The Shifting Single-Bullet Theory--It Always "Works" No Matter What

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes.JohnM

So that's it, huh? End of story? Nothing else to see here? I suspect you went running to a pro-WC website and found this excerpt from Tague's testimony and didn't bother to see if there was more to the story. Right?

I'm guessing you don't know that when Tague was interviewed on camera in 1966, he said that his first impression about the origin of the shots was that they came from a point to his left, and he pinpointed the area of the grassy knoll as the area from which he initially believed the shots had originated. He then explained that he later, after the shooting, changed his mind based on the things he had read in the newspapers and then from the Warren Report. Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVnYTgZzWCk.

Were you aware of these facts? Did the pro-WC source that you consulted mention these facts?

FYI, JFK aide Kennedy O'Donnell told the WC the same thing that Tague told the Commission, yet years later O'Donnell revealed that he heard shots from the grassy knoll, and that the FBI had pressured him into saying that all the shots came from the TSBD--and Dave Powers, who was in the follow-up car with O'Donnell, confirmed O'Donnell's story.

I'm also guessing you do not know that years later, Tague, after he researched the JFK case, reverted back to his original view that shots were fired from the grassy knoll. He spent many pages on this point in his books, especially in his 2013 book. Were you aware of this fact? Did the pro-WC website that you went running to mention this fact? Why is it that I always have to educate you about evidence that you obviously had no idea existed?

I notice that you ignored the key point that Tague insisted that he and the nearby curb were not hit by the first shot that he heard but by a shot that came after that. He told the WC that the curb shot was the second or third shot that he heard. In his 2013 book, Tague said he was certain that the curb shot was the third shot he heard. However, your version of the shooting requires that your alleged lone gunman missed with his first shot, even though the WC clearly leaned toward a second-shot miss for the alleged lone assassin.

Do you understand why a second-shot miss wreaks havoc on the lone-gunman theory, which is why virtually all WC apologists claim the miss was the first shot of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots?

Which of your supposed lone gunman's alleged three shots could have caused the Aldredge curb strike on the north side of Elm Street near the TSBD and the Foster-Walthers grass-manhole-cover strike on the south side of Elm Street over 300 feet from the TSBD?

[Jack Nessan]

So was Brehm just lying when he told the FBI two days later, on 11/24, that he heard a shot after the second-shot headshot? The FBI agents would have had no reason to fabricate that part of his statement.

It is a mighty thin reed to rely on his 11/22 TV interview, when he was clearly in shock, and to infer that he meant that he heard only two shots and no more. He never said "only two shots." A reporter said "two shots," and Brehm answered "two shots." He was almost certainly thinking of the shots that hit JFK and was focused on those two shots. After he had calmed down and was interviewed two days later, he said he heard a third shot but that it came after the headshot, and he never wavered from that. 

At least two sets of two shots came very closely together and each of these sets would have sounded like one shot to many people, so it is not a bit surprising that some people thought they only heard two shots. Plus, many people commented that one of the shots sounded very different than the others, and many people probably did not notice this shot, which is another reason that it's not surprising that some people thought they only heard two shots.

You really should stop posting until you have done your homework, until you have read some of the scholarly books on the evidence of multiple gunmen.

A two-shot assassination is ludicrous. Even with three shots, the lone-gunman theory can't get a bullet to the Tague curb. The attempts to get a bullet or fragment from the sixth-floor window to the Tague curb are downright farcical, not to mention contradictory.

In addition to the Tague curb strike, we have

-- the Aldredge curb strike
-- the Foster manhole/grass strike
-- the deformed bullet found in the limo in DC, seen and handled by Dr. James Young (and verified by Chief Mills)
-- the pavement strike behind the limo early in the shooting (seen and reported independently by five witnesses)
-- the large fragment seen by autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer (this may well have been the same slug that Admiral Osborne told the HSCA that he saw at the autopsy, the same slug documented in the FBI-to-Stover receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy--no, I don't buy the tale that the agents called two or three small fragments a "missile"; they knew the difference between a few small fragments and a missile, and Custer and Osborne were not hallucinating).

