Your reply is downright farcical. Holy cow, are you supposed to know something about the assassination? You make claims that rival the comical drivel that Jerry Organ regularly posts. Let's begin:
That image shows that Riley put the "cowlick" location twice as far forward as the HSCA did, so Riley isn't a useful source. He made a foundational mistake when he assumed that the "AP" view was straight on, instead of being shot at an upward angle through the head, and this mistake [mis]informs the rest of his analyses.
That is total nonsense. No, Riley's graphic most certainly does
not show the cowlick entry site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did." What on Earth are you talking about? You seem to be forgetting that Riley's drawing is a top-of-head view, while the HSCA drawing is a low-back-of-head view. When you consider this fact, Riley's dot for the cowlick site matches the HSCA location. This becomes even clearer when we look at HSCA Figure 29 (7 HSCA 125), which shows the cowlick site right around 1 inch above the lambda, about 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture. See
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bEQPlDPz5LDq7b0E1k0iQdxSaa9BimA9/view?usp=sharing.
Sheesh, can you not see the sagittal suture and the lambda in Riley's graphic? Where is the dot for the cowlick entry site in relation to those features? Huh? It's exactly where I just said it was, and that is exactly where the HSCA put it, when you factor in the fact that the drawings depict the wound from different perspectives (lower back-of-head vs. top-of-head), especially given HSCA Figure 29.
I mean, who are you people? A person would have to be almost blind not to see what I just described. Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and look at the HSCA's wound diagram and see that the cowlick entry point is in the exact same location in both when you consider the difference in perspective. But you get on a public board and make the utterly bogus claim that Riley's dot for the site is "twice as far forward" as the HSCA's dot for the site.
It takes a lot of nerve for an amateur to accuse a credentialed and respected neuroscientist of botching his drawing of a wound's location, especially when he is showing its location from a published exhibit from a different angle.
The operative phrase being "35 years later." How well did he remember it by then, I wonder?
Well, of course you have to say this. I take it you haven't read the Stringer interview transcript. On a few points, he said he could not recall with certainty, but not on this issue. So your bottom line is that he was another witness who was severely "mistaken," that his memory was so bad that he mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was 4 inches farther down on the skull and near two fixed reference points. Yeah, okay.
If you look at the color BOH photos, the "red spot" as you call it is at the center of the photo, and someone's holding a ruler right next to it. That would only happen if the "red spot" was the subject of the photo. That is, the "red spot" really is the entry wound in the scalp.
Humm, well, the guy who supposedly took that picture said it was not a wound but just a spot of blood. And, well, the two pathologists who saw the wound in the scalp and then reflected the scalp and saw the wound in the underlying skull said there was no entry wound at the cowlick site. And when all three of the autopsy pathologists reviewed the autopsy materials for several hours in late 1966, they said they saw the EOP entry wound in several of the autopsy photos, as did Dr. Fred Hodges when he reviewed the autopsy materials in 1975. But, nah, never mind all that.
As for any photo of the BOH wound involving reflection of the scalp, it's worth considering that F8 does indeed show the BOH wound, and the scalp being reflected.
So is this a tacit admission that Jerry Organ's silly claim that the scalp was not reflected is wrong?
Finck didn't arrive at the Bethesda until after the skull had been pulled apart and the brain removed. He might not be the best source for this.
Yeah, uh-huh. Never mind that he saw and handled the wound in the skull bone and had pictures taken of the wound from the inside and the outside. Your argument requires us to believe that he couldn't tell the difference between a wound 4/10ths of an inch above the EOP in the occiput and a wound 1 inch above the lambda and above the lambdoid suture in the parietal bone.
It is amazing to see how current-day WC apologists have to trash the autopsy doctors and accuse them of making mind-boggling blunders, whereas for many years after the assassination WC apologists held up the autopsy doctors as experts whose word only paranoid conspiracy theorists would dare challenge.
And, BTW, the entire skull was never "pulled apart." In fact, several of the medical techs noted that they did not even need to do a skull cap because of the extensive nature of the head wound.
And here comes the Gish Gallop:
The same way that paper will continue tearing far from where the force causing the tear is being applied. This is one of those argument that wounds superficially important, until you stop to consider how things actually work. Another way of saying it is, if you want to claim that the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a "cowlick" entry wound, then it's up to you to support your contention and not simply expect us to hallucinate it with you.
Howling Betsy! LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. Did you miss the part that there is no path/cavitation that connects the cortical and subcortical damage? Did you somehow miss this crucial point? How in the world could you, with a straight face, compare this to paper that continues to tear far from where the tear starts?
That is the exact opposite of the cortical and subcortical damage that we're talking about.
