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

[Jerry Organ]

[Michael T. Griffith]

You're the guy missing the point here. The everted loose scalp hanging down covers the area  where the "red spot" should be. That's what you can't see it in the photo. The "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site" (as you call it) is, as you said, directly beneath the "cowlick entry site." Because the  everted, hanging scalp covers the "cowlick entry site," it also covers the "cerebral cortex that is directly beneath the location of the cowlick entry site, ipso facto. And so, that area of the cerebrum is not --and cannot be-- visible in the TotH photos.

I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).

You might also want to read the exchanges that Dr. Riley had with lone-gunman theorists on this issue in the main JFK newsgroups, such as the alt.conspiracy.jfk Google Group. In one of his replies, Dr. Riley noted,

---------------------------------------
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet.
----------------------------------------

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). He also mentioned that a cowlick wound would have been visible in the skull after the pathologists reflected the scalp. Keep in mind that Stringer also informed the ARRB that he took pictures of the head after the scalp had been reflected, at the direction of the autopsy doctors (pp. 71, 93-95).

I should add that two of the color autopsy color prints are labeled "missile wound in posterior skull with scalp reflected" (ARRB Exhibit 13, Numbers 44 and 45).

Yet, Jerry Organ continues to peddle his silly fiction that the autopsy doctors never reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound and did not see the wound in the skull.

We should also remember what Dr. Finck said about the rear head entry wound in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, and note that this was after he had reviewed the autopsy materials for the Justice Department in late 1966. He said, "I don't endorse the 100 mm [relocation of the entrance wound]. . . . I saw the wound of entry in the back of the head . . . slightly above the EOP, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 mm above it."

One cannot be viewed as credible if one clings to the cowlick entry site without explaining the following issues (among other issues):

1. How a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, especially given the fact that there is no path/cavitation connecting the subcortical damage with the cortical damage. I have raised this issue repeatedly, and you guys just keep ducking it.

2. How two bullet fragments, supposedly from the cross section of an FMJ missile, could have ended up 1 cm below the cowlick site, especially if a bullet struck there at a downward angle. I defy you to cite a single case in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has behaved in this manner.

3. Why not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table of the skull or anywhere near the outer table.

4. Why not one of the skulls in the Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes, even though those skulls, being dried skulls, were more brittle than live skulls. (The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front.)

5. Why the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-rays does not align with the cowlick site and does not even come close to extending to the cowlick site. (Indeed, most of the high fragment trail is concentrated in the right frontal region, near the small notch in the right temple that several experts have identified on the skull x-rays. Gee, what a coincidence.)

There are other problems with the cowlick site, but these are the main ones that must be faced. Ducking them, pretending they don't exist, will not make them go away. You guys can keep posting bogus and/or irrelevant graphics and going off on endless diversionary evasions, but doing so won't make these problems disappear. It should tell you something that even a diehard WC apologist such as Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who is also your side's most qualified wound ballistics expert, has rejected the cowlick site.



 

[Jack Nessan]

I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).


All this wonderful posting and with exhibits too. Whatever is missing from this theory though. 

Oh, I know what it is. There is not a plausible explanation for the fracture in the windshield of the limousine. The fracture in the windshield of the limousine gives a clue as to the direction of travel of the bullet. The windshield fracture indicates the bullet had been traveling from the TSBD. The 6th floor to be exact. 

The bullet fragment had to have been angling up and away from the wound in the side of JFK’s head to create the windshield fracture. Guess what, the bullet had changed course from a downward angle to a horizontal if not upward angle after penetrating JFK’s skull. Is not that the conclusion basically reached by Humes? 

[Michael T. Griffith]

In a nutshell what do you think all of this proves? Obviously, JFK was shot from behind from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Another thing that "all of this proves" is that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. You snipped that part of Dr. Hodges' analysis, but it is crucial. As I said, 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 OD 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).

We also know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshields of the two left-trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, Agent Kinney's clothes, Jackie's dress, the rear hood, and on several surfaces inside the limo.

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

Thus, 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 he took.

This is key because the only real objection to the EOP site is that it drastically contradicts the brain photos, because the brain photos show virtually no damage to the cerebellum and to the right-rear occipital lobe. The HSCA FPP members spent considerable time talking about the drastic conflict between the brain photos and the EOP entry site. Since they accepted the brain photos as authentic, they viewed them as irrefutable, definitive proof that no bullet entered at the EOP site. But once you realize that the brain photos are bogus and impossible, the only meaningful objection to the EOP site goes away.

[Jerry Organ]

[Michael T. Griffith]

I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).