A three-shot scenario can't explain these extra bullets and misses, much less a two-shot scenario.

Always amusing how much you believe in these posts.

The rest of this post is the usual made up fantasy you are famous for, but this is actually interesting. I thought it was just a few people not five:

MTG---“the pavement strike behind the limo early in the shooting (seen and reported independently by five witnesses)”

This is interesting, do you know their names or what they said? It is good to actually read these things because so much of your posts are comprised of made up fantasy.

Obviously, you are not big on thinking things through. Actually, it always goes back to you don’t think for yourself. You let internet clowns do your thinking for you. If one of the shot hits the street, then what hit Tague in this odd theory? I bet it would be the fragment from the second shot, you know the head shot, or nothing at all hit him.

The lead on the curb was a lead smear not an impact mark from a bullet. Most likely a lead weight from a car wheel. If you have ever seen the cement work on the triple overpass it is not hard to visualize what left a mark on his cheek. He did press himself against it. All he saw after was the SS car leaving the area.

Sorry, but a two shot scenario is the answer and the only answer. What a let down Huh? All these fanciful conspiracy stories and to find out the answer is so simple. The answer has been there all along from day one when the WC conclusion was the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. A conclusion echoed by the HSCA Sound Analysis report. It is an answer that has been proven by available evidence and can be verified by the FBI examining the chamber of the rifle and verifying the existence of an anomaly in the chamber causing the indentation or "chamber mark" referenced in Hoover's letter to Rankin.

 Three shots is nothing more than a mistake, courtesy of a simple news bulletin from Merriman Smith and read by Walter Cronkite that has taken on a life of its own.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Oh Really?? Hahahaha!

Allowing for slightly differing camera angles, focal length and camera lenses and the fact that Kennedy's autopsy photos show Kennedy with a violently fractured skull and no muscle control, the location of the throat wound is definitely not above the tie knot and in fact perfectly corresponds to the precise location of Kenney's tie knot.

Anyway Griffith, do keep trying because 1 day you may actually get something right, but in the mean time, I absolutely love constantly destroying the Forum Bully! JohnM

You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you? We just saw in your response regarding Tague that you obviously did not know, or perhaps chose to ignore the fact, that Tague initially believed shots came from the grassy knoll, then changed his mind based on newspaper stories and later the Warren Report, and then changed his mind again after he researched the JFK case for himself.

Let me try this: Let me ask you some simple, straightforward questions about the throat wound in reply to your repetition of the claim that it was an exit wound:

-- Why did the first two drafts of the autopsy report say nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound?

-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?

-- Why did the Parkland doctors who saw and/or treated the throat wound describe a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the wound itself? As Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out, the fact that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself indicates that the throat wound was entrance wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?

-- Why did the three Parkland doctors who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed and who commented on the wound's location state that the throat wound was above the tie knot/collar?

-- If the irregular slits in the collar were made by an exiting bullet, why did the FBI fail to find any metal traces in the fabric of the slits--or in the tie? As Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt noted, "the FBI laboratory—after spectrographic analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had caused the damage" (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 59-60). The FBI found metal traces around the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, but no traces on the tie or around the slits in the front. Why?

-- If the irregular slits in JFK's shirt collar were made by an exiting bullet, why is there no fabric missing from the slits? When bullets exit clothing, they invariably remove some fabric, just as the bullet that exited Connally's chest removed fabric when it made the holes in Connally's shirt and coat. FYI, the bullet that entered JFK's back also removed fabric when it made the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? What gives?

-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?

[John Mytton]

You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you? We just saw in your response regarding Tague that you obviously did not know, or perhaps chose to ignore the fact, that Tague initially believed shots came from the grassy knoll, then changed his mind based on newspaper stories and later the Warren Report, and then changed his mind again after he researched the JFK case for himself.

