The summation of the troll's post is similar to the others. It does like this:
1.) I don't understand the autopsy report.
2.) No CTer on earth understands the autopsy report.
3.) The authors of the autopsy report (apparently "HFB", because the troll is too goddamn lazy to write their names) didn't really write what they wrote.
4.) Every medical expert who witnessed the BOH wound was wrong, even though...
5.) Those medical experts didn't even see what we claim they saw anyway.
6.) Never fear, because BT Barnum understands the autospy report, and will tell you what it means, will correct all the witnesses under the guise of "they were all the wrong ones anyway"...even though they didn't actually see what they saw.
But the best one of all is this...
7.) "Occipital" was written into the autopsy report by mistake. By mistake! That's right. That's the new thing. Not only that, it's the new thing not through any citations, or proof that it's the new thing. It's the new thing because BT Barnum says so.
It's astounding.
And Dunning-"Chuck Schuyler"-Kruger is nowhere to be found.
Now let's watch how stand-alone insults with no citations to back them up trump evidence with citations.
>
> See how weak his arguments go?
That's one.
>
> Say an imbecile and liar.
That's two.
>
> Perhaps "Boris" should point out why the true medical professionals employed to examine the evidence disagree with him, not me?
No citation.
> > >
> > > I have told you before that though this comment in the AR may be an error, but it may not be also.
"Mistaken."
> >
>
> Yet this hypocrite
That's three.
>
> gets to decide the *conclusion* is wrong?
It's not based on their findings, but okay, above and behind. No mention as to where from above and behind. No mention as to the number of bullets found in the area. No mention as to the number of shells. You've simply run with a conclusion which on the surface sounds "good 'nuff" but is actually quite vague.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9pPHYlVUIls/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ
But "good 'nuff" is good enough for LNers.
>
> LOL!!!! *H*Y*P*O*C*R*I*T*E*.
That's four.
>
> > >
> > > It could be
> >
> > "may"...."could"..."possibly"
> >
> > Garbage.
> >
>
> Proper use of logical speculation.
Until you decide "speculation" becomes "fact." Then forgot how you came to that point, and decided "fact" was irrefutable evidence.
You have speculation.
The AR is evidence.
>
> > >
> > > referring to radiating damage HFB noted because they believed it to be related to the wound of exit.
> >
> > Imagine looking at the damage as seen in the BOH photo and "mistakenly" believing there is an exit wound's worth of damage there.
> >
>
> Well except for the part no one imagines such a thing but the "B" Brothers. :-)
How so?
>
> > >
> > > I say *believed* because
> >
> > Because you are forced to speculate.
See above.
> > >
> > > it's also possible---
> >
> > "possible"...."could be"..."might"...
See above.
> >
> > It takes a LNer to believe that "simple" and "explosive force" go in the same sentence together when describing the annihilation of a skull from a high-velocity bullet. In this case, "simple" is a weasel word subtly inserted to explain away the lack of damage to the back of the head.
> >
>
> The above critique is simply silly Lurkers.
Silly it may be, it's exactly what you believe.
> >
> > Like the word "chiefly," the circus troll believes the word "somewhat" protects him somehow.
> >
>
> Well only because unlike "Boris" *I* understand that words like that actually have a bearing on what is a *reasonable* interpretation. :-)
Except when you "mistakenly" misuse them. Like when you described the BOH wound as "centered". And extending to the "front."
> >
> > >
> > > does not permit an interpretation of a significant extent into occipital bone or the BOH.
> >
> > But the word "occipital" does. And so does the words "falx cerebri" for that matter. But do tell us, doctor, why you get to decide what interpretations are permitted and which aren't? Cite your medical credentials.
> >
>
> And he intends to address my counter points about the Genu of the Corpus Callosum and the Third Ventricle while extolling his medical credentials when Lurkers?
Don't need to. It's not my assertion that there is no damage elsewhere on the head.
>
> > >
> > > And if you are too clueless to figure out how Boswell holding the head by pulling together parts of the loose flap for the BOH pictures is obscuring the (obviously) large extent of that wound as reflected in the earlier autopsy photos showing his body prone with the flap(s) open and exposed, I cannot help that.
> >
> > So I'll ask a third time, where in the Z-film was Boswell's hand holding up the back flaps of Kennedy's head? The other idiot answered "attached to his wrist," so you'll have to come up with a better answer than that.
