The graphics that the "Hard-Line" LNs hate to look at
John Canal
read it…let alone carefully. I understand and can handle all that…believe
me....."been there, done that", as they say. That said, for folks like Peter,
who do read my posts when he has time, this, FWIW, is for their information. If
you have any questions whatsoever, please ask…because others (?) may have those
same questions and be hesitant to ask them. Also, if my conclusions are correct,
and I strongly believe they are, there is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to
answer any legitimate questions about those conclusions. In fact, I welcome
them.
Not much is perfect in life, and that goes for this newsgroup as well. Indeed,
while this newsgroup is fantastic for sharing and discussing theories regarding
the assassination of JFK, it doesn’t provide a means (e.g. a panel of impartial
judges) to determine which theories and/or explanations for certain
controversial issues are the most feasible and which ones should be ignored. In
the end, though, most of us are very much appreciative that it exists and
especially for the efforts of the moderators.
In any case, if no one has noticed, for the past eight years or so, I have
focused my research efforts, almost exclusively, on just three issues; the 6.5
mm opacity, the location of the entry to the back of JFK’s head (BOH), and
whether or not there was a right rear BOH wound (besides the small entry wound).
I honestly believe that two of the issues have been completely resolved, pretty
much scientifically, - - the 6.5 mm opacity and the entry location. The other, I
believe, would be resolved by impartial observers (if there were any) listening
to all the arguments…in favor of the existence of a BOH wound.
The main point of this post, though, is to show, beyond any doubt whatsoever,
that the hard-line LNs, from Baden, Posner, McAdams, Fiorentino, and VB to
Durnavich are wrong about the entry having been in the cowlick (vs. near the
EOP). In demonstrating this, I hope it is apparent that the conclusions of those
hard-liners, at least regarding the head-wounds, should not be accepted
outright.
Now, please refer to the first graphic. First, let me say that no hard-line LN
that I know of has performed this very simple and revealing experiment involving
superimposing (at 50% opacity) a graphic of a model skull (adult-male), onto a
graphic of F8, which, inarguably (to most researchers, including Durnavich, and
the HSCA), shows the bottom portion of the entry along the edge of the intact,
remaining rear skull. This “replication” of F8 has been performed by myself, J.
Hunt, P. Seaton, and L. Sturdivan…all with basically the same results (F8 shows
the entry to be near the EOP, surprise, surprise, just where the autopsists and
several other eyewitnesses in the morgue said it was). But, the question is
begged, “Why haven’t the “Cowlick-Entry, Hard-Line LNs perform this experiment”?
<g> I’ll let you draw your own conclusions and get on with explaining the steps
performed in said experiment.
One more comment, though, before that. Note, please, that John Stringer, the
Navy medical photographer who took F8 and the other autopsy photos and who
taught medical photography for the Navy endorsed this replication, at his home,
IN WRITING.
As Stringer pointed out to me, in order to come close to accurately matching
(superimposing) a model skull onto JFK’s in F8, a minimum of TWO reference
points must be used. The TWO that I used are, (1) the top-left-rear skull
profile, which I outlined in yellow on the copy of F8 (bottom left), and (2) the
front-right skull flap that is best seen in F3 (top right) and also (thanks, P.
Seaton) in F8 and added (in red) to my model (bottom right).
You’ll notice that when BOTH reference points on my model are aligned with the
corresponding reference points on JFK’s skull in F8, the entry that I marked in
red on my model precisely aligns with the entry defect as seen in F8. Critics
may question just how scientific this experiment was, but I’m all ears if they
have one that is more scientific and as revealing.
Now, to support the conclusion the entry was near the EOP, please look at the
second graphic. Notice on a copy of Z-312 that a straight line extending from
near the EOP to the windshield damage passes precisely through the smallish exit
point, along the coronal suture, that Dr. Angel determined (by his placement of
the large, late arriving, skull piece that had one corner (with metallic residue
on it) beveled out. See Dr. Angel’s drawing with that skull piece (highlighted
in yellow by me in the bottom right). I realize that this demonstration is not
perfectly accurate, but fortunately because Zapruder’s camera was just about
perpendicular to the limo it [this demo] is reasonably close.
