Clint Hill's description of the head wound
thali...@hotmail.com
following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
on it lying in the seat."
He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
described it. Weird.
John McAdams
John Canal
Gee .john, when was that video made?.....ya think he had an opportunity to
see copies of the BOH photos before it was made? Ya think he was told that
those photos were not taken when the body was first received? Hmmmm, I
don't think so...therefore, at that point he undoubtedly felt his options
were to: 1) imply that his much much "earlier" "right rear gaping hole"
recollections were wrong or 2) to accuse the USG (who, at the time, was
still paying him a handsome pension) of forging the photos. Talk about a
no-brainer...LOL!
John Canal
thali...@hotmail.com
??? He isn't that specific in his interview you posted. He said the hole
was as large as his palm above his ear. Did it extend back into the rear
portion of his head? He doesn't say, and like usual, he isn't asked to be
more specific. The statement of 30th Novemeber was written 8 days after
the incident, long before the Warren Commission had commenced its
whitewash. I am sure he would have chosen every word very carefully for
his statement. His description also matches the descriptions of Kennedy's
head wound given by highly trained medical personnel at Parkland, which is
of course, highly significant.
thali...@hotmail.com
> In article <ussqs49ugvat9qe3m0uv6u3ekrbm5qv...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
Clint Hill looks like quite a shattered man - not only was the
President killed on his watch, he probably realised that a masive
cover-up had occurred, what with the wound that he had plainly
described (which matched other witnesses also saw) not appearing in
official autopsy photographs. Poor bloke.
John Fiorentino
It's one thing to debate, and another to cast unfounded aspersions. Canal
wants us to believe that the same man who flung himself over JFK and
Jackie in an attempt to shield them with his own body, was NOW worried
about his pension!
Come on John, get a grip.
John F.
<thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7affbd3-59fb-4315...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
claviger
Actually that description matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It
does not match what some ER doctors describe as a big hole in the
posterior region of the skull. As drawn by McClelland the hole is
completely in the back of the head. As we know from the Zapruder film the
massive exit wound was along the right side of the head and extended all
the back to the ear.
John Canal
>wants us to believe that the same man who flung himself over JFK and
>Jackie in an attempt to shield them with his own body, was NOW worried
>about his pension!
Are you denying the fact that he changed his description of his recollection of
the head wounds, with the later description conforming so well to Baden's tune
that McAdams posted it?...or are you just unaware and/or uninformed?
I'll admit, I really don't have the foggiest idea for why he changed his
description...but the point that you don't mention, of course, is that he did.
John Canal
John Canal
claviger says...
>
>On Mar 27, 7:45=A0pm, thaliac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I re-read Clint Hill's statement of 30th November 1963 today. He said the
>> following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
>>
>> President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
>> profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
>> on it lying in the seat."
>>
>> He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
>> described it. Weird.
>
>Actually that description matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It
>does not match what some ER doctors describe as a big hole in the
>posterior region of the skull. As drawn by McClelland the hole is
>completely in the back of the head. As we know from the Zapruder film the
>massive exit wound was along the right side of the head and extended all
>the back to the ear.
First, my guess is (he's on my killfile, so I wouldn't know) that Marsh will
correct your, "...as drawn by McClelland" phrase. Of course, who cares--we know
what you meant.
But, Hill's "right-rear gaping" description of the wound does match most of the
recollections of the BOH wound witnesses. That said, I don't think "right-rear
gaping" was appropriate for what he saw in DP--I think the wound worsened during
the transfer from the limo to ER1 and during the time he was prone, which was
for the next several hours. The reason I think that is it seems to me anyone
helping to transfer him [JFK] onto a gurney would have gripped him in a
not-too-unhurriedly manner by the back of the head....and while he was prone,
blood and brain tissue would have likely gravitated to any opening in the BOH,
making it appear much larger than it probably was.
As far as Hill saying he saw a right-rear gaping wound in DP, I wonder if he
just wasn't doing what most of us would have done in his shoes, i.e. he would
subconsciously or otherwise match the description of the wound he said he saw in
DP to what he said he saw in TR1 and in the morgue. My point is, like I said
above, I think the nature of the wound appeared to become worse after JFK's limo
arrived at Parkland.
Claviger--Humes had no reason whatsoever to lie when he said he, not only saw
that the large wound extended into the occipital, but also that he saw
cerebellum tissue. That said, there are many, from Fisher to Baden, that, IMO,
had good reasons (which should be obvious) to understate any BOH damage. Please
be clear--I'm not saying the BOH wound was a blow-out exit wound...I'm
suggesting it was collateral damage from a bullet entering the rear of JFK's
head. That bullet shattered the rear skull and, if the bullet had that kind of
destructive force, it's a small leap to conclude that one or two of those pieces
could have moved out of position creating gaps between them (and a scalp tear)
through which blood and brain matter could have gravitated towards/exuded out.
Bottom line for me is that aforementoned leap is like a baby step compared to
the across-the-Grand-Canyon leap that has literally dozens of eyewitnesses,
including Humes and other Bethesda witnesses, being wrong about seeing a BOH
wound (besides the entry).
John Canal
John McAdams
wrote:
>>It's one thing to debate, and another to cast unfounded aspersions. Canal
>>wants us to believe that the same man who flung himself over JFK and
>>Jackie in an attempt to shield them with his own body, was NOW worried
>>about his pension!