> >
>
> First, there are no "back flaps".
See how they appear and disappear, lurkers? Invisible damage in the BOH photo because Boswell is holding up the "flap."
The flap that isn't there now.
And Audrey Bell was, of course, mistaken as all the rest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Every time you maintain the integrity of the BOH photo, you are directly stating that there is no damage done to the back of the head, and that everyone who SAW the damage was mistaken, and that the autopsy report is wrong. And not just wrong once. Wrong several times, and specifically.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No sir. I am maintaining just what I said about the effect of Boswell's action.
> >
> > No doubt Boswell was doing exactly that. Since nurse Audrey Bell was certain this flap was hinged at the top, someone would have to hold it in place.
> >
>
> ~Shrug Lurkers.
Not an answer. It's not even as good a non-answer as DVP's "orb roll".
>
> > >
> > > > You deny the damage recorded in the AR. That's a statement, not a question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > An incorrect statement, yes.
> >
> > Except when you're busy espousing that mention of the "occipital" in the AR "may be" an error. Among things.
> >
>
> As indeed it might be,
LOL! This is funny for at least two reasons.
>
> though not necessarily a brain burp, but a matter of interpreting a difficult and involved wound as even the AR language hints at by stating that in some aspects of the damage are difficult to adequately describe.
Suddenly BT Barnum's "postmortem experts" aren't qualified enough to "adequately describe" a head wound.
This is what you have to believe when you're a LNer. It's frankly embarrassing.
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But *now* let's look at a couple of pictures
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://images.app.goo.gl/fkGkxxT1br7XJFyp8
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://images.app.goo.gl/zWu7fiBFHLWRhsbr5
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://images.app.goo.gl/tsjwxgackW36TjAJ9
> > > >
> > > > No comment?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No need to comment on what *I* have already adequately explained for honest and intelligent people to evaluate.
> >
> > Who cares about your explanation? You weren't there. They were. And they ALL corroborate each other. Every single one of them.
> >
>
> Well except they really don't.
No explanation as to why they don't. No explanation for this lie. This is merely an "accept and believe" statement. I've been called a liar among things by this idiot, though anyone who clicks the links above can see which of us is lying.
Proven a liar again, and no comment. He just glosses over this fact.
> >
> > Anyone can see it. Now point out all your ever-lucid counterpoints that weren't addressed.
> >
>
> Genu of CC, Third Ventricle, position of most of the Temporal in relation to Occipital are a few examples folks are data he would rather not interact with
Strawman. Mentioned above, no ignoring front-of-head damage.
>
> that shows he *is* ignoring information that shows how difficult it would be for a wound centered on the BOH to account for.
Information that is so difficult to interpret that BT Barnum can interpret it perfectly, even though "HFB" couldn't articulate it properly either. Must be all that "explosive force" that damaged each part of his head except the back.
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Stupid, it was mistake in the actual *bones* mentioned, but *not* in the fact that relative to the head as whole---still more so the BOH---much of the other damage noted beyond the Parietal *is* towards the frontal regions of it. So centered *chiefly* in the Parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the Occipital *and* Temporal regions absolutely does *not* credibly lead to the description of a large wound that was in any *meaningful* way centered towards the BOH...
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately we have 25 expert witnesses who make it a little more "meaningful," plus the autopsy report, which I would go on to point out, is longer than one paragraph and goes into much more detail than simply the use of "occipital"...which by the way *IS* enough to sink you, even if the area was *NOT* absent of bone and scalp as per the AR. You like to cherry-pick little fragments of the AR and concentrate on them in the hopes that the rest will be forgotten.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Boris" has 25 "experts"
> >
> > I like how the circus troll puts "experts" in quotation marks. As if they're not. This is what LNers do when witnesses contradict the official narrative. Discredit at all costs. Doubly insulting, when the ones doing the discrediting have no accomplishments of their own. Pathetic.
> >
>
> You judge if I have not characterized their true expertise accurately folks.
You've characterized 25 doctors as being unable to identify the existence of a large wound. As in, not study the source of the wound, but merely IDENTIFY it. That means, 25 doctors and 40 witnesses not only were unqualified to analyze the wound, they weren't even qualified to SEE it.
Tell us how accurately you characterized them.
>
> > >
> > > who were engaged in performing (under dire and time compressed circumstances)
> >
> > Circumstances to which they are well accustomed.