Three comments about this demonstration.
One, if the critics say that the aforementioned trajectory line from the
near-EOP entry, through the smallish, coronal suture exit point, to the
windshield damage *****DOES NOT***** represent the true path of the bullet/two
large fragments, then they ought to, not only admit the demonstration depicts an
incredibly bizarre coincidence, but also provide their own demonstration that
shows the feasibility of their trajectory.
Two, the longitudinal laceration to the right hemisphere of JFK’s brain that
began 2.5 cm right of midline (the precise distance right of midline that the
autopsy docs reported the entry was) at the tip of the occipital lobe (that
point is just inside the skull near the EOP)…and extended to the tip of the
frontal lobe IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE TRAJECTORY SHOWN IN THE Z-312
GRAPHIC.
Three, for all those critics who either discredit Dr. Lattimer or conclude that
the bullet that was fired from the SN and entered the rear skull of JFK DID NOT
deflect up (as shown in the graphic and as Lattimer concluded), again, please
demonstrate with a graphic your trajectory.
It is particularly disturbing to me that the hard-line, cowlick entry, LNs,
instead of offering constructive criticism of my work or posting their own
graphics, simply “ride off into the sunset”……..and say that they won’t reply to
my fatal questions about their entry conclusion (there are many, many more that
what the graphics show) because my arguments are supposedly “arcane” (McAdams),
or I am rude, or unappreciative (for the expertise my critics boast they have)
…without admitting even the slightest possibility they could be wrong.
Finally, to David VP (if you happen to be reading this): Your recent two-part
post was well put together but there was one remark that I want to correct you
on. The Parkland docs DID NOT “just” think there was a large wound in the
BOH…many reported that the wound was both occipital and parietal. Furthermore, I
would have appreciated your take (and VB’s) more if you had added, not only the
fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to
mention Humes in his WC testimony) saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large
defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see
cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the
top/right/front of his head.
John Canal
P.S. As we speak, at least two very highly regarded forensic pathologists have
taken a keen interest in the entry location controversy and are studying the
related evidence and material for the purpose of rendering their conclusions.
One of them has examined the original evidence in the NA. The other specializes
in trauma that was inflicted upon the heads of victims.
cdddraftsman
> This is a long post and, because, I authored it, probably not many here will
> me....."been there, done that", as they say. That said, for folks like Peter,
> who do read my posts when he has time, this, FWIW, is for their information. If
> same questions and be hesitant to ask them. Also, if my conclusions are correct,
> and I strongly believe they are, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to
> answer any legitimate questions about those conclusions. In fact, I welcome
> them.
>
> Not much is perfect in life, and that goes for this newsgroup as well. Indeed,
> while this newsgroup is fantastic for sharing and discussing theories regarding
> the assassination of JFK, it doesn't provide a means (e.g. a panel of impartial
> judges) to determine which theories and/or explanations for certain
> controversial issues are the most feasible and which ones should be ignored. In
> the end, though, most of us are very much appreciative that it exists and
> especially for the efforts of the moderators.
>
> In any case, if no one has noticed, for the past eight years or so, I have
> focused my research efforts, almost exclusively, on just three issues; the 6.5
> mm opacity, the location of the entry to the back of JFK's head (BOH), and
> whether or not there was a right rear BOH wound (besides the small entry wound).
> I honestly believe that two of the issues have been completely resolved, pretty
> much scientifically, - - the 6.5 mm opacity and the entry location. The other, I
> believe, would be resolved by impartial observers (if there were any) listening
>
> The main point of this post, though, is to show, beyond any doubt whatsoever,
> that the hard-line LNs, from Baden, Posner, McAdams, Fiorentino, and VB to
> Durnavich are wrong about the entry having been in the cowlick (vs. near the
> EOP). In demonstrating this, I hope it is apparent that the conclusions of those
> hard-liners, at least regarding the head-wounds, should not be accepted
> outright.
>
> Now, please refer to the first graphic. First, let me say that no hard-line LN
> that I know of has performed this very simple and revealing experiment involving
> superimposing (at 50% opacity) a graphic of a model skull (adult-male), onto a
> graphic of F8, which, inarguably (to most researchers, including Durnavich, and
> the HSCA), shows the bottom portion of the entry along the edge of the intact,
> remaining rear skull. This "replication" of F8 has been performed by myself, J.