>
>Are you denying the fact that he changed his description of his recollection of
>the head wounds, with the later description conforming so well to Baden's tune
>that McAdams posted it?...or are you just unaware and/or uninformed?
He didn't change his description at all.
The description in the video is perfectly consistent with his WC
testimony, but more specific.
It's just inconsistent with how you *interpret* the WC testimony.
>
>I'll admit, I really don't have the foggiest idea for why he changed his
>description...but the point that you don't mention, of course, is that he did.
>
You're sounding like Aguilar. You look at rather vague and imprecise
early testimony, and when confronted with later more precise testimony
from a witness, you start talking about how they were lying scum.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>On Mar 28, 9:47 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2009 20:45:48 -0400, thaliac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >I re-read Clint Hill's statement of 30th November 1963 today. He said the
>> >following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
>>
>> > "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
>> >President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
>> >profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
>> >on it lying in the seat."
>>
>> >He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
>> >described it. Weird.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>??? He isn't that specific in his interview you posted. He said the hole
>was as large as his palm above his ear.
That's specific enough to rule out the wound extending into occipital
bone.
Of course, you are argue that Clint Hill was wrong. But his testimony
is what it is.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
You're the one who is uninformed John. Frankly, your never-ending mindless
speculation is downright silly.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gqn44...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Fiorentino
John continues to make these nonsense claims about a BOH wound. The only
problem with his scenario is that there are no FACTS to back it up.
Unless John believes the autopsy photos and X-rays are phonies.
I don't think he does..........what he will now say, is that when those
photos were taken the autopsist stretched the scalp of JFK OVER the
wound(s)?
That's all very interesting except for the fact that in the area John
claims is a BOH wound, and also speculated upon by Barb J. there is not
the HINT of any lacerated scalp.
John fails to explain this major discrepancy. He doesn't explain it,
because it has no explanation.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gqn65...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> In article<1a34417c-6f1d-4912...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger says...
>>
>> On Mar 27, 7:45=A0pm, thaliac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> I re-read Clint Hill's statement of 30th November 1963 today. He said the
>>> following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
>>>
>>> =A0"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
>>> President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
>>> profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
>>> on it lying in the seat."
>>>
>>> He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
>>> described it. Weird.
>>
>> Actually that description matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It
>> does not match what some ER doctors describe as a big hole in the
>> posterior region of the skull. As drawn by McClelland the hole is
>> completely in the back of the head. As we know from the Zapruder film the
>> massive exit wound was along the right side of the head and extended all
>> the back to the ear.
>
> First, my guess is (he's on my killfile, so I wouldn't know) that Marsh will
> correct your, "...as drawn by McClelland" phrase. Of course, who cares--we know
> what you meant.
>
Sure, and that's how myths are perpetuated.
> But, Hill's "right-rear gaping" description of the wound does match most of the
> recollections of the BOH wound witnesses. That said, I don't think "right-rear
> gaping" was appropriate for what he saw in DP--I think the wound worsened during
> the transfer from the limo to ER1 and during the time he was prone, which was
> for the next several hours. The reason I think that is it seems to me anyone
> helping to transfer him [JFK] onto a gurney would have gripped him in a
> not-too-unhurriedly manner by the back of the head....and while he was prone,
> blood and brain tissue would have likely gravitated to any opening in the BOH,
> making it appear much larger than it probably was.
>
So, now you've sunk to blaming his wounds on the hospital staff?
> As far as Hill saying he saw a right-rear gaping wound in DP, I wonder if he
> just wasn't doing what most of us would have done in his shoes, i.e. he would
> subconsciously or otherwise match the description of the wound he said he saw in
> DP to what he said he saw in TR1 and in the morgue. My point is, like I said
> above, I think the nature of the wound appeared to become worse after JFK's limo
> arrived at Parkland.
>
> Claviger--Humes had no reason whatsoever to lie when he said he, not only saw
> that the large wound extended into the occipital, but also that he saw
No one said Humes lied. It was simple incompetence.
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 27, 7:45 pm, thaliac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I re-read Clint Hill's statement of 30th November 1963 today. He said the
>> following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
>>
>> "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
>> President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
>> profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
>> on it lying in the seat."
>>
>> He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
>> described it. Weird.
>
> Actually that description matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It
> does not match what some ER doctors describe as a big hole in the
> posterior region of the skull. As drawn by McClelland the hole is
> completely in the back of the head. As we know from the Zapruder film the
Maybe you've been absent for the past 20 years and missed our previous
discussions. McClelland did not make that drawing.
snl1...@yahoo.com
John,
I can never get the real player to load and work on my computer.
Is there another way to watch this? I have never seen it before.
Thanks
John McAdams
Let me see what I can do tomorrow when I get in to work (were my
server is).
I'm pretty sure I have a WMV version, and that should work with
Windows Media Player.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
>
>On 29 Mar 2009 09:14:33 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>It's one thing to debate, and another to cast unfounded aspersions. Canal
>>>wants us to believe that the same man who flung himself over JFK and
>>>Jackie in an attempt to shield them with his own body, was NOW worried
>>>about his pension!
>>
>>Are you denying the fact that he changed his description of his recollection of
>>the head wounds, with the later description conforming so well to Baden's tune
>>that McAdams posted it?...or are you just unaware and/or uninformed?
>
>He didn't change his description at all.
I think you missed your true calling--you should have been a politician.