> >
>
> LOL!!!! So they have had to frequently operate on the POTUS for a few minutes,
Moving the goalposts. The qualification of your statement was "under dire and time compressed circumstances". To which I responded that these would be circumstances to which they were well accustomed. Maybe you'll tell us next that before 11/22/63 not a single Parkland doctor had seen a gunshot wound.
>
> had the body removed before they could make any contemporaneous notes,
Which they did.
>
> then had cameras microphones and assassination buffs shoved in their faces for years
Bzzt, wrong. Not years. Many were same-day recollection.
The NOVA special was years. Decades, in fact. And you like it better. A lot better.
>
> asking them to opine authoritatively on aspects normally left for the autopsy?
Which corroborated what they saw.
>
> > >
> > > their *true* expertise of being emergency room MD's.
And of course, no ER doctor is accustomed to working under dire and time compressed circumstances. We know this, because you just finished saying so.
> >
> > The only way they can see what they saw is if they were "asked." All the while, the circus troll cannot reconcile how such "mistaken" experts were able to measure and even touch the wound, and then ALL corroborate each other on where it was, and its nature.
> >
>
> Once again he asserts a "full corroboration" that was not there to begin with,
Literally a lie.
https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1
Now I've just proven it was a lie. Whereas BT Barnum will never show that his statement is true.
>
> and in some cases, was arrived at by giving hand gestures *years* after the fact
same-day recollection. Corroborated. Dozens of times.
>
> based on their memories and *countless* tellings and retellings by others of the events.
NOVA special, anyone?
>
> He also glibly ignores that many of these same doctors were convinced otherwise as to where the wounds were when they saw the autopsy photos for themselves.
Like who, and when were they shown? Wouldn't be *years* later, would it? Because that would make you look like an asshole, especially in light of your latest filibuster.
> > > > >
> > > > > The debate about the entrance location of the Cowlick vs. near EOP is entirely separate, and as Dufii knows,
> > > >
> > > > And as Dufii known as BT Barnum knows, the argument isn't--and never was--whether or not there was damage to the FRONT of the head.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And "Boris" point is what Lurkers? Does he even really know?
> >
> > That you're trying to focus attention on one part of the head, and away from another. And that you did it poorly, because the superior saggital sinus and falx cerebri aren't even what/where you think they are.
I hear crickets, lurkers.
> >
> > You're a bona fide moron, I'm afraid. The point was, of course, that you've whined repeatedly that there is no BOH damage visible in the photo because Boswell is holding up the flap of scalp. Only, there is no flap of scalp in the Z-film. So...who was holding it up in the Z-film?
> >
> > Now that I've explained it in a way a third-grader understands, feel free to not understand it some more.
> >
>
>
> See my prior comments Lurkers on this subject.
See subsequent demolishment, lurkers.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This fact is easily appreciated by comparing it to the John Mytton GIFs that Imbecile is well familiar with,
> > > >
> > > > I am well familiar with the non-medical non-evidence from the non-expert.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yet feels competent as a non-medical expert to:
> > >
> > > 1) Pick and choose from *his* interpretations of *inferior* evidence from medical experts in unrelated fields.
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger. Who other than you decided it was "inferior"? And if it was inferior, why is it corroborative?
Two questions.
Zero answers.
> >
> > >
> > > 2) Assert the primacy of his *non-medical* interpretations of the meaning of the comments in the AR over the interpretations of the *medical experts* (who were properly carrying out an endeavor in their field of medicine) as is abundantly evident by his flouting of their *conclusions*.
> >
> > A liar lies, lurkers. That's what liars do.
> >
> >
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/H1U2J6sqBgAJ
> >
> > That's a post BT Barnum never addressed. He musta "missed" it. Nevertheless, therein lies direct citations from not only the "experts" (ie., medical personnel and doctors who apparently don't know shit), but also from the REAL experts...you know, the ones specializing in postmortem medicine. Or something. An excerpt from the post....
> >
>
> I guess Stupid thinks I see every post on this NG and then reply to them even when they are *not* addressed to me.
It was. And you did.
>
> > *************
> >
> > Okay, so let's consult those who performed the autopsy....
> >
> > Boswell: "The wound was fairly low in the back of the head and the bone was completely gone"
> >
>
> Citations might help. Context? Timing of he testimony? (I.e, Was this going from memory, and if so, how *old* was that memory?)
