Almost like something tore at the bulk of the brain's right's side and caused things to tear below.
Oh, so a separate extended "tear"--read: wound path--just magically got created through and below the corpus callosum from a wound in the cowlick, never mind that there's no fragment trail within 2 inches of the subcortical damage, and no path or trail between the cortical and subcortical damage! Sorry, wound paths--or separate extended "tears"--don't happen like that.
Again, why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP made no attempt to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage? Why do you suppose they did not float your ludicrous explanation of the subcortical damage?
Before I continue, allow me to note that you said nothing about your erroneous claim that the subcortical damage was "superficial" ("minor" in your usage). Obviously, you were unaware that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of damaged tissue than the cortical damage. Your claim that the subcortical damage was superficial (minor) was the key assumption of your jostled-brain explanation.
But, as you usually do when you're caught peddling nonsense, you failed to acknowledge your error and continued to float your jostled-brain explanation. Throughout your time in this forum, this cycle has repeated itself over and over. You just bounce from one invalid claim to the next.
Allow me to also note that you said nothing about the damage
below the corpus callosum. Not one word. Gee, why not?
Allow me to also note that you said nothing about your bogus claim that the skull x-rays show no missing frontal bone, and that you did not answer any of my questions about the debunked cowlick entry site.
They [the autopsy doctors] don't say it's a missile path with an open tunnel with missing tissue, or say it was caused by a bullet.
LOL! I mean, really? Are you really making this argument, with a straight face?!
The autopsy doctors didn't even describe the cortical damage or the high fragment trail, yet you infer from their failure to explicitly specify the cause of the subcortical damage that they didn't think it was caused by a bullet?! How in the world can anyone take your nonsense seriously?
If they didn't think the damage was caused by a bullet, one would think they would have said so. This was, after all, an autopsy report. The only cause of damage to the head that they mentioned was a bullet that entered slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP.
They specified that the bullet deposited a fragment trail that started near the EOP and went upward to a point just above the right orbit, and that the bullet's exit wound was above the right ear. As several scholars have noted, a bullet entering at the EOP site could have caused the subcortical damage--but not the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. This is undoubtedly why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.
A laceration can be a tear with no tissue missing. The out-folding of the right cerebrum in the brain photo could have caused the tear to be seen to be open. Or they manually opened the laceration to see how deep it went.
An amateurish, not-so-clever, dishonest dodge. Did you forget the point that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of the amount of tissue damage than the cortical damage? Did that somehow slip your mind?
It's just amazing how often you pull this stunt of ignoring key contrary facts that have been pointed out to you and then repeating your position as if those facts do not exist.
Riley contends the following HSCA description of a "groove" corresponds to his "subcortical" missile path through the corpus callosum (drawing above).
"On the right cerebral hemisphere is an anterior-posterior cylindrical
groove in which the brain substance is fragmented or absent. This
groove extends from the back of the brain to the right frontal area
of the brain."
But, as one can see, they're describing the "right cerebral hemisphere", particularly the area near the midline, which would be above the corpus callosum. That's where the missing tissue is. However, Riley diminishes the traditional large laceration (whose height extended some 4.5cm from the vertex to its base) by claiming that brain matter, said to be missing and blown out by the HSCA, is actually present in the brain photograph but out-folded. Jack White would be proud.
Another amateurish, not-so-clever, and dishonest dodge. Did you forget the fact that, as Dr. Riley noted,
the HSCA FPP said very little about the subcortical damage and provided only a brief, cursory, non-technical description of it? Did that key point slip your mind, or were you hoping that no one would notice your deception? Yet, according to you, Dr. Riley misrepresented the FPP's description of "the right cerebral hemisphere"! What an amazingly erroneous, misleading argument.
Moreover, you have simply ignored Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the FPP's brief, cursory description of the subcortical damage so you can falsely pretend that he misrepresented the FPP's description, when he did no such thing. You quoted the FPP's description but ignored Dr. Riley's three-paragraph explanation. Let's read what Dr. Riley wrote so everyone can see how dishonest and erroneous your argument is:
----------------------------------------------------
A description of all of the neuroanatomical structures involved is beyond the scope of this paper; however, by referring to Fig. 4D, the brain structures mentioned fall within or near the "groove" as described by the Panel. To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. Second, the wound passes near the midline. The brain is a bilateral structure but, for present purposes, it may be viewed as "joined together" except for the cerebral cortex. At the midline, the cortex "dips down" and two corresponding cortical regions (cingulate cortex) are located opposite of each other. A sheet of dura mater, termed the Falx, is located between the cigulate cortex on each hemisphere.
The subcortical damage is illustrated in Fig. 4A (HSCA exhibit F-302). (To the author's knowledge, there are no published photographs of the brain; however, the illustration is sufficient). To understand the relationship between the cortical and subcortical damage, it is crucial to understand what is shown and what is not. F-302 is NOT a view of the cortical damage ("cortical damage", as used here, refers to the dorsomedial cortex described previously upon which bullet fragments were distributed). What is illustrated is partially disrupted cingulate cortex that has shifted apparent location due to the disruption of brain tissue ventral (below) to it. In non-technical language, there is an outfolding of cortex due to its detachment from the brain tissue below it (in this case, largely the corpus callosum). Schematically, this is illustrated in Fig. 4F.
