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

[Jerry Organ]

Let's peel through your layers of falsehood and evasion by going back to the first comment in your previous reply:

Oh, heavens to Betsy! The "vertex area"?? Where in the world from my comments could you have conjured up this nonsense? Do you even know what the vertex is, where it is? The vertex is the highest point on the top of the skull. It is at, or within a tiny fraction of an inch from, the junction of the coronal suture and the sagittal suture (aka the bregma). It is nowhere near any point that could be 10/11 cm above the EOP.

Just FYI, I've been talking about the problems with the cowlick entry site for over 20 years, starting with my 1998 article "Where Was JFK's Rear Head Entry Wound?" (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0Kk8ywdvi7E/m/7ywtz9dK_wAJ).

I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.

LOL! So now you, one of the most discredited and bungling clowns on any JFK forum--now you are going to call Dr. Joseph N. Riley "ignorant" and argue that he put the cowlick wound at the vertex?! I'm almost tempted to ask if you are a secret WC critic who is trying to make all lone-gunman theorists look bad.

Do you know who Dr. Riley was? He was a professor of neurology in the Department of Neurology at the State University of New York, in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California, and in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Florida. He had papers published in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, in the Brain Research Bulletin, and in Science, and his work was cited in those journals and in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

And yet you are actually getting on a public board and claiming that he put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex based on his analysis of the intact cerebral cortex in the top-of-head autopsy photos! Just wow. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.

What a hoot. You really should just stop with this juvenile dissembling, and bungling, and just admit you blundered.

"Cerebrum" refers to an area that contains two lobes of the brain. The cerebrum consists of the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe. The rear-bottom part of the occipital lobe is right next to the cerebellum.

The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.

Any bullet that hit at the EOP site at any kind of a downward angle would have torn through the right-rear part of the occipital lobe and the cerebellum. The HSCA FPP experts hammered the autopsy doctors on this point and stressed this point as one of their main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. You appear to be unaware of what the HSCA medical experts said about the condition of the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe.

Dr. Loquvam hammered Finck with the point that he could see no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum. The only damage that anyone has seen to the cerebellum in the autopsy brain photos is a tiny piece of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum. Other than that, the cerebellum is intact and undamaged. Loquvam pointed out to Finck that the brain photos do not even show bleeding from/in the cerebellum. And when Loquvam asked Finck to explain how the cerebellum could be in this condition if a bullet had entered at the EOP site, Finck finally said, "I don't know."

Have you not read the transcript of the HSCA testimony of Finck, Boswell, and Humes? How can you not know this stuff and then pretend you have any business talking about the medical evidence?

Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible. I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.

BTW, it should be noted that Finck later told the ARRB that he saw "extensive damage" to the cerebellum. He did not raise this point when the HSCA FPP was trying to get him to renounce the EOP entry site. Had he done so, this would have directly challenged the accuracy/authenticity of the brain photos, and apparently Finck was unwilling to ignite a firestorm with the HSCA medical experts.

I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage". Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).

LOL! If you were so stupid as to reach such a comical, ridiculous conclusion from my comments, that is just further proof that you have no business talking about the JFK case. However, I don't believe you. I don't believe you were so clueless as to conclude that I thought the occipital lobe was part of the cerebellum. I think it is obvious that you just blundered and that you're trying to blame your blunder on me.

You claim that the brain drawing shows damage to the right-rear occipital lobe. Huh, that's curious, because the HSCA medical experts said the opposite. As I've noted, you don't seem to know what the HSCA FPP experts said about the right-rear occipital lobe and the cerebellum.

FPP member Dr. Charles Petty raised two objections to the EOP site based on the autopsy brain photos, one of which was the condition of the cerebellum. He put his other objection to Humes and Boswell, noting that the brain photos show no damage to the rear part of the “occipital lobes” (also known as the singular “occipital lobe”). I quote:

------------------------------
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)
-------------------------------

Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".

Again, have you not read the HSCA volumes? How can you not know this stuff?

