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

[Michael T. Griffith]

A few follow-up points:

-- Richard Lipsey, an aide to General Philip Wehle (commander of the Washington, DC, military district), attended the autopsy and witnessed the reconstruction of the skull after the autopsy. During his 1/8/1978 HSCA interview, Lipsey "identified the entrance in the lower head as being just inside the hairline (Richard A. Lipsey Interview, 1/18/1978, HSCA transcript, p. 9). The HSCA interviewers asked Lipsey to draw a diagram of JFK's wounds. Lipsey put the rear head entry wound in the lower-middle part of the back of head, just above the hairline and very near the EOP (p. 10).

By 1967, after Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas highlighted the impossible trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP entry site to the alleged exit wound, the government officials who were trying to maintain the lone-gunman theory realized that they had to ditch the EOP site, that it was simply impossible for a bullet fired from the "Oswald window" to have entered at the EOP site and exited above the right ear. That's when they convened the Clark Panel and relocated the wound 4 inches higher on the skull.

-- When chief autopsy photographer John Stringer did a recorded interview with David Lifton in August 1972, he made many of the same key points that he made in his 1998 ARRB interview:

* He said the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound.

* He said he took pictures of the rear head entry wound from inside and outside the wound ("inner and outer table").

This confirms Dr. Finck's ARRB testimony that he had photos taken of the entry wound from both sides of the wound. For obvious reasons, those photos were excluded from the official collection of autopsy pictures.

* He said that the top of the head "in the back" was "blown off."

* He said that the top of the head in the front half of the head was "intact." Lifton made sure he was understanding what Stringer was saying on this point:

Lifton: The top front was intact?

Stringer: Right. (Transcript, p. 5)

Several other witnesses said the same thing, i.e., that they saw no damage to the head forward of the right ear. Of course, this sharply contradicts the existing autopsy photos of the head.

-- In his HSCA interview in August 1977, Dr. Robert Karnei, who assisted Dr. Humes at the start of the autopsy and who watched the autopsy from a close distance, said that he remembered Dr. Finck "arranging for photographs" (HSCA transcript of interview with Dr. Robert Karnei, August 29, 1977, p. 6) This lends further credence to Dr. Finck's assertion that he had photos taken of the rear head entry wound.

-- Dr. Karnei said there was "extensive damage" to the brain (p. 6). He said the damage was so extensive that the brain would be considered "abnormal" and would normally have been taken over to the AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology).

Humm, well, the only damage to the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos is a single end-to-end laceration just right of the midline and small a piece of tissue hanging from the bottom of the cerebellum, with no more than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing from the entire brain.

-- In his 3/11/1977 interview with the HSCA FPP, Dr. John Ebersole, the chief radiologist during the autopsy, stated that "the back of the head was missing" and that after the autopsy began, "a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas" (Stenographic Transcript of Hearings Before the Medical Panel of the Select Committee on Assassinations, March 11, 1978, pp. 3, 6). This is yet another clear indication that the skull x-rays have been altered and that the autopsy photos of the back of head do not show the condition of the head during the autopsy.

Ebersole's account also supports Dr. Boswell's disclosure that part of the EOP entry site was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment.

-- Dr. Ebersole said that after Dr. Finck arrived, he was "actively involved" in the autopsy and that he was "very interested" in the beveling in the skull (pp. 23-24).

What a nice post, you proved you can copy and paste, whoop-de-doo!

But at the end of the day you're a walking talking contradiction! You're on record that autopsy photos are faked but you don't seem to realize that "Riley's graphic" and subsequent analysis is based on the Authentic Autopsy photos and now with every fiber of your existence you're defending a top of head wound that NONE of your often quoted witnesses claimed to see? Can you please explain what you believe because it looks like you are just looking for a fight that you can't possibly win.

THIS is your answer to the evidence I presented in my previous reply?! THIS?!

You are missing, or avoiding, the point that even if one assumes that the top-of-head autopsy photos are accurate/authentic, those photos destroy the cowlick entry site because they show intact cerebral cortex at the same location as the cowlick site, a physical impossibility if a bullet entered there.

I'm saying, fine, go ahead and assume those photos are accurate, as did Dr. Riley, but then you need to face the fact that those photos destroy the revised location for the entry wound, as Dr. Riley proved beyond any rational doubt. As mentioned, the cowlick site was only cooked up after government officials realized that they could no longer stick with the EOP entry site.