All this wonderful posting and with exhibits too. Whatever is missing from this theory though. 

Oh, I know what it is. There is not a plausible explanation for the fracture in the windshield of the limousine. The fracture in the windshield of the limousine gives a clue as to the direction of travel of the bullet. The windshield fracture indicates the bullet had been traveling from the TSBD. The 6th floor to be exact. 

The bullet fragment had to have been angling up and away from the wound in the side of JFK’s head to create the windshield fracture. Guess what, the bullet had changed course from a downward angle to a horizontal if not upward angle after penetrating JFK’s skull. Is not that the conclusion basically reached by Humes?

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. No, Humes never made that claim. In fact, he said that the anatomical evidence did not allow him to say whether the bullet came from above but only from behind. The WC's diagram of the head-wound trajectory (CE 388) has the bullet traveling straight at an upward angle, since the EOP site was below the exit wound described in the autopsy report. How did the WC make this "work"? As I've mentioned several times, they assumed that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward, as we see in CE 388. That's the only way a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have created the entry and exit wounds described in the autopsy report.

When critics began to point out this impossible head-wound trajectory, Ramsey Clark convened the Clark Panel, and the Clark Panel came up with the bogus cowlick entry site 4 inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it. They did so to try to deal with the trajectory issue and also to try to deal with the newly appearing 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail, neither of which was mentioned in the autopsy report and in the doctors' 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials.

We need to keep in mind that in the autopsy pathologists' report on their 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials, they said the EOP entry site was visible in four of the autopsy photos. That is very interesting, because Hodges said he could see the EOP entry wound in some of the autopsy photos.

As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.

[Jack Nessan]

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. No, Humes never made that claim. In fact, he said that the anatomical evidence did not allow him to say whether the bullet came from above but only from behind. The WC's diagram of the head-wound trajectory (CE 388) has the bullet traveling straight at an upward angle, since the EOP site was below the exit wound described in the autopsy report. How did the WC make this "work"? As I've mentioned several times, they assumed that JFK's head was tilted over 50 degrees forward, as we see in CE 388. That's the only way a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have created the entry and exit wounds described in the autopsy report.

When critics began to point out this impossible head-wound trajectory, Ramsey Clark convened the Clark Panel, and the Clark Panel came up with the bogus cowlick entry site 4 inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it. They did so to try to deal with the trajectory issue and also to try to deal with the newly appearing 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail, neither of which was mentioned in the autopsy report and in the doctors' 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials.

We need to keep in mind that in the autopsy pathologists' report on their 11/1/66 review of the autopsy materials, they said the EOP entry site was visible in four of the autopsy photos. That is very interesting, because Hodges said he could see the EOP entry wound in some of the autopsy photos.

As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.

No that is not the only way. The bullet, at some point inside the skull, exploded and went in numerous directions. A trajectory, based on what amounts to a hand grenade effect, is an impossibility. The fact that fragments went forward explains it all that the shot was from the rear. The fact that the bullet was matched to the carcano on the 6th floor explains the location from which the shot was taken. The only other explanation would be to claim there was two assassins both armed with carcanos both in the TSBD.

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

The cowlick site is nothing more than an attempt to explain what happened but failed because it could not explain the key issues. It is actually an ass backwards way to look at the problem. They must have assumed the bullet disintegrated upon impact with the side of JFK’s head and based the trajectory upon it and decided they needed a new entry point to make it all work. That obviously is not what happened as the window and chrome strip indicate.

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

As for the windshield damage, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Tom Canning of NASA, said the windshield damage did not line up with the head shot's alleged trajectory. You also need to deal with the visible circular dent in the chrome above the windshield, which pre-assassination photos prove was not there before the shooting.

Now you get it. The damage to the window and chrome is key to understanding it. The bullet rising and disintegrating caused a defect in both the window and the chrome frame. The bullet upon entering the skull deviated from the original trajectory from the TSBD when it fragmented. The fragments did follow a new trajectory based on the position of JFK’s head, the blow out location and the window and chrome defects. The fragments indicate the bullet was rising when it blew out the side of his head for the damage to the chrome and window to occur.

 

[Mitch Todd]

I suggest you take a look at Riley's first graphic in "What Struck John." The superior parietal lobule is visible in the top-of-head photos, and, as Riley notes, this is the location of the CP-HSCA entry site (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html).