Try taking what people say more literally. In fact, can I suggest that the
next time you're over in the English/Lit department ask them if, "above
the right ear" is the same as, "in the right rear portion of his head".
Naa, don't.....embarrassing yourself here is one thing, but to do it in
front of colleagues is another....I'd hate to see that....really.
>The description in the video is perfectly consistent with his WC
>testimony, but more specific.
>
>It's just inconsistent with how you *interpret* the WC testimony.
I doubt I'm the only one you think has misinterpreted the early testimony.
>>I'll admit, I really don't have the foggiest idea for why he changed his
>>description...but the point that you don't mention, of course, is that he did.
>>
>
>You're sounding like Aguilar. You look at rather vague and imprecise
>early testimony,
I disagree with Gary on a host of things, but at least he knows that when
about two dozen witnesses, who all saw the body itself, describe basically
the same thing, one ought not to dispell their message based on x-rays,
photographs, and the biased interpretation of them by so-called
experts...who never saw the body.
>and when confronted with later more precise testimony
>from a witness, you start talking about how they were lying scum.
Poor interpretation of what someone says is one thing, but misrepresenting
what they say is a horse of a different color--I never said they were
lying. I think Hill was intimidated by the BOH photos into honestly
doubting his recollection of what he originally said he saw--that's hardly
lying. IMO, what is dispicable, however, is when BOH witnesses are shown
the BOH photos and asked to reconcile their early recollections of the
wound with those photos, they are not told the photos were not taken when
the body was first received!
John Canal
snl1...@yahoo.com
John,
Discard that post. I got it to work.
Very, very sad clip. I would imagine he is forever scarred by what he
witnessed that day. Hope he doesn't still blame himself.
John Canal
>
>
>John continues to make these nonsense claims about a BOH wound. The only
>problem with his scenario is that there are no FACTS to back it up.
>
>Unless John believes the autopsy photos and X-rays are phonies.
>
>I don't think he does..........what he will now say, is that when those
>photos were taken the autopsist stretched the scalp of JFK OVER the
>wound(s)?
They didn't have to stretch the scalp to cover the right-rear wound
because there was no scalp missing there...they simply sutured it closed.
The scalp was stretched to cover the large opening from near the cowlick
forward to a little past the coronal suture WHERE THE SCALP WAS SHREDED
AND/OR MISSING.
That's why, if you'll take off your welder's mask and look at the BOH
photos, you'll see scalp over that large exit wound (again, if you don't
recall where it was, it was from the cowlick forward to somewhat into the
frontal bone on the right side) that is practically undamaged---that's
because the scalp had been stretched in an attempt to cover that area.
Don't you remember that the autopsy eport said the scalp in that area was
practically entirely missing? And, read the morticians reports...on second
thought, don't, because you don't believe what Humes said so you'll
certainly not believe what they said either.
>That's all very interesting except for the fact that in the area John
>claims is a BOH wound, and also speculated upon by Barb J. there is not
>the HINT of any lacerated scalp.
Duh, that's because the scalp in the BOH was sutured closed before the BOH
photos were taken...and as I explained to DVP who, like you, thinks, if
they closed a laceration in the scalp there, one would be able to see the
sutures, they (the morticians and/or Humes) obviously sutured the
underside of the scalp so the sutures wouldn't show.
>John fails to explain this major discrepancy. He doesn't explain it,
>because it has no explanation.
That's B/S--I've explained each and every so-called discrepacy in the BOH
wound scenario you or any of those who agree with you have thrown at
me...not like you who just dances away from the questions I ask you
regarding your obsolete high entry and no-BOH-wound theories.
John Canal
John Canal
>
>John:
>
>You're the one who is uninformed John. Frankly, your never-ending mindless
>speculation is downright silly.
I'm not the one who theorizes that dozens of BOH wound witnesses, who saw
the body were hallucinatng about seeing such a wound...and bases that
theory on the interpretation of x-rays and photos by individuals who never
saw the body...you are!
Suggestion: Leave the medical evdidence pertaining to the head wounds out
of your book....unless your book will be in the fiction genre.
John Canal
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2b42006ea51c4556
John Canal will never be able to fully explain (logically and
reasonably) the total lack of damage/fragmentation to the right-rear
of JFK's head in this X-ray:
John Canal thinks a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear skull was
fragmented (i.e., broken apart enough so as to cause loose pieces of
skull to fall out of the right-rear part of JFK's head during the
autopsy), despite the fact that absolutely NO extensive fragmentation
can be seen in the above X-ray that could be considered ENOUGH
fragmentation (or fracturing) of the RIGHT-REAR area of JFK's head to
meet Mr. Canal's "BOH" requirements. It's not even close, in fact (as
the above X-ray illustrates so very clearly).
There are no major fractures at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head that
would (or should) cause any reasonable person examining that
authenticated and unaltered X-ray to conclude that JFK had a great-big
hole in the right-rear portion of his skull. It just simply is not
there. Period.
Nor could Dr. Boswell (or anyone else) have placed loose pieces of
JFK's skull back into the RIGHT-REAR area of President Kennedy's head.
Why?
Because of that pesky X-ray linked above (again). That X-ray shows
that no such "piecing back together" of JFK's head at the RIGHT-REAR
could have possibly been performed....because the skull was not
fractured enough in that region of the head for any such skull re-
insertion activity to have occurred in the first place.
Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony/deposition has been misinterpreted by
John Canal (and probably others as well). If Boswell re-inserted any
loose skull fragments into the head of the deceased President, it was
certainly NOT at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR (occipital) area of his head.
Any such re-insertion of skull/bone fragments could only have occurred
in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP areas of Kennedy's cranium. And the above-
linked X-ray proves this fact beyond all possible reasonable doubt.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<49cf75d2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> John:
>>
>> You're the one who is uninformed John. Frankly, your never-ending mindless
>> speculation is downright silly.
>
> I'm not the one who theorizes that dozens of BOH wound witnesses, who saw
> the body were hallucinatng about seeing such a wound...and bases that
> theory on the interpretation of x-rays and photos by individuals who never
> saw the body...you are!
>
You abound in straw man arguments. It is not a matter of hallucinating.
It is simply being wrong.
tomnln
SEE Item 2 HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:49cfa42e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
claviger
McClelland looked at the drawing and approved it.
Anthony Marsh
VLC may work when Real Player doesn't.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2b42006ea51c4556
>
>
>John Canal will never be able to fully explain (logically and
>reasonably) the total lack of damage/fragmentation to the right-rear
>of JFK's head in this X-ray:
Don't you have any new arguments? This one has been debunked already.
>John Canal thinks a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear skull was
>fragmented (i.e., broken apart enough so as to cause loose pieces of
>skull to fall out of the right-rear part of JFK's head during the
>autopsy),
Now where in the Hell did John canal ever get that crazy idea?.....oh ya, of all
places, it was hidden from the likes of DVP, Fiorentino, and McAdams...yup, it
was in the autopsy report and in Humes' WC & HSCA testimony.
>despite the fact that absolutely NO extensive fragmentation
>can be seen in the above X-ray that could be considered ENOUGH
>fragmentation (or fracturing) of the RIGHT-REAR area of JFK's head >to meet Mr.
>Canal's "BOH" requirements.
Brilliant, just brilliant. Not only did Dr. Zimmerman who reads x-rays on a
daily basis and has examined the originals say the fractres looked "complete",
but the autopsy docs also said they were....but that doesn't stop the doctor
wanabe, DVP, from giving us his analysis of the copies of the x-rays.
I've already dignified your B/S more than I should have, wake up-- VB has, on
the entry and BOH wounds...ASK HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Canal
[...B/S deleted...]
Anthony Marsh
> In article<49cf77da$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>>
>> John continues to make these nonsense claims about a BOH wound. The only
>> problem with his scenario is that there are no FACTS to back it up.
>>
>> Unless John believes the autopsy photos and X-rays are phonies.
>>
>> I don't think he does..........what he will now say, is that when those
>> photos were taken the autopsist stretched the scalp of JFK OVER the
>> wound(s)?
>
> They didn't have to stretch the scalp to cover the right-rear wound
> because there was no scalp missing there...they simply sutured it closed.
>
Another conspiracy theory. I like it. So, show me these sutures on any
autopsy photograph. And quote the section of the S&O report where they
note that Humes sutured the scalp. You are making up things from your
imagination.
Anthony Marsh
I believe he had to have some therapy when he had a breakdown.
John Fiorentino
Your scenario is a dream John. I really thought you were better informed.
Actually, it's embarrassing.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gqpdp...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Fiorentino
clue.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gqpe7...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Marsh has been Corrected on this issue BEFORE.
>
Again, you are the one who needs the correcting. You have no insider
information. I do. You have never spoken to Josiah Thompson. I have.
Several times. A conspiracy researcher drew that diagram based on the
description by McClelland.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2b42006ea51c4556
>
>
> John Canal will never be able to fully explain (logically and
> reasonably) the total lack of damage/fragmentation to the right-rear
> of JFK's head in this X-ray:
>
>
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=WR3As0YAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJ7KlBGaOHqNmRUcXg2-hueKPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ
>
How can you possibly look at that X-ray and not see the extensive
damage/fragmentation to the right rear of JFK's head? Even Lattimer
could see it and diagrammed it.
>
> John Canal thinks a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear skull was
> fragmented (i.e., broken apart enough so as to cause loose pieces of
> skull to fall out of the right-rear part of JFK's head during the
> autopsy), despite the fact that absolutely NO extensive fragmentation
> can be seen in the above X-ray that could be considered ENOUGH
> fragmentation (or fracturing) of the RIGHT-REAR area of JFK's head to
> meet Mr. Canal's "BOH" requirements. It's not even close, in fact (as
> the above X-ray illustrates so very clearly).
>
> There are no major fractures at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head that
> would (or should) cause any reasonable person examining that
> authenticated and unaltered X-ray to conclude that JFK had a great-big
> hole in the right-rear portion of his skull. It just simply is not
> there. Period.
>
No hole, but there was extensive damage and fracturing.
> Nor could Dr. Boswell (or anyone else) have placed loose pieces of
> JFK's skull back into the RIGHT-REAR area of President Kennedy's head.
>
> Why?
>
> Because of that pesky X-ray linked above (again). That X-ray shows
> that no such "piecing back together" of JFK's head at the RIGHT-REAR
> could have possibly been performed....because the skull was not
> fractured enough in that region of the head for any such skull re-
> insertion activity to have occurred in the first place.
>
You are forgetting that many pieces of skull fell out of the head when
they unwrapped it.
> Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony/deposition has been misinterpreted by
> John Canal (and probably others as well). If Boswell re-inserted any
> loose skull fragments into the head of the deceased President, it was
> certainly NOT at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR (occipital) area of his head.
>
IF? So, you are calling Boswell a liar. Why would he make up a lie about
replacing fragments into the head?
> Any such re-insertion of skull/bone fragments could only have occurred
> in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP areas of Kennedy's cranium. And the above-
> linked X-ray proves this fact beyond all possible reasonable doubt.
>
Compare the X-rays to the photos looking into the head after removal of
the brain. There are several areas in the front and rear where skull
fragments came out.
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
John Canal
>
>
>Your scenario is a dream John. I really thought you were better informed.
>
>Actually, it's embarrassing.
You evidently thinK:
A. Humes, Boswell, & Finck, and several other Behesda witnesses, who saw
the body, confused the EOP area with the cowlick when they noted the entry
wound.....and you base that conclusion on what forensic pathologists, who
never saw the body, reported.
B. Humes was wrong when he said skull fragments fell loose when they
reflected the scalp.
C. Humes was wrong when he said they saw that part of the cerebellum was
lacerated, as were 10 other witnesses who said they saw cerebellum.
D. Humes, Boswell, Finck and dozens of other eyewitnesses who saw the body
and said there was a wound in the occiput were wrong......and you base
that conclusion on what forensic pathologists, who never saw the body,
reported.
E. Dale Myers was wrong when he said the cowlick entry trajectory pointed
back 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building (IOW,
impossible).
F. Myself, Sturdivan, Seaton, and Hunt were wrong when we said our
independent replications of F8 proved Humes was correct about the entry
location.
G. That it'd be a waste of your time to replicate F8 yourself, even though
I once offered to GIVE you an expensive model skull to use in such a
replication, and even though, by performing your own replication, you'd be
able to prove, once and for all, where the entry location was.
H. The FPP's own forensic pathologist was wrong when he suggested that the
bullet initially impacted in the region of the EOP.
I. That Baden, who never saw the body, was correct that there was no
damage to the lower brain reported...even though the Supplementry Autopsy
Report stated that there was a longitudinal laceration that began at the
tip of the occipital lobe.
J. That Baden was correct when he said there was no evidence of a low
entry on the x-rays even though Davis pointed out (and others confirmed
the existence of) that a trail of opacities extending from near the EOP
could be seen on the lateral film.
K. That John McAdams was wrong when he said what I [John Canal] think is
the entry in F8 is "deep inside the cranial cavity".
...and I'm the one who's uninformed.....so much so it's
embarrassing?????????????????????????????????????
Good grief man, wake up...and that's why I really really want to read the
chapters of your book on the head wounds.
John Canal
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf825474-739a-40d0...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
McClelland MADE the picture and, SIGNED the picture.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Item 2
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:49d13466$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/51dd54d40e5dbf75
>>> "Don't you have any new arguments?" <<<
Why would I need any new ones. The ones I've been using on your lame
theory work just fine. And they always will....because the autopsy X-
ray, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the words of the
autopsy doctors aren't going anyplace. That stuff's in place forever.
Liove with it. There's no large-sized BOH wound. Period.
>>> "This one has been debunked already." <<<
You haven't even come close to "debunking" it, John. You're in a dream
world all your own.
>>> "Now where in the Hell did John canal ever get that crazy idea?.....oh ya, of all places, it was hidden from the likes of DVP, Fiorentino, and McAdams...yup, it was in the autopsy report and in Humes' WC & HSCA testimony." <<<
Nope. Not even close.
There's nothing in the autopsy report or in the testimony of Humes
that can possibly bolster the "BOH/LN" theory you've invented, John.
>>> "Brilliant, just brilliant. Not only did Dr. Zimmerman who reads x-rays on a daily basis and has examined the originals say the fractures looked "complete", but the autopsy docs also said they were....but that doesn't stop the doctor wanabe, DVP, from giving us his analysis of the copies of the x-rays." <<<
There's not nearly enough fracturing in the right-rear to make your
"BOH/LN" fantasy come true. It's not even close.
>>> "I've already dignified your B/S more than I should have, wake up." <<<
I'm fully awake. The proof is in the visual aids -- in TRIPLICATE, in
fact --
1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows not a HINT of the "BOH" wound that
John needs to make his fantasy come true).
2.) The autopsy photos (i.e., BOTH of the pictures that show the back
of JFK's head...with neither picture providing anything even CLOSE to
the kind of large-sized BOH hole or DAMAGE of ANY kind that would [or
could] turn John Canal's fantastic theory into a reality).
3.) The autopsy X-ray of the right side of President Kennedy's head
(which doesn't show nearly the type of fragmentation/fracturing of
JFK's skull in the occipital [right-rear] part of the head that John
requires in order for his dream theory to reach fruition).
Incredibly, John Canal thinks that his fantastic BOH/LN theory is
TRUE....even though ALL THREE of the above hunks of photographic
evidence (IN TANDEM, mind you!) are proving to John that his theory
won't hold even an ounce of H2O.
John, you're amazing.
>>> "VB has, on the entry and BOH wounds...ASK HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " <<<
There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a
complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy,
thus totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his
impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not
a chance.
Why?
Because Vince has eyes too. And Vince can see, by merely taking one
more good look (in tandem) at the THREE photographic items mentioned
above (which include FOUR separate pieces of photo/film evidence,
including two different autopsy pictures of the back of JFK's head)
that John F. Kennedy did not at ANY TIME on November 22, 1963, have a
great-big hole in the rear of his head.