The authentic autopsy photos (which your latest prize Eyewitness seems to endorse) is clear, there was a single bullet entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head and NO back of head exit wound.

Uh, but those same "authentic autopsy photos" destroy the lone-gunman theory because they refute the revised location for the rear head entry wound. Do you not grasp this basic fact and problem?

As I said, sure, go ahead and insist that those photos are genuine/accurate, but then you need to face the reality that those photos categorically rule out the cowlick entry site and leave you with either no read head entry wound or with only the EOP entry wound, and the EOP entry wound destroys the notion that the rear head shot came from the sixth-floor window.

Btw what evidence of any kind that is in the official record do you believe to be authentic?? JohnM

You are decades behind the information curve. If the head was altered during illicit pre-autopsy surgery, as we now know occurred, the autopsy photos would not necessarily have to be "doctored" or "faked." They could simply be false, i.e., they could simply show the head after the wounds were altered, with no photographic alteration or doctoring required.

This is the argument that scholars such as Doug Horne have been making for years about the autopsy brain photos: They have not been altered or doctored, but they are not photos of JFK's brain but of someone else's brain. The skull x-rays alone prove that the brain photos are fraudulent and cannot be of JFK's brain.

You also need to consider the fact that we have known for nearly two decades that there were two sets of autopsy photos, and that the set now in evidence does not show the wounds that the other set showed.

And I notice that you ducked the other points I made:

-- The fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull, much less from its cross section.

-- The fact that the cowlick site cannot explain the subcortical damage.

-- The fact that Stringer confirmed that photos were taken of the EOP entry wound from inside and outside the wound, which was and is standard autopsy procedure.

-- The fact that Stringer told the ARRB that the rear head entry wound was near the hairline and not in the cowlick.

-- The fact that Stringer told the ARRB that the red spot in the back-of-head photos was not a wound but a spot of blood.

-- The fact that Stringer told the ARRB that the scalp was reflected.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Summary for many old & current threads here.
There are no faked xrays or photos or footage. All are real. But some/many are missing, koz of the coverup re Hickey's accidental auto burst.
Fragments on the outside of jfk's head are from the Oswald shot-1 ricochet.
Oswald's shot-2 went throo jfk & Connally.
There were no other shots in Dealey, eg from in front, or from the fence etc.
And lots of what everyone is saying that aint in line with the above is interesting, but peripheral, or plain wrong.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

The exiting bullet is not true. Good work though you answered the question as to when the bullet fragmented. You have stumbled on to the answer as to how the bullet’s trajectory changed to exit where it did. All the skull tests prove it was necessary for the brain to be present for an accurate test. Without it the bullet does not fracture the skull in the same way.

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?

Interesting, the only way to explain the cranial factures is the bullet first began to fragment on entering the skull. You have answered your own question. It would be compatible with the bullet having fragmented for there even to have left the trail. 

Other than a lot of medical terms that give the appearance of knowledge, there does not seem to be a viable theory of any kind. A two carcano assassination who would have thunk it?

This is a bunch of evasive, clueless drivel. You have no clue what you're talking about and clearly don't seem to grasp the significance of the evidence and the problems with the cowlick site and with the back-of-head fragments. Do you just not care that your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has rejected the cowlick site and admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull?

There may not seem to be a "viable theory of any kind" to you, but that's because you simply brush aside every piece of evidence that you can't explain (and/or don't understand) and duck every problem with your own absurd theory of the shooting. The only place where there does not appear to be a "viable theory of any kind" is in Lone-Gunman Theory La La Land.

My theory of the shooting suffers from none of the unsolvable problems that yours does. My theory explains the back-of-head fragments in a rational, precedented way, unlike yours. My theory explains the problem of the fractures, unlike yours. My theory explains the cortical and subcortical damage, unlike yours. My theory explains the impossible virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos, unlike yours. My theory explains the massive eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, unlike yours. My theory explains the brazen contradiction between the autopsy brain photos and the autopsy skull x-rays (which show over half of the right brain missing), unlike yours. Etc., etc., etc.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

This is a bunch of evasive, clueless drivel. You have no clue what you're talking about and clearly don't seem to grasp the significance of the evidence and the problems with the cowlick site and with the back-of-head fragments. Do you just not care that your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has rejected the cowlick site and admitted that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment in the outer table as it entered the skull?

There may not seem to be a "viable theory of any kind" to you, but that's because you simply brush aside every piece of evidence that you can't explain (and/or don't understand) and duck every problem with your own absurd theory of the shooting. The only place where there does not appear to be a "viable theory of any kind" is in Lone-Gunman Theory La La Land.