Let me try this: Let me ask you some simple, straightforward questions about the throat wound in reply to your repetition of the claim that it was an exit wound:

-- Why did the first two drafts of the autopsy report say nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound?

-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?

-- Why did the Parkland doctors who saw and/or treated the throat wound describe a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the wound itself? As Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out, the fact that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself indicates that the throat wound was entrance wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?

-- Why did the three Parkland doctors who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed and who commented on the wound's location state that the throat wound was above the tie knot/collar?

-- If the irregular slits in the collar were made by an exiting bullet, why did the FBI fail to find any metal traces in the fabric of the slits--or in the tie? As Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt noted, "the FBI laboratory—after spectrographic analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had caused the damage" (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 59-60). The FBI found metal traces around the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, but no traces on the tie or around the slits in the front. Why?

-- If the irregular slits in JFK's shirt collar were made by an exiting bullet, why is there no fabric missing from the slits? When bullets exit clothing, they invariably remove some fabric, just as the bullet that exited Connally's chest removed fabric when it made the holes in Connally's shirt and coat. FYI, the bullet that entered JFK's back also removed fabric when it made the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? What gives?

-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?

You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you?

Don't be Dick all your life, I simply responded to your claim that the bullet hole was above the tie knot and I irrevocably proved otherwise! So why with this absurd deflection by irrationally shifting the goal posts?
Just admit you were wrong and we can move on and btw, you can also correct your web pages and perhaps in the next edition of your book issue a formal apology!

Again for the slow learners, the bullet hole and subsequent tracheotomy surgery was at the height of the height of the tie knot and was not above the tie knot.



And your hero McClelland even ghoulishly signed this autopsy photo.



JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

Nicely done John.  But I thought the lower .gif needed a bit of adjusting to make the shoulder levels closer. This shows that the bullet exited at the level of the tie knot on the left side. 


which generally fits with the break in the tie as shown in CE 395

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Nicely done John.  But I thought the lower .gif needed a bit of adjusting to make the shoulder levels closer. This shows that the bullet exited at the level of the tie knot on the left side. 


which generally fits with the break in the tie as shown in CE 395

That there break is huge. Could only be made by 2 slugs, one entering, one exiting.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The distinguished war surgeon and noted medical author Dr John Lattimer discovered that a tight shirt collar, with its multiple reinforced stitching, kept the exit wound to a small size. Here's a quote from an article that is about exit wounds being contained in general:

    "If the area of exit is pressed against a firm object (even a tight
     pants waistband), the skin edges will be abraded (or “shored”).
     Sometimes, the entrance and exit truly cannot be distinguished"

I've already debunked this nonsense in previous replies, but you just keep repeating it. Again, (1) JFK's collar was not tightly gripping his neck but, as everyone would expect, fit comfortably around it--it bore no resemblance to a "tight pants waistband." And, (2) the bullet, even one traveling at just 2200 fps, would have exited the neck before the neck tissue would have had time to expand to press against the comfortably fitting collar.

This is a good example of your practice of repeating arguments that you know have been debunked because they were debunked in replies to you in previous threads. Why didn't you mention, as I've documented for you in previous replies, that Lattimer was caught red-handed misrepresenting his test data, that Lattimer assumed that the back wound was above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck, that Lattimer royally goofed in reading the skull x-rays, etc.? 

Folks, if you want the full story on Lattimer and his fraudulent tests and claims, I suggest you read Dr. Thomas's demolition of Lattimer in his book Hear No Evil. Here's an article written by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Cyril Wecht that deals with some of Lattimer's fraudulent claims (as well as those made by Luis Alvarez, Nicholas Nalli, and the Haags): https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/peer-reviewed-medical-scientific-journalism-has-been-corrupted-by-warren-commission-apologists.

We all can readily explain your falling for the Knott 3D study because you know little about perspective and line-of-sight analysis.