>
> > Humes: "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter..."
> >
>
> DUH!
>
> > Finck: "The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."
> >
> > And even though Finck indicates "entry" here, you are forced to deny this claim anyway, because you can't find that wound anywhere in the BOH photo. Strangely enough, this is EXACTLY where Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland, Grossman ***and everyone else*** put that wound. You know, all those mistaken experts. They could find it well enough. But you can't. Not in the BOH photo. And that's what's known as a catch-22.
> >
> > ***********
> >
>
> Cite me *ever* contradicting that the entrance was more or less right where Fink is stating above?
This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.
>
> Show me *ever* denying the claim based on the BOH photo. Don't bother. I'll save you the time showing I haven't:
Don't bother indeed. You've called every medical witness to this event unqualified. You've just denied Humes, Boswell and Finck. You've just called the autopsy report mistaken. You've gone so far as to say "occipital" was mistakenly put into the AR. Four times. You don't believe anything. Literally nothing. Not one person. Not one piece of evidence. And your reasoning is so weak I would qualify it as a death rale. You're a disgrace.
>
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JoY0j3hjixk/Tg55AZljBgAJ
>
> It will take some work Lurkers, but you'll see the upshot is that I believe that HFB were likely correct, and though I have seen non conspiratorial speculations on why the BOH photos makes the entry wound *appear* to be higher up, I have not firmly settled upon one as the definite explanation.
>
> > Liars lie, lurkers.
> >
>
> He ought to know folks. ...He ought to know.
That's five.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Hypocrite any, folks?
That's six.
> >
> > If I were a hypocrite, I'd counter John Mytton's [who is that again??] "evidence" with the research of Sherry Fiester, who, unlike John "Who Is That Again" Mytton, DOES have forensic experience and is a 30-year senior crime scene investigator, and dissected both the head wound and trajectory better than John "Not the British Member of Parliament Guy" Mytton ever could or will.
> >
> > But I didn't. I don't have to.
> >
>
> It's good he didn't. Observe and attend Lurkers:
>
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0FHksEIIv2g/fbu3kZ_yBAAJ
>
> Follow the link therein Folks. Soak in the *rich* irony of upon whom "Boris" seems to trust. :-)
Nothing in there about the qualifications of John "No One's Ever Heard of Me" Mytton. Just another diversion.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > but doesn't care to admit argues against the photo fakery his notions require him to believe in:
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=887.170
> > > >
> > > > So the BOH photo is fake? I wonder why you would go there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > ....Duh!
> >
> > That's what I'm sayin'
> >
>
> He says it well. He possess the necessary expertise.
What's the difference what my expertise is? The experts are all "mistaken" anyway.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now where is that "falx cerebri" located?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://images.app.goo.gl/ouqkpvFijPMSLnJa6
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://images.app.goo.gl/GupJqxgpCd3XeLg17
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7kSctqsRJMaQ598
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why, looks kinda' backwards, don't it? And so, for that matter, does the ***superior saggital sinus.***
> > > > >
> > > > > "Boris" appears to be confusing what is talked about here. The section regarding...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Clearly visible in the above described **large skull defect*** and exuding
> > > > > from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> > > > > represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> > > > > point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> > > > > disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...does *not* refer back to the language that says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Situated in the **posterior scalp** approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> > > > > right and slightly above the **external occipital protuberance** is a
> > > > > lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> > > > > corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> > > > > the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> > > > > skull."
> >
> > Tsk-tsk. There's that not-believing-the-autopsy-report stuff we talked about, troll.
> >
>
> Read the AR conclusions Folks.
Why, is Oswald mentioned in there somewhere?
>
> Tell me again *who* it is who doesn't believe in it?
You.
(And, just for fun, you don't believe the HSCA conclusion either).
>
> > > > >
> > > > > That language is referring to the much smaller wound of *entrance* that truly is in the BOH.
> > > >
> > > > What wound?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If "Boris" doesn't understand the wound I am referring to above by now, no wonder he keeps getting lost in this whole thing. I must recommend he take up something else as a hobby. This one is clearly *not* for him. :-)
> >
> > That doesn't answer my question, though. Does it?
> >
>
> Since the question is clueless, I cannot say, nor do I need to.
Still doesn't answer. As Finck states:
"entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."