You might also want to read the exchanges that Dr. Riley had with lone-gunman theorists on this issue in the main JFK newsgroups, such as the alt.conspiracy.jfk Google Group. In one of his replies, Dr. Riley noted,

---------------------------------------
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet.
----------------------------------------

That image shows that Riley put the "cowlick" location twice as far forward as the HSCA did, so Riley isn't a useful source. He made a foundational mistake when he assumed that the "AP" view was straight on, instead of being shot at an upward angle through the head, and this mistake [mis]informs the rest of his analyses. 

Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB that he saw the rear head entry wound, that it was very close to the EOP and "near the hairline," and that the red spot in autopsy photo F3 was not a wound (ARRB deposition, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196; cf. pp. 87-90). He also mentioned that a cowlick wound would have been visible in the skull after the pathologists reflected the scalp. Keep in mind that Stringer also informed the ARRB that he took pictures of the head after the scalp had been reflected, at the direction of the autopsy doctors (pp. 71, 93-95).

I should add that two of the color autopsy color prints are labeled "missile wound in posterior skull with scalp reflected" (ARRB Exhibit 13, Numbers 44 and 45).

Yet, Jerry Organ continues to peddle his silly fiction that the autopsy doctors never reflected the scalp over the rear head entry wound and did not see the wound in the skull.

The operative phrase being "35 years later." How well did he remember it by then, I wonder? If you look at the color BOH photos, the "red spot" as you call it is at the center of the photo, and someone's holding a ruler right next to it. That would only happen if the "red spot" was the subject of the photo. That is, the "red spot" really is the entry wound in the scalp. 

As for any photo of the BOH wound involving reflection of the scalp, it's worth considering that F8 does indeed show the BOH wound, and the scalp being reflected.

We should also remember what Dr. Finck said about the rear head entry wound in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, and note that this was after he had reviewed the autopsy materials for the Justice Department in late 1966. He said, "I don't endorse the 100 mm [relocation of the entrance wound]. . . . I saw the wound of entry in the back of the head . . . slightly above the EOP, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 mm above it."

Finck didn't arrive at the Bethesda until after the skull had been pulled apart and the brain removed. He might not be the best source for this.

And here comes the Gish Gallop:

One cannot be viewed as credible if one clings to the cowlick entry site without explaining the following issues (among other issues):

1. How a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage, especially given the fact that there is no path/cavitation connecting the subcortical damage with the cortical damage. I have raised this issue repeatedly, and you guys just keep ducking it.

The same way that paper will continue tearing far from where the force causing the tear is being applied. This is one of those argument that wounds superficially important, until you stop to consider how things actually work. Another way of saying it is, if you want to claim that the subcortical damage could not have been caused by a "cowlick" entry wound, then it's up to you to support your contention and not simply expect us to hallucinate it with you.

2. How two bullet fragments, supposedly from the cross section of an FMJ missile, could have ended up 1 cm below the cowlick site, especially if a bullet struck there at a downward angle. I defy you to cite a single case in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has behaved in this manner.

Exactly how many actual forensic experts who have seen the autopsy materials take issue with a fragment being in that position? Out of how many forensic experts who've seen the autopsy materials? Also, have you ever considered that the fragment may have originated among the material being ejected through the top of the head, but caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound (which would also have been liable to be pulled away from the underlying skull from the explosive cavitational forces acting at that instant) and been caught between the scalp and skull when the rear scalp fell back to the skull?
 

3. Why not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC and Biophysics Lab wound ballistics tests deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table of the skull or anywhere
near the outer table.

Would that be expected in all cases? I'll bet you have no idea.

4. Why not one of the skulls in the Biophysics Lab wound ballistics test showed extensive fracturing from the entry holes, even though those skulls, being dried skulls, were more brittle than live skulls. (The only plausible answer to this problem is that the extensive cracking of the skull in the back of the head was caused by an exiting bullet that struck the head in the front.)

The lack of extensive fracturing would then probably be good evidence that the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. You didn't think this through very well, did you?

5. Why the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-rays does not align with the cowlick site and does not even come close to extending to the cowlick site. (Indeed, most of the high fragment trail is concentrated in the right frontal region, near the small notch in the right temple that several experts have identified on the skull x-rays. Gee, what a coincidence.)

If the high fragment trail isn't compatible with a "cowlick" entry, then it would be even less compatible with an EOP entry. You didn't think this through again.

There are other problems with the cowlick site, but these are the main ones that must be faced. Ducking them, pretending they don't exist, will not make them go away. You guys can keep posting bogus and/or irrelevant graphics and going off on endless diversionary evasions, but doing so won't make these problems disappear. It should tell you something that even a diehard WC apologist such as Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who is also your side's most qualified wound ballistics expert, has rejected the cowlick site.

The only problems I see here arise from your continuing reliance on begging the question and other faulty logic.