LOL! Well, of course you dismiss the only 3D laser analysis ever done on the SBT because the analysis proves that the SBT is impossible! You peddle Lattimer's quackery but dismiss the Knott Lab 3D laser analysis. You just don't care that Knott Laboratory is a respected and recognized forensic engineering firm that specializes in the digital reconstructions of events. We both know that if the Knott Lab analysis had found that the SBT was possible, you would be hailing Knott Lab's recognized expertise and experience.

Folks, if you are new and are just reading the latest replies in this thread, here is an article about Knott Lab's recent 3D laser analysis of the SBT that proves the SBT is impossible:

https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/

Here's a 24-minute podcast interview with Knott Lab CEO Stanley Stoll in which he explains the Knott 3D laser analysis and shows clips based on the digital reconstruction from the 3D laser data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glUgE9RCwnw

For over a quarter of a century, you have promoted the claim that the Top-of-the-Head Photo shows the cowlick wound in a place that is actually the vertex area.

You know this is a lie. You know that I have always said that the cowlick site is about 1 inch above the lambda and 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture, exactly where the HSCA FPP and Dr. Riley, among others, placed it. You must be hoping that most readers will not have read our previous exchanges on this issue, and that they will not have seen you grossly misrepresent Dr. Riley's placement of the cowlick site, even though Dr. Riley provided diagrams that place the wound exactly where the HSCA FPP did.

I'm guessing you're also hoping that readers will be unaware that in one exchange you argued that the cerebellum is part of the right cerebrum, or that you falsely claimed that Dr. McDonnel said the skull x-rays show no missing frontal bone, proving that you really have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case.

That there break is huge. Could only be made by 2 slugs, one entering, one exiting.

LOL! Is this supposed to be a joke?! That "break" is where the Parkland nurses cut the tie to remove it! Sheesh, are you kidding? Have you read nothing but pro-WC propaganda on this issue? You might start with Harold Weisberg's research on the matter--he was the one who finally obtained high-quality photos of the tie and shirt. He also examined the tie at the National Archives and interviewed Dr. Carrico.

Furthermore, that "break" in the tie--the cut--would have been nowhere near the throat wound but would have been inside the collar. If a bullet had exited the throat wound, it would have torn through the tie knot; if we assume for the sake of argument that JFK's tie was substantially off-center, the bullet would have at least nicked the knot's left edge.

So, allow me to repeat my questions, with a little bit of additional information:

-- Why did the first two drafts of the autopsy report say nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound?

-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie knot? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?

-- Why did the Parkland doctors who saw and/or treated the throat wound describe a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the wound itself? As Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out, the fact that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself indicates that the throat wound was entrance wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

We should also keep in mind that autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments in the neck (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 168-170). Custer noted that when he drew attention to the bullet fragments in the C3/C4 area during the autopsy, he was told to “mind my own business” (p. 169).

These were probably fragments from the projectile that entered the throat and ranged downward. This would explain the damage to the pharynx and the trachea behind the wound. This would also explain why the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty, after prolonged and extensive probing after removing the chest organs, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. Several of the men standing near the autopsy table could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--that was where the back wound ended.

-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out? (Apparently even the WC's wound ballistics experts knew that the collar would have had no effect on the wound's appearance.)

-- Why did the three Parkland doctors who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed and who commented on the wound's location state that the throat wound was above the tie knot/collar?

-- If the irregular slits in the collar were made by an exiting bullet, why did the FBI fail to find any metal traces in the fabric of the slits--or in the tie? As Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt noted, "the FBI laboratory—after spectrographic analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had caused the damage" (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 59-60). The FBI found metal traces around the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, but no traces on the tie or around the slits in the front. Why?

-- If the irregular slits in JFK's shirt collar were made by an exiting bullet, why is there no fabric missing from the slits? When bullets exit clothing, they invariably remove some fabric, just as the bullet that exited Connally's chest removed fabric when it made the holes in Connally's shirt and coat. FYI, the bullet that entered JFK's back also removed fabric when it made the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? What gives?

[Michael T. Griffith]

LOL! Anything "debunked" by you isn't debunked at all.

Translation: You will never admit when you make a mistake, no matter how obvious it is.

