about a 38 degree forward lean.CE388 shows JFK's head tilted forward at 52 degrees from the Earth horizontal. It shows the bullet trajectory at what I measure to be 16.9 degrees from Earth horizontal or 52-16.9=35.1 degrees to the head horizontal. 

If one tilts JFK back about 14 degrees from the position shown in CE388 and adds the 3 degrees of the car downward slope,  it fits the path to the SN of about 11.25 degrees to the car horizontal :

There is, of course, a bit of uncertainty of a few degrees due to uncertainty to the precise location of the wounds and measuring the angles of JFK's forward and leftward lean in the car.  The bottom line, however, is that a shot from the SN is easily within the margins of error of these measurements and generally fits the left to right and upward path through the head using the upright-forward facing head as the frame of reference.

You say CE 388 shows a 52-degree forward head tilt. A bunch of other people have said it's closer to 57-59 degrees. But, hey, let's just say 52 degrees for the sake of argument. The point is that no footage or photo shows his tilted as far forward and downward as CE 388 shows it.

I had the angle through the head at around 26.5 degrees because I had the entrance a bit higher in the back and the exit a bit farther to the front.

And, again, your claims about angles are a waste of time until you deal with the problems with the two proposed rear head entry wounds. You had "the entrance a bit higher." A "bit higher"?? Is there no end to how often you guys have to fiddle with wound locations and ignore your own experts?

Let's revisit the issues with the cowlick site and the EOP site:

-- Dr. Finck advised the ARRB that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound, from inside and outside the skull, but those photos never made it into the official record. Dr. Finck himself noted to the ARRB that those photos were not in the collection of autopsy photos that he examined.

-- The idea that two pathologists in anatomy (Humes and Boswell), a board-certified forensic pathologist (Finck), not to mention the chief autopsy photographer (Stringer) and the radiologist (Ebersole), "mistook" a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was nearly 4 inches lower is preposterous, especially given the fact that that they had the hairline, the EOP, and the lamda as reference points, and given the fact that they reflected the scalp and examined the wound in the skull.

-- Every single autopsy witness, every single one, who commented on the location of the rear head entry wound said it was exactly where the autopsy doctors placed it.

-- Dr. Boswell told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, and he specified that the wound was in the location described in the autopsy report.

-- One of the HSCA's radiologic consultants, Dr. David O. Davis, noted that the high fragment trail does not align with the cowlick entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and many others have made the same point. In fact, as they have also pointed out, the high fragment trail does not even extend to or from the cowlick site.

-- The back-of-head fragments are below the cowlick entry site, which, among other things, means they could not have "sheared off" an FMJ bullet that was entering at a downward angle--any shearing would have occurred at the top of the bullet, not the bottom.

-- No FMJ missile in the history of forensic science has ever deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull as it entered the skull, especially not from its cross section. Not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. To make matters worse, in the JFK case, per the lone-gunman theory, the back-of-head fragments would have had to come from the bullet's cross section, since the nose and tail of the bullet were found in the limousine. As Dr. Sturdivan noted, this is simply an impossible fantasy.

-- Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance. (7 HSCA 254)

-- Humes, Finck, Boswell, the guys who actually handled the skull and saw the entry wound up close, insisted that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was not the entry wound. Two of the three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the red spot is not a bullet entry wound.

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the supposed cowlick entry wound. This has been confirmed by Dr. Robert Artwohl and by Dr. David Mantik, both of whom have studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives. As neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley notes, "What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site" (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html). How could the cerebral cortex be intact just beneath the cowlick site if a bullet penetrated there?

-- We should keep in mind that the autopsy doctors identified the rear head entry wound both by its presence in the scalp and by its beveled presence in the skull directly beneath the scalp wound.

-- Only the EOP entry site can explain the subcortical damage, as Dr. Riley and other experts have explained. The subcortical damage is separate from the cortical damage and is well below the cowlick site.

-- The 11/22/63 autopsy face sheet marked by Dr. Boswell puts the entry wound very near the EOP and just slightly above ear level, whereas the cowlick entry site is at least 3 inches above ear level.

-- Dr. Sturdivan has noted another problem with the cowlick entry site: The autopsy skull x-rays show extensive cracks/fractures extending down from the cowlick site, but wound ballistics tests show no such extensive cracking extending from entry holes. Sturdivan notes that not one of the Biophysics Lab test skulls showed extensive cracking from the entry wounds, even though those skulls were dried, post-mortem skulls and were more brittle than live skulls (JFK Myths, pp. 193-194).

Again, are we starting to realize why even the uber-cautious Pat Speer has rejected the cowlick entry site?

However, if you are using the EOP entry site, then you need to address (1) the drastic contradictions between the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos, and (2) the EOP site's inability to explain the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments. If you're willing to admit that the autopsy brain photos are clearly fraudulent and impossible, then the only remaining issues are the high fragment trail and the back-of-head fragments, and those problems go away if you acknowledge that two bullets hit the head.