People who have their own unique (and oddball) PET THEORIES regarding
various aspects of the events surrounding JFK's assassination are
always a bit of a mystery to me. I can't quite figure them out (at
all). And John Canal, a man who has a lot of things right about the
JFK case, is one such person.
Mr. Canal's unique pet BOH/LN theory, however, is something that he's
likely to cling to from now until doomsday. Because John has invested
too much time and effort and computer keyboard strokes to back away
from his impossible pet theory now.
John Canal is very much like the following JFK conspiracy theorists,
who each has his or her own "pet theory" to peddle (each one just as
silly as Mr. Canal's, of course; many of them much, much sillier):
Thomas "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purvis;
David "BODY ALTERATION" Lifton;
James "THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION" Fetzer;
Bonar "GEORGE HICKEY KILLED JFK BY ACCIDENT" Menninger;
John "THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS IN THE DEPOSITORY ON NOVEMBER 22"
Armstrong;
Jim "OSWALD WAS SET UP IN ADVANCE AS A LONE PATSY EVEN THOUGH THERE
WERE 5 GUNMEN FIRING AT JFK IN DEALEY PLAZA" Garrison;
Brian "A FAKE JFK POPPED UP OUT OF A SECRET COMPARTMENT IN THE LIMO"
Andersen;
Joan "GARRISON WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL" Mellen;
Donald "DANNY ARCE KILLED JFK" Willis;
Jack "I NEVER MET AN ASSASSINATION-RELATED PICTURE THAT I DIDN'T THINK
WAS FAKE" White;
Gary "BADGE MAN" Mack;
...etc., etc. to near infinity.
David Von Pein
>>> "How can you possibly look at that X-ray and not see the extensive
damage/fragmentation to the right rear of JFK's head?" <<<
Because there is no extensive fracturing of the right-rear of the skull.
Period.
There's certainly not the type of "extensive" fragmentation and fracturing
that John Canal requires. That's quite obvious. It couldn't BE any more
obvious, in fact:
>>> "No hole, but there was extensive damage and fracturing." <<<
Not nearly enough to meet John Canal's BOH requirements. It's not even
close.
>>> "You are forgetting that many pieces of skull fell out of the head
when they unwrapped it." <<<
Not in the BACK of his head. That couldn't be more obvious by just looking
at the X-ray. No pieces could have possibly fallen out from the occipital
area of the head. Impossible.
>>> "IF? So, you are calling Boswell a liar. Why would he make up a lie
about replacing fragments into the head?" <<<
Why are you so tough on John Canal's theory then, Tony?
Sounds to me like you're ready to jump into bed with him (and his silly
theory).
Or are you just "playing the whole field" again, Tony?
(Tony Marsh is another hard one to figure out. Always has been.)
>>> "Compare the X-rays to the photos looking into the head after removal
of the brain. There are several areas in the front and rear where skull
fragments came out." <<<
Then you have no choice but to think that this X-ray is a fake (because it
proves that no "fragments" of skull bone could have possibly fallen out of
the back of John Kennedy's head):
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
<TOP POST>
DVP writes:
>There's nothing in the autopsy report or in the testimony of Humes
>that can possibly bolster the "BOH/LN" theory you've invented, >John.
That statement shows everyone just how uninformed (although he does know the
content of RH) DVP is.
Just for starters let me inform you, DVP, that, regarding the existence of a BOH
wound,.......
1. The Autopsy Report (AR) stated that the large wound extended somewhat into
the occipital and temporal...those bones, BTW, meet with the parietal behind the
ear where dozens of PH and Betheda eyewitnesses reporting seeing a wound on the
right side.
2. The AR also stated that numerous fragments [bone] resulted from the
"complete" [that would mean fractures that went entirely through the bone]
fractures in the occiput. Compared to suggesting that dozens of eyewitnesses
were collectively lying or hallucinating about seeing a BOH wound, the idea that
one or two of those bone fragments could have dislodged allowing brain matter to
be exposed and/or exude out gaps between them and a scalp tear caused by the
sharp edges of those dislodged fragments, is a reasonable scenario for any
prudent person.
3. Regardless of what he said many years after the fact, Humes testified under
oath in March, 1964, that he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
lacerated. He couldn't have seen cerebellum if there was no BOH wound...period!
Now, after demonstrating above how sadly uninformed you are (although you are an
expert on the content of RH), let me address this additional B/S you spewed out:
>There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a
>complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy,
>thus totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his
>impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not
>a chance.
AGAIN, WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM (AND STOP TELLING US WHAT YOU THINK HIS POSITION
NOW IS ON THE HEAD WOUNDS) IF HE HAS ANY SECOND THOUGHTS REGARDING THE ENTRY
WOUND LOCATION AND EXISTENCE OF A BOH WOUND......AFTER DISCUSSING THOSE WOUNDS
WITH ME?????????????????????????????????
And, if you do ask him, which, just like Dracular is afraid of a crucifix and
Fiorentino is afraid to replicate F8, I doubt you'll have the guts to do, please
post here verbatim what he said. I can stand his answer, can you?