> frontal lobe IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE TRAJECTORY SHOWN IN THE Z-312
> GRAPHIC.
>
> Three, for all those critics who either discredit Dr. Lattimer or conclude that
> the bullet that was fired from the SN and entered the rear skull of JFK DID NOT
> deflect up (as shown in the graphic and as Lattimer concluded), again, please
> demonstrate with a graphic your trajectory.
>
> It is particularly disturbing to me that the hard-line, cowlick entry, LNs,
> instead of offering constructive criticism of my work or posting their own
> my fatal questions about their entry conclusion (there are many, many more that
> what the graphics show) because my arguments are supposedly "arcane" (McAdams),
> or I am rude, or unappreciative (for the expertise my critics boast they have)
>
> Finally, to David VP (if you happen to be reading this): Your recent two-part
> post was well put together but there was one remark that I want to correct you
> on. The Parkland docs DID NOT "just" think there was a large wound in the
> would have appreciated your take (and VB's) more if you had added, not only the
> fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to
> cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the
> top/right/front of his head.
>
> John Canal
>
> P.S. As we speak, at least two very highly regarded forensic pathologists have
> taken a keen interest in the entry location controversy and are studying the
> related evidence and material for the purpose of rendering their conclusions.
> One of them has examined the original evidence in the NA. The other specializes
> in trauma that was inflicted upon the heads of victims.
" saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect "
Dr. Paul Peters said to the effect :
I did say it looked like cerebellum ,
I saw a convoluted stalk , part of his brain ,
that looked like cerebellum ,
which is normally at the base of the skull ,
which shows you that even a trained professional can get
it wrong in a time of emergency .
or very clear words to that effect .
So were does that leave you ?
tl
John Canal
>Dr. Paul Peters said to the effect :
>
>I did say it looked like cerebellum ,
>I saw a convoluted stalk , part of his brain ,
>that looked like cerebellum ,
>which is normally at the base of the skull ,
>which shows you that even a trained professional can get
>it wrong in a time of emergency .
>
>or very clear words to that effect .
>
>So were does that leave you ?
Oh, crap. There goes about eight years of my JFK research time down the
tubes. Thanks TL for pointing out what Peters said.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but think about this:
1. Peter's early testimony to the WC: "We saw the wound of entry in the
throat [of, ourse he and others were wrong about that--my comment] and
noted a large wound in the occiput."
It's not much of a leap to conclude cerebellum could have been seen
through "a large wound in the occiput".
2. Peters to the ARRB: "it was my thought exactly that they kind of pulled
that flap [in the occiput] back into place and took a picture..."
The picture he was talking about is the BOH photo which was taken near the
end of the autopsy...with the brain and rear skull removed.
He went on: "But I'm certain there was a hole there, too. I walked aroun
and looked in his head. You could...see...I thought at the time to be
cerebellum".
And here's th kicker: Nine others stated or testified they saw cerebellum.
You're up on the politics of the case, but, IMHO, ought to stay on the
sidelines of the discussions re. the headwounds...at least until you've
done more reading.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> This is a long post and, because, I authored it, probably not many here=
will
> read it=85let alone carefully. I understand and can handle all that=85b=
elieve
You know that I always read all of your posts, very carefully. It's fun to
watch the WC defenders talk massive conspiracy.
> me....."been there, done that", as they say. That said, for folks like =
Peter,
> who do read my posts when he has time, this, FWIW, is for their informa=
tion. If
> you have any questions whatsoever, please ask=85because others (?) may =
have those
> same questions and be hesitant to ask them. Also, if my conclusions are=
correct,
And may be hesitant to ask questions because of your attitude and refusal
to answer ANY questions.
> and I strongly believe they are, there is no reason why I shouldn=92t b=
e able to
> answer any legitimate questions about those conclusions. In fact, I welcome
> them.
>=20
You never do, so don't change your track record.
