Let's peel through your layers of falsehood and evasion by going back to the first comment in your previous reply:
Thanks. Wanted to get it on record. You think the "cowlick" wound entered at the vertex area. You really got some grasp of perspective and sightline analysis.
Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.
Just FYI, I've been talking about the problems with the cowlick entry site for over 20 years, starting with my 1998 article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?" (
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ).
Well, then, your "neuroanatomist" is as ignorant of perspective and sightline-analysis as you are. BTW, don't shift the blame onto a dead man; you--supposedly an expert in photogrammetry and perspective---failed to check Riley's claim. Not only that you highlighted it in your wrapped propaganda. I'm not going to go along with your fantasy that the cowlick entry site occured in the vertex area.
LOL! So now you, one of the most discredited and bungling clowns on any JFK forum--now you are going to call Dr. Joseph N. Riley "ignorant" and argue that he put the cowlick wound at the vertex?! I'm almost tempted to ask if you are a secret WC critic who is trying to make all lone-gunman theorists look bad.
Do you know who Dr. Riley was? He was a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the State University of New York, in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California, and in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Florida. He had papers published in the
Journal of Comparative Neurology, in the
Brain Research Bulletin, and in
Science, and his work was cited in those journals and in the
Journal of Neuroscience Methods.
And yet you are actually getting on a public board and claiming that he put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex based on his analysis of the intact cerebral cortex in the top-of-head autopsy photos! Just wow. You are the gift that keeps on giving.
Let me post some of the observations that Dr. Riley wrote in his articles or posted in JFK discussions in Google Groups, which I included way back in 1998 in my article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?":
------------------------------
The HSCA says the scalp wound is 13 cm above the first prominent crease in the neck. [Let me go off on a tangent. Just how stupid can these people be? The scalp wound is 13 cm above lower/mid-neck, but that is supposed to be 10 cm above the EOP. Therefore, the EOP is 3 cm above the lower/mid-neck! Using the ruler in the photo, you can measure and 3 cm won't even put you at the level of the skull! Anyway, back to our story....]
On the scale drawing, 13 cm from the same location (more or less) puts you "slightly above the EOP" just where Humes et al placed it. . . .
The ruler is marked out in 0.5 cm gradations; you can make these out on clear copies of Dox's drawing. The Clark Panel/HSCA says that this wound is 10 cm above the EOP. So, what happens when we measure 10 cm "down" from the scalp wound? Are we anywhere close to the EOP? Nope, we're in the neck, missing the skull entirely. . . .
In the top-of-head autopsy photos, intact cerebral cortex is visible, as confirmed by both Dr. Bob Artwohl and Dr. Mantik. What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobe) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site. . . .
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible).
What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound--so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet. (
https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html;
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ)
----------------------------------
Oh, I noticed the word "and". That's why I was referring to the "right-rear occipital lobe" being damaged. Anyone can look at the brain drawing and see the "right-rear occipital lobe" of cerebrum is damaged (as opposed to your claim it wasn't).
What a hoot. You really should just stop with this juvenile dissembling, and bungling, and just admit you blundered.
"Cerebrum" refers to an area that contains two lobes of the brain. The cerebrum consists of the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe. The rear-bottom part of the occipital lobe is right next to the cerebellum.
Any bullet that hit at the EOP site at any kind of a downward angle would have torn through the right-rear part of the occipital lobe and the cerebellum. The HSCA FPP experts hammered the autopsy doctors on this point and stressed this point as one of their main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. You appear to be unaware of what the HSCA medical experts said about the condition of the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe.
Dr. Loquvam hammered Finck with the point that he could see no
pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum. The only damage that anyone has seen to the cerebellum in the autopsy brain photos is a tiny piece of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum. Other than that, the cerebellum is intact and undamaged. Loquvam pointed out to Finck that the brain photos do not even show bleeding from/in the cerebellum. And when Loquvam asked Finck to explain how the cerebellum could be in this condition if a bullet had entered at the EOP site, Finck finally said, "I don't know."
Have you not read the transcript of the HSCA testimony of Finck, Boswell, and Humes? How can you not know this stuff and then pretend you have any business talking about the medical evidence?
BTW, it should be noted that Finck later told the ARRB that he saw "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. He did not raise this point when the HSCA FPP was trying to get him to renounce the EOP entry site. Had he done so, this would have directly challenged the accuracy/authenticity of the brain photos, and apparently Finck was unwilling to ignite a firestorm with the HSCA medical experts.
No goof on my part. You said an EOP bullet couldn't have gone through the cerebellum and the right-right occipital lobe because they were undamaged.
You claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged. The brain drawing says otherwise. Since you claimed the right-rear occipital lobe was undamaged, I can only conclude you thought it part of the cerebellum.
LOL! If you were so stupid as to reach such a comical, ridiculous conclusion from my comments, that is just further proof that you have no business talking about the JFK case. However, I don't believe you. I don't believe you were so clueless as to conclude that I thought the occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum. I think it is obvious that you just blundered and that you're trying to blame your blunder on me.
You claim that the brain drawing shows damage to the right-rear occipital lobe. Huh, that's curious, because the HSCA medical experts said the opposite. As I've noted, you don't seem to know what the HSCA FPP experts said about the right-rear occipital lobe and the cerebellum.
FPP member Dr. Charles Petty raised two objections to the EOP site based on the autopsy brain photos, one of which was the condition of the cerebellum. He put his other objection to Humes and Boswell, noting that the brain photos show no damage to the rear part of the “occipital lobes” (also known as the singular “occipital lobe”). I quote:
------------------------------
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at
the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here
the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)
-------------------------------
Again, have you not read the HSCA volumes? How can you not know this stuff?
Are you wearing your sacred Mormon underwear on your head? 
Such a comment once again shows that, in addition to being a liar, you're a crude, bigoted jerk.
In the top-of-the-head photos, there is loose scalp hanging backwards and downwards, covering the rear of the head. You wouldn't be able to see a cowlick wound in those photos whether or not it was there.
This misses/avoids the point. The point is that the part of the cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site is undamaged, which obviously proves that no bullet entered at that spot. Yes, the red spot is not visible in the top-of-head photos, as I have previously noted, but the cerebral cortex is undamaged in exactly the same spot where the red spot would be if the scalp were in its normal position, in exactly the same spot where the high entry wound was supposedly located.
I don’t know how much more plainly I can explain this. If a bullet entered at the Clark Panel/HSCA revised entry site, aka the high entry wound/the cowlick entry wound—if a bullet entered at this location, then there cannot be intact cerebral cortex directly beneath this entry point. It is impossible. A bullet could not have entered at the cowlick site without doing considerable damage to the underlying cerebral cortex.