Such a comment once again shows that, in addition to being a liar, you're a crude, bigoted jerk.

Good. Now I can go back to calling you an arrogant p-r-i-c-k. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

The cerebrum has four lobes: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe.

Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.

I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.

But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.

I would really like to nail down where you think the general area of the vertex and cowlick wound are in the Top-of-the-Head picture. The cowlick wound would not be visible (because of the scalp flaps that would obscure that area) but you can locate it relative to the cortex seen. I've made the circles extra big to allow for some error. Not saying this is right and am giving you the opportunity to correct it.

Doesn't matter how much education Riley has if he doesn't have a grasp of perspective or sightline analysis, so he can read photographs properly. The medical field has welcomed 3D imaging.

So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.

Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.

Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?

Fine with me if the EOP entry wound is impossible.

Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.

I believe in the cowlick-level entry site.

The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

I think he's saving his ass. He had numerous opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to say the cerebellum had "extensive damage".

Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.

Finck also said the EOP was located only through Humes' palpation (feeling).

That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.

It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.

Cherry pick. Otherwise, the HSCA Reports should be full of the occipital lobe being undamaged and the brain drawing being a fake. The Autopsy Report said the longitudinal laceration ran from "the tip of occipital lobe posterior to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly".

"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.

[Jerry Organ]

Uh, no. Wrong again. The cerebrum has five lobes: frontal, temporal, insular, parietal, and occipital.

I thought we were talking about the back half of the head. I was referring to the part of the cerebrum in the back half of the skull, but, alas, I see that I carelessly did not specify that. Thus, I cannot howl about your saying the cerebrum has only four lobes. This time we both goofed.

There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.

But, again, the point is that this whole discussion about the cerebrum started when you erroneously confused "the right cerebrum" with the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe. The cerebellum is not part of the cerebrum, and it looks very different than the cerebrum.

I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.

So you are actually doubling down on your laughable argument that Dr. Riley claimed that the cowlick entry site was at the vertex. This is just clown material. This is why it is a waste of time dealing with you. You're not only dishonest, but half the time you have no clue what you're talking about. I only answer you for the sake of others.

Let's make this easy: How about if you explain what words in Dr. Riley's analysis lead you to conclude that he put the debunked cowlick entry site anywhere near the vertex, much less at the vertex? How about that? Quote the words in Riley's analysis that you think even remotely suggest such an absurd claim.

Do you realize that even Artwohl admitted that the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photos? Do you realize that Dr. Mantik has confirmed this?

I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.

Yeah, uh-huh. As everyone here knows, the point is that the EOP site is only "impossible" if you accept the autopsy brain photos as authentic. But the brain photos show a brain that is missing only 1-2 ounces of its tissue, as even Bugliosi acknowledged, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshield of the follow-up car, onto the windshields of the two left-rear patrol bikes, onto Agent Kinney's clothing, onto several surfaces in the interior of the back of the limo, onto Jackie's dress, etc., etc. We also have multiple accounts from witnesses in three different locations, including one of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, that a bare minimum of one-fourth of the brain was blown out. And then there is the fact that the skull x-rays show about one half of the right side of the brain missing.

The "cowlick-level entry site"? It's usually called the cowlick site, the cowlick entry site, or the high entry wound in most sources, just FYI.

Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

Oh, of course! And never mind that several other doctors likewise said that they saw severe damage to the cerebellum, right? And never mind that the lead autopsy photographer said the cerebellum was visibly damaged, right? Nah, never mind all that, right? They all must have been "mistaken," even the neurosurgeon! You bet.

That is nonsense. Anyone who reads Humes, Boswell, and Finck's accounts will see you're once again posting misleading twaddle. Humes and Boswell specified that they first identified the EOP entry wound in the scalp and then in the skull after they reflected the scalp. Finck specified that after the scalp was reflected, he had photos taken of the wound from inside and outside the skull, which, as I've noted, was and is a standard autopsy procedure.