My theory of the shooting suffers from none of the unsolvable problems that yours does. My theory explains the back-of-head fragments in a rational, precedented way, unlike yours. My theory explains the problem of the fractures, unlike yours. My theory explains the cortical and subcortical damage, unlike yours. My theory explains the impossible virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos, unlike yours. My theory explains the massive eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, unlike yours. My theory explains the brazen contradiction between the autopsy brain photos and the autopsy skull x-rays (which show over half of the right brain missing), unlike yours. Etc., etc., etc.

Michael i appreciate your commitment to the jfk saga. But, i have never corrected u on one little point that i have seen u make umpteen times on this forum. So i will correct it now.

Donahue did not say that the existence of many small fragments inside the head near the front of the head support a shot-from-the-front (u love the shot-from-the-front theory).

No, Donahue said that the small fragments near the front support a shot-from-the-back. See top of p228 paperback MORTAL ERROR. See bottom of p247 paperback.

[Michael T. Griffith]

First, a few follow-up points:

-- F-32 (Figure 29 in 7 HSCA 125) removes any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley’s placement of the cowlick site in his “HSCA Entrance” graphic in “What Struck John.” One can perhaps understand how someone could mistakenly think that Riley placed the site higher than it is placed in F-307, but only if they did not stop to consider the fact that F-307 shows the site from a lower-rear view, whereas Riley shows it from a top-of-head view. F-32, however, showing a largely right profile view, makes it clear that the HSCA put the site exactly where Riley put it (and vice-versa), right around 1 inch above the lambda, at least 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture. 

F-32 Loc of Cowlick Entry Site
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing

F-32 and Riley Graphic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing

This is a crucial point because, as Riley notes, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site, proving that the site cannot be a bullet wound. Thus, on this basis alone, the cowlick entry site is both invalid and impossible.

-- Dr. Finck specified in his 1/25/1965 memo to General Blumberg on the autopsy that he saw the rear head entry wound in the scalp and in the underlying occipital bone:

--------------------------------------------
I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (p. 1)
--------------------------------------------

We see from the date of this memo that he wrote this account barely 13 months after the autopsy. Thus, his placement of the entry wound in the occipital bone is strong evidence for the EOP site, since it boggles the mind to think that a certified forensic pathologist would have located in the occiput a wound that would have been clearly above the lambdoid suture and above the lambda and thus obviously in the parietal bone.

-- The HSCA’s trajectory expert, NASA’s Dr. Tom Canning, in order to get the sixth-floor-to-cowlick-site trajectory to “work,” found it necessary to place JFK a good 2 feet farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him (HSCA exhibit F-138). Indeed, Canning put JFK nearly to the middle of the seat. This is what Canning had to do to maintain the fiction that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit the cowlick site and then exited above the right ear. 

F-138 Canning Head Shot Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing

This is especially odd because in his SBT diagram (F-140), Canning put JFK at the far-right end of the seat, right next to the right door of the limo, exactly where photos and footage show him (but Canning had to put Connally substantially farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him to get the SBT trajectory to “work”).

F-140 Canning SBT Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing

Here are more problems that the medical and trajectory evidence poses for any lone-gunman scenario regarding the cowlick entry site and/or the EOP entry site:

-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was 6 x 15 mm. It says the scalp wound was 6 x 15 mm and that there was a “corresponding wound” in the underlying skull, i.e., that the hole in the skull was the same size as the hole in the scalp. Unless one wants to assume that the autopsy doctors severely mismeasured the wound, this poses a serious problem for those who claim that a 6.5 mm bullet made this wound. Why? Because entry wounds in skulls are always, always larger than the diameter of the penetrating bullet. Always.

The WC explained the 6 mm width by conjuring up the fiction that “the elastic recoil of the skull shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.” Uh, no, it does not. Scalp tissue will slightly recoil after a bullet penetrates it, but skull bone will do no such thing. At least the WC did not make the absurd argument that the autopsy doctors mismeasured the wound.

-- As Howard Donahue noted, the HSCA’s proposed exit point made no sense when considered in light of the skull x-rays. The x-rays show that the skull shattered for 5 inches above and behind the exit point, yet there is no defect below or in front of it! If the bullet smashed skull for 4-5 inches above and behind its exit point, it surely would have created at least a small portal of damage below and in front of it.