By your own admission...."The occipital bone is located towards the underneath side of the BOH"
So...find it in the photo. Then go about 25mm to the right. Then go "slightly above." You know, right about where every witness drawing PUT THE WOUND....
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
..and answer the question:
What wound?
>
> > >
> > > Simply put, the first sentence (first two words excepted) is just about the only thing "Boris" states correctly about my position. (I encourage any and all to look up some of the descriptions later given by HFB to the HSCA and ARRB of the state of JFK's skull and see if that generalization is not pretty darn correct.) Just about everything else he uttered is either incorrect, or I have never stated any such thing.
> >
> > Name the "experts on postmortem medicine" on these panels, and tell us which of them physically SAW and HANDLED Kennedy's ACTUAL HEAD.
> >
>
> Uhhh that would be HFB. You know. The ones who arrived at an AR conclusion that "Boris" disagrees with!
So nobody on the HSCA and ARRB handled or saw Kennedy's head?
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pairing this with the fact it was *chiefly* Parietal, the "B" brother need to 'splain again how this in any way could be called a large "BOH" wound?"
> > > >
> > > > No need. The AR explains it for me. In more ways than one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In his own feeble mind Lukers. In his own feeble mind.
That's seven.
> >
> > >
> > > > And I would never deny a large wound at the front of his head. But you are denying a large wound at the back. This makes the AR your problem. Not mine. And that's why you have to spin every word in that fucking report to whatever spin you can "may have, possibly" get out of it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yet "Boris" is at a loss to explain why HFB have *never* described the wounds to be as he says, nor have *any* of the FP's who have reviewed the medical evidence they left behind done so.
> >
> > They never handled Kennedy's head.
> >
>
> HFB never handled JFK's head?!? Now *THAT* is new revelation dear Lurkers.
I don't do lazy internet acronyms, asshole. Spell their names out, otherwise a cursory reading of "HFB" comes across as "HSCA" written by a retard who writes things like "the bullet traversed front to back" by mistake.
>
> > >
> > > Their conclusion in the AR contradicts
Their findings. But whatever. That's for another conversation.
> >
> > I'll trust those who saw and handled the head. They are primary sources. And anyone so partial to "historical null hypotheses" like you and Schmucky Schuler claim to be should know the difference between "primary" and "secondary" sources.
> >
>
> You see Folks how the fact I cited HFB's own *conclusion* *after* handling Kennedy's head went straight over his head folks?
Their conclusions aren't relevant to you, because you don't believe their examination. Speaking of going straight over someone's head.
>
>
> > >
> > > > You don't believe a single witness. Not one. Not the SS. Not the Kennedy family. Not the 25 medical experts who were there, who saw the wound, who described the wound, who MEASURED the wound.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Note his reliance on the words of those *not* conducting an autopsy,
Despite me citing them.
> >
> > Another lie. See above. Humes/Finck/Boswell ALL cited.
> >
>
> Yes. Inadequately, without context, sometimes poorly interpreted, and utterly *ignored* as to the conclusion they arrived at in the very AR report under discussion.
You're lucky you got anything at all, from three guys who collectively wrote "occipital" by mistake multiple times. But feel free to cite something better...like any of them saying there was NO damage to the back of the head.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > You don't believe in "explosive forces" or kinetic energy.
> >
> > No comment from the troll.
> >
>
> OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *stupid* assertion. Problem solved.
That's eight.
>
> > > >
> > > > You don't believe diagrams.
> >
> > No comment from the troll.
> >
>
> OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *stupid* assertion. Problem solved.
That's nine.
>
> > > >
> > > > And you certainly don't believe words have meaning. Which is why you take your own creative liberties with the autopsy report, and also why you simply hand-wave away words like falx cerebri and THE O WORD, as if they're filler prepositions that, if truncated, would not change the meaning of the autopsy report one bit.
> >
> > No comment from the troll.
> >
>
> OK. "Boris" is an Imbecile for make such a *hypocritical* (and *stupid*) set of assertions. Problem solved.
That's ten.
>
> > > >
> > > > And, I think, you don't believe yourself. You're a liar. And you know it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > See how by a tirade of ad hominem and blanket misstatements he hopes you don't notice the vapidness of his arguments folks?
> >
> > No refutation whatsoever from the troll.
No refutation. (cont.)