> Not much is perfect in life, and that goes for this newsgroup as well. =
Indeed,
> while this newsgroup is fantastic for sharing and discussing theories r=
egarding
> the assassination of JFK, it doesn=92t provide a means (e.g. a panel of=
impartial
> judges) to determine which theories and/or explanations for certain
> controversial issues are the most feasible and which ones should be ign=
ored. In
> the end, though, most of us are very much appreciative that it exists a=
nd
> especially for the efforts of the moderators.
>=20
Don't give me theories, give me facts.
> In any case, if no one has noticed, for the past eight years or so, I h=
ave
> focused my research efforts, almost exclusively, on just three issues; =
the 6.5
> mm opacity, the location of the entry to the back of JFK=92s head (BOH)=
, and
> whether or not there was a right rear BOH wound (besides the small entr=
y wound).
> I honestly believe that two of the issues have been completely resolved=
, pretty
> much scientifically, - - the 6.5 mm opacity and the entry location. The=
other, I
> believe, would be resolved by impartial observers (if there were any) l=
istening
> to all the arguments=85in favor of the existence of a BOH wound.
>=20
Arguments are not facts. Please stick to facts.
> The main point of this post, though, is to show, beyond any doubt whats=
oever,
> that the hard-line LNs, from Baden, Posner, McAdams, Fiorentino, and VB=
to
> Durnavich are wrong about the entry having been in the cowlick (vs. nea=
r the
> EOP). In demonstrating this, I hope it is apparent that the conclusions=
of those
> hard-liners, at least regarding the head-wounds, should not be accepted
> outright.
>=20
> Now, please refer to the first graphic. First, let me say that no hard-=
line LN
> that I know of has performed this very simple and revealing experiment =
involving
> superimposing (at 50% opacity) a graphic of a model skull (adult-male),=
onto a
> graphic of F8, which, inarguably (to most researchers, including Durnav=
ich, and
> the HSCA), shows the bottom portion of the entry along the edge of the =
intact,
As far as I know no one else but moi has superimposed the lateral X-ray
onto the Dox drawing of the HSCA's head trajectory which shows that the
trail of fragments is much higher than either the HSCA or the WC's entry.
You have never explained that discrepancy.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
> remaining rear skull. This =93replication=94 of F8 has been performed b=
y myself, J.
> Hunt, P. Seaton, and L. Sturdivan=85all with basically the same results=
(F8 shows
> the entry to be near the EOP, surprise, surprise, just where the autops=
ists and
> several other eyewitnesses in the morgue said it was). But, the questio=
n is
So, show me this entry on the back of the head photos.
> begged, =93Why haven=92t the =93Cowlick-Entry, Hard-Line LNs perform th=
is experiment=94?
> <g> I=92ll let you draw your own conclusions and get on with explaining=
the steps
> performed in said experiment.
>=20
> One more comment, though, before that. Note, please, that John Stringer=
, the
> Navy medical photographer who took F8 and the other autopsy photos and =
who
> taught medical photography for the Navy endorsed this replication, at h=
is home,
> IN WRITING.
>=20
You mean Stringer who claims those are not the genuine autopsy photos? Do
you agree that the autopsy photos are genuine or not? If not, then why are
you citing them as proof of anything?
> As Stringer pointed out to me, in order to come close to accurately mat=
ching
> (superimposing) a model skull onto JFK=92s in F8, a minimum of TWO refe=
rence
> points must be used. The TWO that I used are, (1) the top-left-rear sku=
ll
> profile, which I outlined in yellow on the copy of F8 (bottom left), an=
d (2) the
> front-right skull flap that is best seen in F3 (top right) and also (th=
anks, P.
> Seaton) in F8 and added (in red) to my model (bottom right).
>=20
> You=92ll notice that when BOTH reference points on my model are aligned=
with the
> corresponding reference points on JFK=92s skull in F8, the entry that I=
marked in
> red on my model precisely aligns with the entry defect as seen in F8. C=
ritics
> may question just how scientific this experiment was, but I=92m all ear=
s if they
> have one that is more scientific and as revealing.