It is demonstrably false, not to mention dishonest, to argue that the entry wound was found merely by Humes' feeling around for it.

The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.

"Cherry pick"?! Phew! I mean, this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.

On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are four major lobes in the cerebrum. The insular and a sixth lobe, the limbic, are deep inside the cerebrum. Many web sites refer only to the main four.

Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:

--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:

Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)

The National Institutes of Health:

The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))

The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:

Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)

The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):

The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:

Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)

Science Direct:

The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:

Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------

If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.

I explained that I did not make such a mistake. I posted the brain drawing showing the cerebellum intact and took issue with your claim that the cerebrum wasn't damaged.

You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."

Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.

I see. Throwing others under the bus, rather than take ownership.

LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!

You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.

Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side. So I sometimes call the entry wound "cowlick-level entry site". You can call it what you want; I won't nitpick.

You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.

Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.

BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?

And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos. 

The EOP didn't have its attachments severed and the scalp reflected back to expose it. They didn't even reflect the scalp to expose the outside of the cowlick wound, which was higher up and easier to get at. They were trying to preserve the body as much as possible. Humes had his "EOP" identifier through palpation. The others trusted him. They only looked at the skull entry wound from inside after they removed the brain. What perplexed them was the back wound and where the bullet went.

This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:

---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)
---------------------------------------

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster).

I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

On that last point, I note you have made no objection that this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are.

More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:

---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------

So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"?  I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.

What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.

[Jerry Organ]

Wow, you just can't admit when you're wrong, no matter how obvious your error is, can you? A brief survey on the fact that the cerebrum contains five lobes:

--------------------------------------
The National Cancer Institute:

Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes, four of which have the same name as the bone over them: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipital lobe, and the temporal lobe. A fifth lobe, the insula or Island of Reil, lies deep within the lateral sulcus. (https://training.seer.cancer.gov/brain/tumors/anatomy/brain.html#:~:text=Each%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,deep%20within%20the%20lateral%20sulcus)

The National Institutes of Health:

The cerebral hemisphere is divided into five lobes (Figures 1A-C): frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe, and insula (2, 4–6). Two imaginary lines are drawn on the cerebral hemisphere. The first is a vertical line from the parieto-occipital sulcus to the pre-occipital notch (2). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK575742/#:~:text=The%20cerebral%20hemisphere%20is%20divided,%2Doccipital%20notch%20(2))

The University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy:

Each cerebral hemisphere is organized into five lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital, temporal and insula. (https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroanatomy/L1/Lab01p06_index.html)

The Cleveland Clinic (the third-largest group of doctors in the U.S.):

The outer surface of your cerebrum, your cerebral cortex, is mostly smooth but has many wrinkles, making it look something like a walnut without its shell. It’s divided lengthwise into two halves, the left and right hemisphere. The two hemispheres also have five main lobes each:

Frontal (at the front of your head).
Parietal (at the top of your head).
Temporal (at the side of your head).
Insular (deep inside of your brain, underneath your frontal, parietal and temporal lobes).
Occipital (at the back of your head). (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23083-cerebrum) (For further info on the Cleveland Clinic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic)

Science Direct:

The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres that are partially connected with each other by corpus callosum. Each hemisphere contains a cavity called the lateral ventricle. The cerebrum is arbitrarily divided into five lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and insula. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cerebrum)

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology Textbook, by Diana Clifford Kimber and Carolyn Elizabeth Gray:

Lobes of the cerebrum -- With one exception, these lobes were named from the bones of the cranium under which they lie: Frontal lobe. Parietal lobe. Temporal lobe. Occipital lobe. The Insula. (pp. 147-148; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Text_book_of_Anatomy_and_Physiology/yd0EAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cerebrum+five+lobes&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover)
--------------------------------------

If you can't stomach these statements, go tell the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, and the others that they're wrong.

You simply must have your way with even the most trivial items. I see many reputable sites say there are six lobes. Most sites will merely say there are four main lobes. I admit I was wrong, but allow for other people seeing things through different lenses. You lack that ability.