> >
>
> I can't help it if nearly every word I say goes past the empty space between "Boris" ears folks.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, also included in the language is this, further demonstrating the fact that the damage goes *well* forward of what one would expect if the "B" brothers were onto something trying to make this large wound a "BOH" wound in any meaningful sense of orientation:
> > > >
> > > > This is merely a repeat of your old strawman that just because we acknowledge a BOH wound, we can't also acknowledge a wound in the front. Unlike you, we understand that bullets make two wounds. One going in. One going out.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then what's his point Folks? There *was* one going in---into the BOH where it made a much smaller wound that is typical of entrances.
> >
> > Point it out, then. And point it out in a way that is CORROBORATIVE with the AR.
> >
>
> Oh dear. See what I mean about *every* thing I say whizzing right past his empty noggin? Read the AR conclusions, Lurkers. Decide for yourselves who is struggling to make a sensible set of arguments.
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> > > > > longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> > > > > in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> > > > > which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the **tip
> > > > > of the **frontal** lobe anteriorly**.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now where is the tip of the brain's frontal lobe?
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiOrpbYqeLiAhXGl54KHc7dAKkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cognifit.com%2Ffrontal-lobe%2F&psig=AOvVaw06j9jBdHVZZZAp8-Seya-e&ust=1560373308022709
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But because I'm such a nice guy and don't want to create the impression that I'm cherry-picking only sources that support my position, let's look at what BT Barnum's own citation has to say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are eleven venous sinuses in total. The straight, superior, and inferior sagittal sinuses are found in the falx cerebri of the dura mater. They converge at the confluence of sinuses (overlying the internal *********[THE O WORD] protuberance********).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Source:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiuyfWp_OHiAhUOI6wKHWCVCpQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteachmeanatomy.info%2Fneuro%2Fvessels%2Fvenous-drainage%2F&psig=AOvVaw3_fvu9oIUkehWaVLcggMaA&ust=1560361098595144
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is what happens when circus trolls look at the pretty pictures without actually reading the words.
> >
> > [there's that source I apparently never cited]
>
> >
>
> And ignores that he has *never* addressed what said below.
Whatever this means.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So "Boris" intends to explain how he thinks the *convergence* of these sinuses proves that the damage to the Saggital Sinus occurred rearwards, when that sinus *clearly* extends well forwards also?
> > > >
> > > > My intention was to prove you a cherry-picking liar by omission. And I did so.
> > > >
>
> All he "proved" is that he has made no point that sets aside proof for forward damage.
Perhaps because that's not what is being debated right now. Strange how that works.
>
> I know it, *he* knows it, and I trust anyone who has actually read the full set of exchanges know it.
I know what? That there's proof of forward-head damage?
Some "gotcha".
>
> >
> > Silence from the troll here. Couldn't even *try* to defend himself.
> >
>
> Uhhhh
Flush.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...Especially in light of the language I quoted above about the frontal lobe, and regarding the stuff "Boris" just snipped below. ...Which I shall restore.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's look at some more language regarding the brain damage:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No more of your autobiography needed. You've already been proven a liar enough.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nah. I think my "autobiography" says something *you* wish the Lurkers wouldn't pay any attention too:
> > > > >
> > > > > The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the **genu** to the tail. Exposed in this
> > > > > latter laceration are the interiors of the **right lateral and third
> > > > > ventricles**.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look at a couple of diagrams Folks of where these highlighted parts are located:
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/meds/ckb/24/12424tn.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > (NOTE: I deleted the prior links that don't seem to take you to the image, the one above should work.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ohhh looky again. Is that more towards the BOH or the front like the "B" brothers need it to be?
> > > > >
> > > > > So the upshot it this, the large wound may well have had *extensions* towards the BOH, but it also had them towards the *front* of the head.
> > > >
> > > > Good. You lose.
> > >
> > > Spoken by a true Imbecile! ...But I'll let you Lurkers be the judges.
> >
> > Spoken by someone who just watched you admit that there was extensive damage to the front and back of head.
>
> With the above re-assertion of a statement that was *clearly* the opposite of what I had intended to say,
Everyone is "mistaken" lurkers...including, apparently, the idiot himself, BT Barnum.
>
> I am signing off from this particular exchange that is *WAY* past any point of usefulness. I will leave it to persons with a brain and honesty (clearly excepting the "B" Brothers and the Drunkard) to decide in these exchanges where is the footprint of honesty, intelligence, and sanity.
You lied, got caught, insinuated every medical expert was inept, and whined.
Champion.