-- Moreover, as several medical experts have noted, how can fragments be embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those 5 inches of missing skull bone? What is holding those fragments in place if the skull was blasted out at that location? If the skull x-rays are to be believed, there would have been no bone there in which fragments could have been embedded, yet there they are. Something is seriously wrong here.

-- The Clark Panel did not see the small “semi-circular” exit point that the HSCA FPP claimed to identify in the right temple in the skull x-rays. The Clark Panel identified “relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed . . . in the right cerebral hemisphere,” and noted a trail of tiny fragments 1.8 inches long that allegedly lined up with the cowlick site but that dissipated before reaching a point in the frontal region.

-- The autopsy report says that fractures radiated from the EOP entry wound:

--------------------------------------------
Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. (p. 4)
--------------------------------------------

However, the WC’s own wound ballistics tests failed to produce a single entry wound in skull bone with extensive cracking emanating from it, even though the tests were done with dried human skulls. Dried skulls are more brittle than live skulls, yet no extensive fracturing originated from any of the entry wounds in the WC’s tests. 

Does this invalidate the EOP site? No, because the cracking could have been caused by an exiting bullet after a bullet entered the EOP site. This would explain why part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a large late-arriving skull fragment. The first head shot hit the skull at the EOP site. The second head shot hit the skull in the right temple and exited the occiput, causing extensive fracturing and creating the large defect in the lower half of the occiput that dozens of witnesses in three different locations described.

[Jack Nessan]

First, a few follow-up points:

-- F-32 (Figure 29 in 7 HSCA 125) removes any doubt about the accuracy of Dr. Riley’s placement of the cowlick site in his “HSCA Entrance” graphic in “What Struck John.” One can perhaps understand how someone could mistakenly think that Riley placed the site higher than it is placed in F-307, but only if they did not stop to consider the fact that F-307 shows the site from a lower-rear view, whereas Riley shows it from a top-of-head view. F-32, however, showing a largely right profile view, makes it clear that the HSCA put the site exactly where Riley put it (and vice-versa), right around 1 inch above the lambda, at least 1.25 inches above the lambdoid suture, and about 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture. 

F-32 Loc of Cowlick Entry Site
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zi8tMkBylXHGY3OUxBA0DI7vyt-rMwry/view?usp=sharing

F-32 and Riley Graphic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tix6R8Nk0Uu1vLMs-oDjStCuUDeECVs2/view?usp=sharing

This is a crucial point because, as Riley notes, the top-of-head autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the location of the cowlick entry site, proving that the site cannot be a bullet wound. Thus, on this basis alone, the cowlick entry site is both invalid and impossible.

-- Dr. Finck specified in his 1/25/1965 memo to General Blumberg on the autopsy that he saw the rear head entry wound in the scalp and in the underlying occipital bone:

--------------------------------------------
I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (p. 1)
--------------------------------------------

We see from the date of this memo that he wrote this account barely 13 months after the autopsy. Thus, his placement of the entry wound in the occipital bone is strong evidence for the EOP site, since it boggles the mind to think that a certified forensic pathologist would have located in the occiput a wound that would have been clearly above the lambdoid suture and above the lambda and thus obviously in the parietal bone.

-- The HSCA’s trajectory expert, NASA’s Dr. Tom Canning, in order to get the sixth-floor-to-cowlick-site trajectory to “work,” found it necessary to place JFK a good 2 feet farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him (HSCA exhibit F-138). Indeed, Canning put JFK nearly to the middle of the seat. This is what Canning had to do to maintain the fiction that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit the cowlick site and then exited above the right ear. 

F-138 Canning Head Shot Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiMg1s78C0x8jAPNGTtsI4-JkY2gteCG/view?usp=sharing

This is especially odd because in his SBT diagram (F-140), Canning put JFK at the far-right end of the seat, right next to the right door of the limo, exactly where photos and footage show him (but Canning had to put Connally substantially farther to the left than any photo or footage shows him to get the SBT trajectory to “work”).

F-140 Canning SBT Trajectory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBP6t_mE_IaLfgbCL2rghMh359dg0Kr5/view?usp=sharing

Here are more problems that the medical and trajectory evidence poses for any lone-gunman scenario regarding the cowlick entry site and/or the EOP entry site:

-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was 6 x 15 mm. It says the scalp wound was 6 x 15 mm and that there was a “corresponding wound” in the underlying skull, i.e., that the hole in the skull was the same size as the hole in the scalp. Unless one wants to assume that the autopsy doctors severely mismeasured the wound, this poses a serious problem for those who claim that a 6.5 mm bullet made this wound. Why? Because entry wounds in skulls are always, always larger than the diameter of the penetrating bullet. Always.