The back wound was above the throat wound and traveled downward through the neck.

LOL! Did you just beam here from the 1960s? I mean, holy cow, this nonsense was debunked in the 1970s!

Did you miss the news that the HSCA FPP determined that the back wound was below the throat wound, that the bullet struck the back at an upward trajectory, and that the tunneling inside the wound indicated that the bullet traveled upward after it entered the back? The HSCA FPP noted that "the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward" (7 HSCA 87). HSCA FPP Figure 12 shows the back wound slightly below the throat wound (7 HSCA 100). The upward-trajectory finding confirmed the 1975 finding of Dr. Werner Spitz of the Rockefeller Commission’s medical panel:

--------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------

How can you not know this stuff and pretend to have any business discussing the JFK case? This information has been available and well known for decades, yet here you are still peddling the myth that the back wound was above the throat wound and that the bullet traveled downward through the neck.

Why do you suppose Dr. Baden's solution to the facts about the back wound's location and trajectory was to assume that JFK was leaning 50-60 degrees forward when the bullet struck? Humm?

I don't dismiss the Knott Lab 3D SBT study because it "proves that the SBT is impossible". I dismiss it because the placement of the figures in their Z225 frame recreation is way off.

Uh-huh. Says the guy who just claimed that the back wound was above the throat wound and that the bullet traveled downward. Says the guy who recently said that the cerebellum is part of the right cerebrum. Says the guy who compared the taking of optical density measurements to using "seer stones" (even though a neurologist took a separate set of OD measurements and those measurements agreed with the ones taken by a radiation oncologist who also happens to hold a PhD in physics and who taught physics at a major university). Says the guy who calls respected, recognized, PhD-holding, and peer-review-published experts "quacks" whenever he has no credible answer for their findings.

FYI, the Knott Lab engineers placed the JFK and JBC figures after creating a digital twin of Dealey Plaza and then using AI-assisted photogrammetric analysis of the Zapruder film, photos of the limo, and various other photos to place the figures in the limousine. They made the digital twin of the plaza by doing an exhaustive laser survey of the plaza, collecting millions of data points to enable a digital 3D recreation of the plaza that was an exact duplicate of the plaza in every aspect. After making the digital twin, they used photogrammetric analysis to place the Kennedy and Connally figures in the limousine (as well as to place the limousine in the correct position on Elm Street).

The Knott Lab website explains:

--------------------------------------------------------
Using a 3D laser scanner (Leica RTC360), we conducted 36 laser scans of Dealey Plaza. This laser scanner captures up to two million points per second and HDR imagery, resulting in a point cloud, or digital twin, of the scene. This provides forensic engineers with a scientifically accurate model from which measurements can be taken. The Dealey Plaza point cloud has over 851 million data points.

The next step was to reconstruct the scene to historic accuracy for November 22, 1963. To do so, our visualization experts used historic photographs of the plaza and presidential limousine, as well as the “Zapruder film,” which is widely considered the best video footage of the incident. Using a process called photogrammetry, the visualization team was able to place these images into the point cloud, syncing their locations within the scene. Altogether, 25 historic photographs and 7 frames of the Zapruder film were used for this photogrammetry. . . .

Photogrammetry, camera matching, camera tracking and object matching processes were also used to establish the location of Oswald’s perch, the correct dimensions of the limousine, create the digital models of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and establish their positions, frame by frame, throughout the incident. (https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-laboratory-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/)
--------------------------------------------------------

This is a good time to point out to any newcomers that WC apologists have produced several different and conflicting SBT graphics over the years, graphics that have Connally turned to markedly different degrees, graphics that have Connally seated in different horizontal positions on the seat, etc., etc. And, all of them ignore the hard physical evidence of the rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt, claiming, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary (Willis 5 and Betzner 3), that JFK's coat and shirt both magically markedly bunched perpendicularly in almost perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence and without going high enough to block a rear view of JFK's collar!