The only hallucinating going on here is your farcical analogy of a paper tear. Do you just not understand what we're talking about here? We're talking about two wound paths in the brain, one high and one low, one cortical and one subcortical, that have no connection between them whatsoever--not even a few tiny fragments indicating connection, no cavitation between them, no nothing. To all but brainwashed WC apologists, this screams two bullets.
Again, obviously, the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a cowlick-site bullet because it is far below the cowlick site and because there is no path/cavitation that connects it to the cowlick site and no path/cavitation that connects it with the much higher cortical damage. Dr. Riley, a recognized and respected neuroanatomist, explained this impossibility in some detail:
----------------------------------------
However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.
The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .
However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.
First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration. . . .
An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,”
The Third Decade, 2004, available at
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)
---------------------------------------
You might also read Dr. David Mantik's research on this issue. There's a reason that the HSCA FPP experts, while noting the subcortical damage, made no effort to explain how in the world their cowlick bullet could have magically caused this damage.
Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials?
You're kidding, right? Are you relatively new to the JFK case? Is that the problem here? Why do you suppose the HSCA FPP forensic experts did not cite a single known case of an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment (much less two) from its cross section on the outer table? And they knew this was a problem. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this way, yet, revealingly, they did not cite a single example to substantiate that this was even physically possible.
We now know that the Clark Panel members believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Even Dr. Fisher recognized that no FMJ bullet would "shear off" a fragment from its cross section onto the outer table of a skull. That is "shear" fiction.
Do you know who Dr. Larry Sturdivan is? He is a wound ballistics expert and was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant. I quote from a statement that Sturdivan wrote in 1998 on this issue:
---------------------------------------
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face [on the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-rays]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (David Mantik,
JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 21)
---------------------------------------
Next, I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:
---------------------------------------
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (
JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)
---------------------------------------
Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?
LOL! No, I've never considered such a ridiculous, impossible scenario. There is no defect in the skull leading to the 6.5 mm object in the outer table, and there are two tough, fibrous layers of scalp that would have had to be penetrated to get into the outer table by a fragment from outside the skull (the galea and the periosteum). Only a fragment from outside the skull and coming at the skull perpendicularly and at a high velocity could have penetrated the galea and the periosteum and then embedded itself in the outer table. The idea that a fragment exiting with the material allegedly blown through the top of the head could have done this is beyond absurd.
You are the first person who has ever floated this impossible scenario to explain the 6.5 mm object. Congratulations.
Would that be expected in all cases? I'll bet you have no idea.
This is your answer to the point that not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC-Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull?! Phew! You bet
I have no idea. No, I bet
you have no idea. I bet you have no clue in Kentucky what you're talking about. According to your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, yes, the failure of an FMJ bullet to deposit in the outer table would be expected in all cases--every single time, without fail.
It is incredible that in 2023 you are arguing that an FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table. You are a good two decades behind the information curve.
The lack of extensive fracturing would then probably be good evidence that the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. You didn't think this through very well, did you?
HUH? You didn't read or didn't understand the second sentence in my statement, did you? Let me repeat it: "The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front." Did you miss that sentence? It came right after the point that not one of the Biophysics Lab skulls showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes.
I take it you are unaware that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment? Dr. Boswell explained this fact in some detail. He told the HSCA FPP about this, but they ignored him. He repeated this crucial point to the ARRB, and, thankfully, the ARRB interviewer questioned him closely on this point and had him explain it in considerable detail. Although Humes and Finck, years later, denied that the EOP entry wound was not circumferential, i.e., they later denied that part of the wound was found in one of the late-arriving skull fragments--although they denied this years later, initially they both acknowledged that the EOP entry wound was
not circumferential.
If the high fragment trail isn't compatible with a "cowlick" entry, then it would be even less compatible with an EOP entry. You didn't think this through again.
This is clown material. Have I ever said that the high fragment trail was compatible with the EOP entry site? Huh? How many times in this forum have I pointed out that the high fragment trail is evidence that two bullets hit the skull? How many? Take a guess. 10? 20? At least. You are talking like you just started reading about the JFK case in the last few weeks.
No, of course the high fragment trail is not compatible with the EOP site. Duh. Just Duh. That's why Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report. As I have said many times, Humes knew there was no way he could associate the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. This is the same reason that Finck and Boswell stayed quiet about the high fragment trail. How can you not know that the high fragment trail has been cited by dozens of scholars as evidence of two bullets to the head for many years now?
The only problems I see here arise from your continuing reliance on begging the question and other faulty logic.
I suspect that by now you are a bit embarrassed that you made this comment, after making so many erroneous claims and after showing such a poor knowledge of the medical evidence.
And, you shouldn't use terms that you don't understand. "Begging the question"? Do you even know what that term actually means? Apparently not, since not one of the problems I cited with the cowlick entry site involves "begging the question."
