There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.
Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:
--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:
Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (
https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)
The National Institutes of Health:
The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))
The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:
Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (
https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)
The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):
The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:
Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)
Science Direct:
The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)
Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:
Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148;
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------
If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.
I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.
You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."
Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.
I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.
LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!
You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.
Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.
You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.
Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.
BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?
And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos.
The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.
This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:
---------------------------------------
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)
---------------------------------------
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?
How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster).
I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:
When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!
On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.
More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:
---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.
The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------
So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"? I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.
What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.