You're lying. Anyone who goes back and reads our previous replies will see that you're lying through your teeth. You erroneously described the cerebellum and the right-rear part of the occipital lobe as "the right cerebrum." There cerebellum is a separate part of the brain from the cerebrum--it is not part of the cerebrum. Moreover, I never said that the cerebrum was not damaged. In fact, I did not even mention the term "cerebrum."

Dear Reader. Be my guest: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg153912.html#msg153912 . See where Griffith refers to "right-rear occipital lobe" and the full cerebellum, and I refer to the"right cerebrum". I show the brain drawing to further clarify I was referring to the right cerebrum. Griffith is a Mormon apologist and that group has a long history of demeaning people and shutting them down.

Gosh, it's just weird that you so brazenly lie about what you said when anyone can easily read our exchange and see what you said.

People on the Forum. What do you think?

LOL! This is your answer to my obsevation that Dr. Artwohl and Dr. Mantik have both confirmed that the cerebral cortex under the cowlick entry site is intact?! This is your answer to my debunking of your ridiculous claim that your "perspective and sightline-analysis" proves that Dr. Riley put the cowlick entry wound at the vertex?!

You never are going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick entry site without tearing through the underlying cerebral cortex, are you? No, you'll just keep on professing belief in this mythical entry wound, even though your own best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted that it's bogus.

You're the only one who uses this oddball term. Everybody else calls it the cowlick entry site, the cowlick site, the high entry wound, and/or the revised entry wound.

More nitpicking. Obsessive-compulsive.

Anyway, this attempt to justify your odd term for the cowlick site is your answer to the problems I noted with the autopsy brain photos? You ignored the problems and instead focused on defending your odd verbiage for the cowlick site.

BTW, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, said that the large dark area in the right frontal region on the lateral skull x-rays indicates "some absence of brain." How do you square that with the Bugliosi-Baden claim that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue?

And, just to remind everyone, several private experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar, have noted that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain than do the autopsy brain photos. 

This is just weird. What do you think people will think of you when they read our previous replies and see that I documented that Humes specifically said that they did reflect the scalp up to the area of the cowlick site and that they saw no wound there? Do you not remember that? Let me refresh your memory:

---------------------------------------
Yes, the autopsy doctors did reflect the scalp over the rear head entry wound. When the HSCA FPP was trying to get Humes to say that the red spot on the back-of-head autopsy photo was the entry wound, Humes rejected this claim and explained that they reflected the scalp and did not see a wound in that location:

"I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this [red spot] in the skull at any point. I don't know what that [red spot] is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not a wound of entrance." (7 HSCA 254)

No less a researcher than Pat Speer treats this with caution:

    "Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying
     that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some
     distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when
     one views this photo under the assumption the bone in the foreground shows
     forehead the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been
     reflected at all!"

Humes famously told the HSCA that a piece of tissue (per FPP) near the hairline was an entry wound.

---------------------------------------

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that Dr. Finck said he had photos taken of the EOP entry wound, both from the outside and the inside of the skull? Remember?

Funny. When Humes supposedly reflected the scalp to expose the cowlick wound area, and Finck wistfully claimed decades later they had taken a picture of a bared skull clean down to the EOP level, where's the picture? Not in the "Military Review" inventory signed by the three pathologists.

How about the fact, as I've also pointed out, that every single witness at the autopsy who saw the rear head entry wound and who commented on its location said it was where the autopsy doctors located it? Even Pat Speer, to his credit, has acknowledged this fact (see https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster).

I noticed you declined to answer any of the questions I posed to you regarding the cowlick entry site. Let me repeat them:

When are you going to explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without damaging the cerebral cortex directly beneath it? When are you going to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, which was far below it, while also creating the cortical damage, and with no path of any kind linking the cortical and subcortical damage? When are you going to explain the wound ballistics tests that prove there should be no fractures coming from any point near the entry site? When are you going to address the fact that every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP, right where the autopsy doctors placed it? When are you going to address the wildly conflicting forward-head-tilt angles that Canning and the HSCA FPP experts produced--gee, what do you think the problem was?!