This interpretation is supported by the following evidence. First, the cingulate sulcus and parietooccipital sulcus are clearly evident (Figs. 4A-4D). The "grooves" on the cortical surface (sulci, singular is sulcus) and corresponding "ridges" (gyri, singular is gyrus) are arranged in an ordered and established pattern. The cingulate and parietooccipital sulci are located at the appropriate. position and there is no configuration of sulci on the dorsolateral surface that could account for this configuration. Since it is unlikely that many readers will be experienced neuroanatomists, it must be stressed that the identification of the cingulate sulcus is beyond reasonable doubt. The cigulate sulcus is found at the posteromedial margin of the postcentral gyrus. The precentral gyrus (primary motor cortex), postcentral gyrus (primary somatosensory cortex), and the central sulcus which separates them are well defined and unambiguous cortical landmarks. It is not a matter of differing interpretations; it is a matter of attending to the facts. There is no other valid interpretation. Anatomical landmarks can be obscured or obliterated by bullet wounds; they cannot be created. Second, as reviewed previously, the evidence accumulated by the Panel demonstrates that the cortical wound was relatively superficial; there had to be cortical tissue present for fragments to be distributed so near the surface of the brain. Finally, without discussing the effects of fixation on brain tissue in detail, the increase in surface area in the right hemisphere cannot be accounted for as "flattening" of the brain (see below). ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," pp. 11-12,
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Riley prefaced the section on the subcortical damage with the following paragraph:
----------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissuedamaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. It will be difficult, without a background in neuroanatomy, to understand the extent of this damage based solely on the written descriptions; however, it is not difficult to understand the wounds when they are placed in their anatomical relationships. (p. 10)
----------------------------------------------------
I might add that not one of the HSCA FPP members was a neuroscientist.
Riley (and Griffith, the Mormon "scholar") apparently know more (or are comfortable with promoting fiction) than the HSCA and Clark Panel, the latter writing of the right cerebral hemisphere:
"It is transected by a broad canal running generally in a posteroanterior
direction and to the right of the midline. Much of the roof of this canal is
missing, as are most of the overlying frontal and parietal gyri."
So you're doubling-down on your amateurish deception.
One, I will again note that none of the HSCA FPP members were neuroscientists. None of the Clark Panel members were neuroscientists, either. Heck, the Clark Panel erroneously claimed that the high fragment trail aligned with the cowlick site and also somehow magically corresponded to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report! As you surely know, the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches)
above the cowlick site and at least 10 cm
above the starting point of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.
But you're so desperate to make people think that you have an answer for the subcortical damage that you apparently suffered another one of your frequent, convenient memory lapses about problems with your sources.
Two, what does the partial description of the brain damage in the right cerebrum that you quoted have to do with the subcortical damage? Did you notice that it refers to the "roof" (top) of the "canal" to the right of the midline? Did you not notice that it mentions that the "frontal and parietal gyri" are
on top of the canal ("
overlying frontal and parietal gyri")? Do you not know that these frontal gyri are at the top of the brain?
Either by ignorance or design, you happened to cherry pick the part of the Clark Panel's description of the brain damage that does not relate to the subcortical damage. You either did not realize how badly you were blundering, or else you thought that you could get away with such erroneous cherry-picking.
And, did you not notice that in the next paragraph the panel goes on to say that this damage was caused by a
high-velocity bullet ("a single bullet travelling at
high velocity") that entered at the cowlick site?! You know that the alleged murder rifle was a
low-velocity weapon, as FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier specified to the WC, right? You know this, right? Let's read from Frazier's WC testimony:
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less.
The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power.
This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------
The Clark Panel did not even know that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle. They were right about the fact that the skull and brain damage indicate the use of a high-velocity rifle--they just did not know that the supposed murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. (I suspect that if they had known this, they would have worded that paragraph differently.)
I can tell that when someone is describing damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere", they're not describing a missile path thought the corpus callosum.
Yikes! One, see above. Two, the Clark Panel described both the cortical and subcortical damage but did not specify that the two areas of damage are separate and unconnected; they used wording that indicates that the corpus callosum damage is separate from the other damage they were describing, but they did not make the discontinuous nature of the two damaged areas clear--nor did they explain how the subcortical damage could have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, a site that was far removed from the damage.
My "side" don't take damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere" and falsely apply it to invent a missile path thought the corpus callosum.
One, Dr. Riley did not do that, as we have just seen--rather, you engaged in your usual distortion and omission by ignoring the cursory nature of the HSCA FPP's description of the subcortical damage, and then by ignoring Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the subcortical damage. Two, you said nothing about the damage
below the corpus callosum. You ignored it because you can't explain it. Three, you said nothing about the fact that there is no connection between the cortical and subcortical damage, that the two areas of damage are separate and distinct. Four, you did not cite a single source that has challenged Dr. Riley's description of the cortical and subcortical damage. Your entire argument amounts to an argument from silence based only on your own inferences.
You made your false argument in response to the following questions that I posed to you:
(1) Does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage?
(2) Can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?
Are you going to answer these two straightforward questions?