Oh, if you do the unlikely and ask him and then post something he said that
doesn't sound accurate to me, I'll be asking him to verify what you claimed he
said....not that you'd lie or anything, of course,.....I'd just double check
only to make sure you didn't make an honest error...that is an error in
interpreting what he [VB] said (IMO, you have demonstrated a propensity to
misintrepret what others are trying to say, e.g. the autopsy report and Humes WC
testimony).
[...deleted the other nauseating rhetoric....]
John Canal
John Canal
Mr. "I-don't-believe-half-of-what-Humes-said" DVP makes these precious comments,
basing his conclusions on his lack of knowledge of the medial evidence:
>Because there is no extensive fracturing of the right-rear of the skull.
>Period.
>Not in the BACK of his head. That couldn't be more obvious by just looking
>at the X-ray. No pieces could have possibly fallen out from the occipital
>area of the head. Impossible.
First, again, you're effectively calling Humes and Boswell liars.
Second, it's a shame you don't give two shits about understanding F8 (over
your head?--I think that's the case), because it shows a severely jagged
skull edge above which the bone is missing....you do get my drift, don't
you? Ooops, I'm not surprised you don't, but for those lurkers who can
understand this (David, why don't you take a break and re-read for the
40th time a RH chapter?), let me explain my point about the severely
jagged skull edge. That means the bone above that edge, which is near the
level of the EOP, wasn't cut away with a saw in order to access the
brain...no it means that when they reflected the scalp the bone fell
out...JUST AS HUMES SAID!!! If that edge had been created b sawing, it
would not have been severely jagged like F8 shows it was.
And third, have you seen the little bone piece that Boswell drew on his
face sheet? I know you haven't, DVP, but I'm addressing those who have
read the autopsy report and looked at the face sheet. Anyway, this piece
fit on top of the bone where the entry was..and includes the top portion
of the entry (F8 shows the bottom portion of the entry along that jagged
skull edge I referred to earlier). The point here is that this was one of
the pieces that fell out when they refleced the scalp.
I don't care what DVP thinks, but I hope the lurkers (if there are any)
understand that what Humes was saying is supported by the medical
evidence.
John Canal
John Fiorentino
Twice the ordinary retail price.
Regards,
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gqs1o...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "How can you possibly look at that X-ray and not see the extensive
> damage/fragmentation to the right rear of JFK's head?"<<<
>
>
> Because there is no extensive fracturing of the right-rear of the skull.
> Period.
>
Because you can't even see what is obvious on the X-rays. You will deny
the simplest of facts.
> There's certainly not the type of "extensive" fragmentation and fracturing
> that John Canal requires. That's quite obvious. It couldn't BE any more
> obvious, in fact:
>
I don't give a fig about John Canal's wacky theories. Just start by
admitting simple facts.
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=eJrX8kYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJQczlsonkFBqfJXhzme5DlR1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=X7dM2QsAAADQViure_rJqVWRk8tySx2M
>
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=3XzOWUYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJQczlsonkFBqfJXhzme5DlaPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=X7dM2QsAAADQViure_rJqVWRk8tySx2M
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "No hole, but there was extensive damage and fracturing."<<<
>
>
> Not nearly enough to meet John Canal's BOH requirements. It's not even
> close.
>
There is no BOH hole.
>
>>>> "You are forgetting that many pieces of skull fell out of the head
> when they unwrapped it."<<<
>
>
> Not in the BACK of his head. That couldn't be more obvious by just looking
> at the X-ray. No pieces could have possibly fallen out from the occipital
> area of the head. Impossible.
>
Yes, in the back. Look at the ARRB diagrams which show the extent of
missing bone. That's a lot more real estate than the HSCA drawing of the
head wound at the time of the shot.
>
>
>>>> "IF? So, you are calling Boswell a liar. Why would he make up a lie
> about replacing fragments into the head?"<<<
>
>
> Why are you so tough on John Canal's theory then, Tony?
>
Because there is no BOH wound.
> Sounds to me like you're ready to jump into bed with him (and his silly
> theory).
>
Sounds like he's killfiled me hundreds of time because I ask questions
which he can not and dare not answer.
> Or are you just "playing the whole field" again, Tony?
>
No, just pointing out the errors.
> (Tony Marsh is another hard one to figure out. Always has been.)
>
>
>
>>>> "Compare the X-rays to the photos looking into the head after removal
> of the brain. There are several areas in the front and rear where skull
> fragments came out."<<<
>
>
> Then you have no choice but to think that this X-ray is a fake (because it
> proves that no "fragments" of skull bone could have possibly fallen out of
> the back of John Kennedy's head):
>
No, I don't. I don't have to believe what you claim.
Anthony Marsh
> READ what McClelland WROTE on the picture Marsh ! ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>
>
More nonsense. McClelland did not write that he drew that diagram, period.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. Who would know better than the author of the book, Josiah
Thompson? And he says that McClelland was NOT the person who drew the
diagram.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, and then in The Men Who Killed Kennedy he approved the WC diagram.
Anthony Marsh
> ddfdd3...@z15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, David Von Pein says...
>
> Mr. "I-don't-believe-half-of-what-Humes-said" DVP makes these precious comments,
> basing his conclusions on his lack of knowledge of the medial evidence:
>
>> Because there is no extensive fracturing of the right-rear of the skull.
>> Period.
>
>> Not in the BACK of his head. That couldn't be more obvious by just looking
>> at the X-ray. No pieces could have possibly fallen out from the occipital
>> area of the head. Impossible.
>
> First, again, you're effectively calling Humes and Boswell liars.