>=20
> Now, to support the conclusion the entry was near the EOP, please look =
at the
> second graphic. Notice on a copy of Z-312 that a straight line extendin=
g from
> near the EOP to the windshield damage passes precisely through the smal=
lish exit
> point, along the coronal suture, that Dr. Angel determined (by his plac=
ement of
False data point. There was no exit point along the coronal suture. And
you are misrepresenting Dr. Angel, who shows the exit on the frontal bone.
> the large, late arriving, skull piece that had one corner (with metalli=
c residue
> on it) beveled out. See Dr. Angel=92s drawing with that skull piece (hi=
ghlighted
> in yellow by me in the bottom right). I realize that this demonstration=
is not
> perfectly accurate, but fortunately because Zapruder=92s camera was jus=
t about
> perpendicular to the limo it [this demo] is reasonably close.
>=20
> Three comments about this demonstration.
>=20
> One, if the critics say that the aforementioned trajectory line from th=
e
> near-EOP entry, through the smallish, coronal suture exit point, to the
> windshield damage *****DOES NOT***** represent the true path of the bul=
let/two
> large fragments, then they ought to, not only admit the demonstration d=
epicts an
> incredibly bizarre coincidence, but also provide their own demonstratio=
n that
> shows the feasibility of their trajectory.
>=20
It is not a coincidence when you misrepresent the evidence to fit your
wacky theory.
> Two, the longitudinal laceration to the right hemisphere of JFK=92s bra=
in that
> began 2.5 cm right of midline (the precise distance right of midline th=
at the
> autopsy docs reported the entry was) at the tip of the occipital lobe (=
that
> point is just inside the skull near the EOP)=85and extended to the tip =
of the
> frontal lobe IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE TRAJECTORY SHOWN IN THE Z-3=
12
> GRAPHIC.
>=20
> Three, for all those critics who either discredit Dr. Lattimer or concl=
ude that
> the bullet that was fired from the SN and entered the rear skull of JFK=
DID NOT
> deflect up (as shown in the graphic and as Lattimer concluded), again, =
please
> demonstrate with a graphic your trajectory.
>=20
> It is particularly disturbing to me that the hard-line, cowlick entry, =
LNs,
> instead of offering constructive criticism of my work or posting their =
own
> graphics, simply =93ride off into the sunset=94=85=85..and say that the=
y won=92t reply to
You must be getting saddle sore riding off into the sunset all the time.
No one else will bother to deal with your obvious nonsense, so when I am
the only one to respond, you have to ignore me.
> my fatal questions about their entry conclusion (there are many, many m=
ore that
> what the graphics show) because my arguments are supposedly =93arcane=94=
(McAdams),
> or I am rude, or unappreciative (for the expertise my critics boast the=
y have)
> =85without admitting even the slightest possibility they could be wrong=
.
>=20
> Finally, to David VP (if you happen to be reading this): Your recent tw=
o-part
> post was well put together but there was one remark that I want to corr=
ect you
> on. The Parkland docs DID NOT =93just=94 think there was a large wound =
in the
> BOH=85many reported that the wound was both occipital and parietal. Fur=
thermore, I
> would have appreciated your take (and VB=92s) more if you had added, no=
t only the
> fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeon=
s, not to
> mention Humes in his WC testimony) saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from t=
he large
> defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible =
to see
> cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the
> top/right/front of his head.
>=20
> John Canal
>=20
> P.S. As we speak, at least two very highly regarded forensic pathologis=
ts have
> taken a keen interest in the entry location controversy and are studyin=
g the
> related evidence and material for the purpose of rendering their conclu=
sions.
> One of them has examined the original evidence in the NA. The other spe=
cializes
> in trauma that was inflicted upon the heads of victims.
>=20
>=20
burgundy
They all saw and said cerebellum. Even Humes changes his "testimony"
to say that. I think it is time to concede that the cerebellum was
extremely visible at Parkland and at Bethesda..... plus a lot more of
missing brain in the latter.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0057f012f24b26e1
>>> "To David VP: Your recent two-part post was well put together, but
there was one remark that I want to correct you on. The Parkland docs DID
NOT "just" think there was a large wound in the BOH...many reported that
the wound was both occipital and parietal." <<<
And yet not a single witness (that I'm aware of) placed the wound in BOTH
the rear and the right-front. Almost every witness placed the head wound
back here (illustrated below):
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
That's very odd, indeed, if the RIGHT-TOP-FRONT area of the head was also
severely affected, which we KNOW it was, because that's the exact area on
JFK's head (the right-front) where Oswald's bullet positively exited
President Kennedy's head.
