If you have a good viewing of F8 you'd like to present for our perusal,
please do so. I've seen several threads on this in the NG Archives and
I've seen where it was being referred to that you did one, but I've never
seen it.
I only know that, even using the lousy version of F8 in the public domain,
Canal's illustration appears pretty convincing. Moroever, Sturdivan and
Zimmerman---though disagreeing SLIGHTLY on the exact placement---came back
from the NA agreeing on the lower entry. Also, Sturdivan did his own
rendering after his NA viewing and it definately supported his new-found
lower entry beliefs. (Sturdivan's renderings are linked in John C.'s
article shown here:
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html)
Upon their return they also said stuff like:
a) The F8 original color (and B&W) versions are VERY clear contra-the
Clark Panel's declaration and suprisingly detailed.
b) The originals are DEFINITELY not supportive of the Cowlick entry, but
rather something much closer to the EOP.
c) The original lateral X-ray shows what appears to be a clear trail of
opacities (probably chipped bone) coming up from the EOP. It also shows a
horizontal pencil line from it through the front of the skull and one from
the same entry point through the massive hole in the head, presumably to
measure the angle of inclination from the horizontal.
>
> Which BTW, is where Humes himself indicated it was in the Supplementary
>
> autopsy of JFK's brain.
>
>
Yes. I've seen threads where you debate this with Canal. I am not saying
I agree that John is right. I *am* saying there is enough "smoke" in this
situation that I am not comfortable just ignoring it all and would rather
an independent team look to resolve this *once and for all*.
BT George