Reader, go to https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 and see where Griffith refers to the "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I also show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum as that is what is damaged in the drawing. Why would I claim the cerebellum was damaged?

You're lying, and anyone who reads our exchanges will readily see that you're lying.

I made the factual observation that the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe are virtually undamaged in the autopsy brain photos (my exact words were that they are "virtually pristine" in the brain photos). You claimed I was wrong because the "right cerebrum" is damaged in the brain drawing. Let's read what you said, again:

The brain drawing shows the right cerebrum "virtually intact". Are you wearing your Mormon underwear too tight?

You clearly did not understand that the cerebellum is not part of the right cerebrum. You also clearly did not realize that the right-rear occipital lobe is only a small part of the right cerebrum.

When I pointed out your blunder, you came up with the childish lie that you said "right cerebrum" because you somehow thought that I believed that the right-rear occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum, even though I had always distinguished them as separate areas.

You invented the nonsense about my allegedly placing the cowlick site near/at the vertex out of thin air. Anyone who looks at the diagrams that I referenced and linked can see that I have always placed the site about 1 inch above the lambda and about 0.75 inches from the sagittal suture, just as Dr. Riley did and just as the HSCA FPP did. You created this diversion because you can't explain the fact that the top-of-head photos show intact cerebral cortex in the same location as the cowlick site.

Griffith is a Mormon. They must believe in bearing false witness because he practices it nonstop.

I think I'll let your bigoted, childish comment speak for itself.

I said the frontal bone per se wasn't missing, not that some small pieces along the posterior edge weren't missing.

You're lying again. You not only said that the "charge" of missing frontal bone was an "annoying error," you claimed that the missing frontal bone was merely "normal luminosity" and then implied that Dr. McDonnel identified no missing from bone. Let me quote your own words to "refresh your memory":

Monte Evans' fine review of High Treason 2 omitted more than one annoying error. Among them: Livingstone's charge of missing frontal bone in the x-rays. . . .

Of course, the "missing" frontal bone is nothing more than normal luminosity. . . .  Dr. McDonnel reported the frontal bone present (1 HSCA 205). (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)

McDonnel said no such thing. If we turn to 1 HSCA 205, we see that he said just the opposite:

--------------------------------------------------------
Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone. (Report of G. M. McDonnel, 8/4/1978, p. 2, in 7 HSCA 218 and in 1 HSCA 205).
--------------------------------------------------------

And did you miss the news that Dr. Lawrence Angel, the HSCA FPP's forensic anthropology consultant, determined that the  large triangular skull fragment is frontal bone? Did you miss the news that Dr. Boswell's autopsy diagram showed a sizable chunk of missing frontal bone? Did you miss the news that Dr. Mantik confirmed the large amount of missing frontal bone with OD measurements?

Folks, I cover this issue in detail in my recent thread "The Missing Frontal Bone: Another Fatal Blow to the Lone-Gunman Theory" (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3914.0.html).

Pat Speer thinks the dark area where frontal bone would be in the lateral Xray doesn't mean all that area is missing.

Pat Speer?! Pat Speer has no medical training and has made a number of bogus claims about the medical evidence.

Again, folks, see my thread "The Missing Frontal Bone."

Griffith believes nurses at Parkland were using sharp-pointed scalpels to remove clothing. How dumb is that? Maybe Mormons aren't allowed to have scissors.

So, uh, are you supporting Marjan's ridiculous claim that the cut in the tie was not made by a nurse but was made by a bullet? You can't be serious. How about if you conjure up a graphic that shows how a bullet exiting the throat could have torn through that part of the tie?! Hey? Let's see it? You aren't really supporting Marjan's bizarre argument, are you?

And, here's a thought about the cutting instrument that the nurses used to cut the tie to remove it: Isn't it entirely logical and plausible to believe that the nurse who cut the tie was in a great hurry, given the identity of the patient and his dire condition, and that she therefore grabbed the first cutting instrument that she saw and that this instrument happened to be a sharp-edged instrument, since there are many such instruments in your typical ER? How about that?