"Every single medical and non-medical witness who saw the rear head entry wound and commented on its location said it was very close to the EOP." Really? Only Humes felt for the EOP and he got it wrong, according to the HSCA. No one else saw or felt for the EOP; they only saw the cowlick wound on the scalp and accepted Humes' EOP placement relative to it.

More weird comedy. Here is the point that I made and that you are pretending to answer:

---------------------------------------
The brazen conflict between the absence of lower-rear brain damage in the autopsy brain photos and the EOP entry site was a major point stressed by the HSCA FPP and was one of the FPP's main reasons for rejecting the EOP site. This conflict is mentioned in the FPP's report.

The FPP, however, failed to address the equally stark conflict between the brain photos and the skull x-rays: the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of substance missing from the right side of the brain, as several medical experts have noted. The FPP also failed to explain the absence of damage to the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site.
----------------------------------------

So what on Earth are you talking about that "this is where you think the vertex region and the cowlick wound region are"?  I think the debunked cowlick site is where it was posited by the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, Dr. Lattimer, etc., the same location that has been debunked as an entry site by Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, etc.

What in the blazes does the vertex have to do with any of this? Only in your clownish "perspective and sightline-analysis" does the vertex have anything to do with the cowlick site and with the impossibilities associated with it. Again, the vertex is nowhere near the cowlick site. It has nothing to do with this issue, except in your mind.

Is this image not representative of where you contend the cowlick wound is in the Top-of-the-Head Photo? Be clear; what changes are needed? Better yet, post your own graphic showing the area you contend show the cowlick wound almost near the cortex seen in the photo ("the cerebral cortex beneath the cowlick entry site is intact in the top-of-head photo"). The vertex (a must landmark)  must therefore be some distance from the cowlick wound.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.

Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).

A little more about Dr. Hodges: He began his career as a professor of radiology at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University. He served as president of the American Society of Neuroradiology for two years. He conducted numerous experiments to study the effects on animals and humans of penetrating wounds from high-velocity bullets. He was a highly respected reviewer for the American Journal of Neuroradiology and was a charter member of the Association of University Radiologists and of the American Society of Neuroradiology.

Regarding the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges said the following:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

These findings were unacceptable because the new official position was that the rear head entry wound was in the right parietal bone, not in the occiput, that it was visibly above and to the right of the lambda, a whopping 10 cm (4 inches) above the location identified by the autopsy doctors.

Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by several experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with optical density measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays.

Further confirmation of this comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show no more than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing, as even Bugliosi and Baden freely acknowledged.

It is not surprising that the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that he was certain that the brain photos in evidence are not the brain photos that he took.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Perhaps now is a good time to mention that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, confirmed the EOP entry site when he was allowed to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission.

Dr. Hodges was asked to study the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos for the Rockefeller Commission. He did so and then wrote a report, but his report was buried and ignored, and the commission’s final report omitted his key findings. Why? Because Hodges rejected the Clark Panel’s relocation of the rear head entry wound, because he confirmed the EOP entry site, and because he noted that the skull x-rays showed that a “goodly portion of the right brain” was “missing” (p. 2).

No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.

[Michael T. Griffith]

No. I redd the report. Hodges merely confirmed that the Bethesda autopsy nominated the EOP entry site.

No, that's not what he said in the report that he wrote. That report was buried and only surfaced years later. I quoted what he wrote. I don't understand how you can deny that he said the bullet entered at the EOP site. Let's read what he said again:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput . . . producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull. . . . (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3, pp. 2-3)

What don't you understand about this wording? The entry wound was in the "right occipital region" and "the bullet struck the right occiput." The cowlick entry site is in the right parietal bone, visibly above and to the right of the lambda, not in the right occipital bone.