Which, in my opinion, makes the "Jackie Possibly CLOSED UP The Exit Wound,
Masking Its Presence From The Parkland Personnel" theory more palatable.
I'm still not wildly enthusiastic about that "Jackie Closed The Wound"
theory myself -- because it's hard to believe she could have done THAT
good a job of completely hiding that large oozing wound in the right-
front portion of her husband's head from the view of so many different
people at Parkland.
But I think that "Jackie" theory makes a heck of a lot more sense than
most of the conspiracy theories I've heard over the years with respect to
the "BOH" discrepancies.
And we have this from VB too (you didn't expect to get through a whole DVP
post without a Vince citing, did you?) ;) .....
"On the issue of the locus of the head exit wound, perhaps the most
overlooked piece of medical and scientific evidence in books on the
assassination that proves the exit wound was in the right front of the
president's head is the fact that of the three fragments of the skull
found inside the presidential limousine, the HSCA forensic pathology panel
said that autopsy X-rays show that the largest one, triangular in shape,
contained "a portion of the right coronal suture." {i.e.:}...The juncture
between the parietal (side and top) and frontal bone.
"Although the bullet fragmented upon striking bone in the
president's head, the HSCA concluded that the main part of the bullet
literally exited along the coronal suture line to the right front of the
president's head.
"Dr. Michael Baden told me, "The autopsy photographs clearly show
that the semicircular defect was half of a bullet wound with an exit
beveling, and this caused most of the damage to Kennedy's parietal and
frontal bones" (Telephone interview of Dr. Michael Baden by {Vincent
Bugliosi} on January 8, 2000). ....
"The fact that the largest fragment found of the president's skull
was along the coronal suture, that this triangular fragment was one of
three that, in the aggregate, lined up, on reconstruction, with the large
defect to the right front of the president's skull, and that this large
fragment of bone was beveled on its outer surface, rather than its inner
surface, provide conclusive evidence of an exiting bullet to the right
front of the president's head." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; Pages 235-236 of the
CD's Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John
F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
================
>>> "Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and VB's) more if you had added, not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the top/right/front of his head." <<<
No "cerebellum" was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's
1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been
literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that
stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63.
The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet
additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by
the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought
they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue
(Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name
two).
And Dr. Boswell's testimony below provides the (virtual) proof that no
cerebellum was extruding from JFK's head, either at Parkland Hospital
or on the autopsy table at Bethesda. (And we all know that Mr. Canal
thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of
accepting.) ;)
And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity
at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks re. the BOH
situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word:
DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that
the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding.
But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort
of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to
cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about
getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both
the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
really very simple to take out."
QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
=====================================================
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 1):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 2):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 3):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
=====================================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0057f012f24b26e1
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "To David VP: Your recent two-part post was well put together, but
>there was one remark that I want to correct you on. The Parkland docs DID
>NOT "just" think there was a large wound in the BOH...many reported that
>the wound was both occipital and parietal." <<<
>
>
>And yet not a single witness (that I'm aware of) placed the wound in BOTH
>the rear and the right-front. Almost every witness placed the head wound
>back here (illustrated below):
I thought I was clear.....several PH witnesses said the wound was, NOT ONLY in
the parietal (that includes the top/right/front of the skull), BUT ALSO in the
occipital. IOW, THE SAME WITNESSES said the wound included both areas.
>http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
>
Huh? I'm not sure why you posted that. You do realize that Baden claimed, like
you, that all the PH docs (and I presume several Bethesda witnesses, not to
mention Hill) were lying or hallucinating...don't you?
He also claimed the bullet entered in the cowlick (a subject, unless I missed
it, you've stayed clear of)...and, I've proved scientifically, he was
wrong...dead wrong. Point is Baden et. al. mangled the medical
evidence...including that related to the BOH wound, the entry location, and the
6.5 mm opacity.