The WC explained the 6 mm width by conjuring up the fiction that “the elastic recoil of the skull shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it.” Uh, no, it does not. Scalp tissue will slightly recoil after a bullet penetrates it, but skull bone will do no such thing. At least the WC did not make the absurd argument that the autopsy doctors mismeasured the wound.

-- As Howard Donahue noted, the HSCA’s proposed exit point made no sense when considered in light of the skull x-rays. The x-rays show that the skull shattered for 5 inches above and behind the exit point, yet there is no defect below or in front of it! If the bullet smashed skull for 4-5 inches above and behind its exit point, it surely would have created at least a small portal of damage below and in front of it.

-- Moreover, as several medical experts have noted, how can fragments be embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those 5 inches of missing skull bone? What is holding those fragments in place if the skull was blasted out at that location? If the skull x-rays are to be believed, there would have been no bone there in which fragments could have been embedded, yet there they are. Something is seriously wrong here.

-- The Clark Panel did not see the small “semi-circular” exit point that the HSCA FPP claimed to identify in the right temple in the skull x-rays. The Clark Panel identified “relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed . . . in the right cerebral hemisphere,” and noted a trail of tiny fragments 1.8 inches long that allegedly lined up with the cowlick site but that dissipated before reaching a point in the frontal region.

-- The autopsy report says that fractures radiated from the EOP entry wound:

--------------------------------------------
Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. (p. 4)
--------------------------------------------

However, the WC’s own wound ballistics tests failed to produce a single entry wound in skull bone with extensive cracking emanating from it, even though the tests were done with dried human skulls. Dried skulls are more brittle than live skulls, yet no extensive fracturing originated from any of the entry wounds in the WC’s tests. 

Does this invalidate the EOP site? No, because the cracking could have been caused by an exiting bullet after a bullet entered the EOP site. This would explain why part of the EOP entry wound was contained in a large late-arriving skull fragment. The first head shot hit the skull at the EOP site. The second head shot hit the skull in the right temple and exited the occiput, causing extensive fracturing and creating the large defect in the lower half of the occiput that dozens of witnesses in three different locations described.

Wow. This is so far removed from reality that it staggers the imagination and absolutely flies in the face of any common sense. All the experts who viewed this evidence, Canning, Sturdivan, and even Wecht and you are a believer of someone like Dr. Riley. Even Cyril Wecht does not buy any of this nonsense. Is that why you don’t quote him? 

Not a shred of evidence anywhere in the theory let alone a basis for shooters front and rear of JFK, two shooters both armed with carcanos. Unbelievable. My belief is, in all the medical jargon spouted here, that you do not even know where the EOP is let alone measuring from it.

[John Mytton]

The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.

Nice work Jerry, as we know Griffith's perception of perspective is amateurish at best, for instance his laughable analysis of the Zapruder film is downright hilarious and even when his childish conclusions are proven beyond all doubt to be wrong, the man who never met a conspiracy that he didn't like, doubles down with the stupidity!

JohnM

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

The 2D drawing of the encased brain is not at issue. The problem is that Riley (and the stooges who then endorsed it) applied a 2D drawing to a photograph with notable perspective.

No, the problem is that you are ignoring clear reference points, ignoring HSCA exhibit F-32, and ignoring where Riley and the HSCA placed the cowlick site in relation to those points (lambda and lambdoid suture). Your silly graphic has the cowlick site so far forward that it's nearly directly above the right ear! Anyone can look at Riley's graphic and see that he put the site well behind the right ear. They can also see that he put the site only 1 inch above the lambda, whereas you have the "CT Cowlick Wound Area" 2 inches above the lambda.

You see, when you guys are confronted with irrefutable photographic evidence that destroys the lone-gunman theory, you just can't face it. Instead, you see the Emperor's New Clothes and post ridiculous graphics that a child can see are bogus.

And, as I've said before, it is mighty bold of you to get on a public forum and claim that a respected and published neuroscientist couldn't tell the difference between 2 inches above the lambda and 1 inch above the lambda, and couldn't distinguish between a point on the skull that was clearly well behind the right ear and a point that was nearly directly above it. Wow. I mean for you, who thought the cerebellum was part of "the right cerebrum," to even be challenging Dr. Riley on anything is amusing.