>
They WERE liars. We've already proven that.
tomnln
HAHAHAHAHA>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
HAHAHAHAHA>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
HAHAHAHAHA>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:49d22169$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Item 2
HAHAHAHAHAHA
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:49d22447$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
thali...@hotmail.com
> READ what McClelland WROTE on the picture Marsh ! ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>
> news:49d13466$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > On 3/30/2009 10:20 AM, tomnln wrote:
> >> Marsh has been Corrected on this issue BEFORE.
>
> > Again, you are the one who needs the correcting. You have no insider
> > information. I do. You have never spoken to Josiah Thompson. I have.
> > Several times. A conspiracy researcher drew that diagram based on the
> > description by McClelland.
>
> >> SEE Item 2 HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> >>news:49cfa42e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>> On 3/28/2009 10:54 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 27, 7:45 pm, thaliac...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> I re-read Clint Hill's statement of 30th November 1963 today. He
> >>>>> said the
> >>>>> following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
>
> >>>>> "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
> >>>>> President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was
> >>>>> bleeding
> >>>>> profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull
> >>>>> with hair
> >>>>> on it lying in the seat."
>
> >>>>> He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
> >>>>> described it. Weird.
>
> >>>> Actually that description matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It
> >>>> does not match what some ER doctors describe as a big hole in the
> >>>> posterior region of the skull. As drawn by McClelland the hole is
> >>>> completely in the back of the head. As we know from the Zapruder film
> >>>> the
>
> >>> Maybe you've been absent for the past 20 years and missed our previous
> >>> discussions. McClelland did not make that drawing.
>
> >>>> massive exit wound was along the right side of the head and extended
> >>>> all
>
> - Show quoted text -
That drawing matches the "right rear" description by Hill.
David Von Pein
>>> "...there is no BOH wound." <<<
I rest my case.
claviger
> That drawing matches the "right rear" description by Hill.
Why do you leave out the word "side" in Hill's description?
Anthony Marsh
And also matches some other descriptions by others. Drawings by others
do show a smaller hole in the back of the head. My only point is that it
perpetuates a myth to call it the McClelland drawing since he did not
draw it.
Anthony Marsh
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>
Again, who would know better than the author of the book Josiah
Thompson? He explained this in an interview:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Unredacted_-_Episode_3_-_Transcript
JOSIAH: I think that's an excellent point, right.
REX: I want to, um, move on, and I think we'll get back to some of these
issues and the single bullet theory. Another thing that has been a bit
puzzling over the years, and I think more information is learned from your
book, but you were one of the people involved in first discussing it - is
this issue of the wound in the back of Kennedy's head. In your book Six
Seconds in Dallas, you showed a drawing done at the direction of Robert
McClelland, at Parkland Hospital, showing a -
JOSIAH: Let me correct that -
REX: OK, certainly.
JOSIAH: I think a mistake surrounding that drawing was first put out by
Robert Groden, and it's been picked up by everybody since.
REX: OK.
JOSIAH; What happened with that - if you look closely at the person in
that line drawing, it's me. (laughs) Because, what I did was I took the
description that Robert McClelland gave of the avulsive wound in the
occipital, right?
REX: Mmhm.
JOSIAH: That came, I think, from his testimony or from, or from his
affidavit. I then -
REX: I see -
JOSIAH: I then gave that description to a medical illustrator, along
with a Polaroid photo of the right back of my head, and I said "draw
what Dr. McClelland describes in words." So, in other words -
REX: I see -
JOSIAH: - Dr. McClelland never saw - never had anything to do with that.
REX: Oh, ok.
JOSIAH: I simply took his words and had a medical illustrator draw it.
tomnln
> On 3/31/2009 1:19 AM, tomnln wrote:
>> READ what McClelland WROTE on the picture Marsh ! ! ! !
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>>
>>
Marsh wrote;
> Again, who would know better than the author of the book Josiah Thompson?
> He explained this in an interview:
I write;
To answer your question....
The person who actually drew the picture;
Pleas reproduce right here the words written on that picture ! ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Photo # 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
thali...@hotmail.com
Sorry, when I wrote the quote down I missed "side" in error. I should
have copied and pasted from the internet. The word "side" does not
change the meaning of the description does it?
claviger
thaliac,
"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
on it lying in the seat."
Depends on how he meant it. Does "right rear side" mean right side of head
to the back or back side of head to the right. The first description
matches what we see in the Zapruder film. The other description matches
McClelland's approved drawing. The first would be visible to everyone in
ER. The other would not.
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/droberdeau/images/detail/#21/autopsygrodencolor4.jpg
Robert Harris
<7c897e45-4984-44a8...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
thali...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I re-read Clint Hill's statement of 30th November 1963 today. He said the
> following regarding Kennedy's head wound:
>
> "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
> President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
> profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
> on it lying in the seat."
>
> He described the head wound just like the Dr's and nurses at Parkland
> described it. Weird.
Thalia, WHY do you continue to debate this issue, based on the second
hand opinions of witnesses?
You can see for yourself, the damage, in some of the clearest frames in
the Zapruder film.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
You see exactly the same thing in the equally sharp, frame 335 and in
blurrier frames adjoining those.
That is it. That's the damage. I know, it isn't as far to the right as
conspiracy people want it to be, but this is the real thing. We don't
need the opinions of people who couldn't possibly have cared less at the
time, exactly where the holes were.
Robert Harris