BTW, do you think the 6.5 mm opacity represents a real bullet fragment? Baden
testified it was. Again, "why" he said that is another story...point is though
that his agenda wasn't was you seem to think it was.
Why he did that is another story.
>>>>"Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and VB's) more if you had
>>>>added, not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO
>>>>neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue
>>>>exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been
>>>>virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in
>>>>its area to the top/right/front of his head." <<<
>
>No "cerebellum" was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's
>1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been
>literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that
>stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63.
Are you kidding me? Boswell's 1996 testimony? Hell, in 1978 he testified that a
late arriving piece of skull fit on the entry...of course, we know all the late
arriving pieces were parietal and/or frontal...NO OCCIPITAL BONE!
I interviewed Boswell in 2001 and his memory faded in and out with regard to the
autopsy. Sure, I cite his ARRB replacing skull before
the x-rays..but don't think everything he said that long after the fact was
accurate...it wasn't. One would have to corroborate anything he said to the ARRB
with other evidene to see if he was probably being accurate.
Humes testified to the WC that the flocculous cerebri was extensively
lacerated...that's part of the cerebellum. Moreover, the autopsy showed that the
right cerebellum was extensively disrupted.
Setting aside all the other cerebellum witnesses, how on God's green earth can
two neuosurgeons mistake cerebellum for cerebrum? When you get time away from
Reclaiming History, ask a local neurosurgeon what the chances would be that he
could make that error. If you do (ya right) post the results here____________.
Thanks.
>The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet
>additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by
>the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought
>they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue
>(Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name
>two).
You just don't get it. Those docs had the BOH photo shoved in their faces and
were asked to reconcile what they said or testified in 1963 with that photo.
Just great choices they had...say the government faked photos or say they
misremembered what they thought they saw.
>And Dr. Boswell's testimony below provides the (virtual) proof that no
>cerebellum was extruding from JFK's head, either at Parkland Hospital
>or on the autopsy table at Bethesda. (And we all know that Mr. Canal
>thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of
>accepting.) ;)
>
>And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity
>at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks re. the BOH
>situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word:
Well, until Hell freezes over or VB realizes his error, I'm sure you'd accept
that. Good for you. My intentions are not to do the impossible, i.e. change your
mind...just make better arguments than you and the other hard-line LNs so the
newbies don't start down Baden's trail (with Posner and VB on a leash behind
him) of lies.
>
>DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that
>the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding.
>But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort
>of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to
>cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about
>getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both
>the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
>really very simple to take out."
>
>QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
>opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
>QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
>noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "No."
>
>QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
>were intact?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
Read the supplementry autopsy report and Humes' testimony...find out where the
flocculous cerebri is....and then get over it.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Suggest you read something besides Reclaiming History and the ARB testimony with
regard to the head wounds.
Do you think Baden is right about the cowlick entry?
Do you think he was rght about the 6.5 mm opacity?
I'm bringing those issues up to show he has a huge credibility problem with
regard to the head wounds.
Please go on record t this time on those two issues.
Thanks.
John Canal
John Canal
burgundy says...
Yes I know. While J. Hunt was the first to point out that the flocculous cerebri
was part of the cerebellum, check Google to see who pointed out that Humes'
"switched" "flocculous cerebri" for "Falx cerebri" (from his handwritten report
draft and the final autopsy report to his WC testimony).
That switch was after he testified he had read CE-392 (the PH doc's first
statements) which put it in the record that cerebelum exuded from the wound. For
Humes, the cat was out of the bag and he probably figured he finally needed to
make sure what he was on record (WC testimony) as saying reconciled with what
the PH docs put into the record.
>to say that. I think it is time to concede that the cerebellum was
>extremely visible at Parkland and at Bethesda..... plus a lot more of
>missing brain in the latter.
Impossible to make everyone agree. Indeed, no one on this NG, from either side,
has ever admitted making a major mistake about an issue. Typically, when they
realize the arguments against their postion, whatever it may be, clearly show
they are wrong...they simply drop out of sight for a while or altogether. That's
been my experience.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. They also said the throat wound was an entrance. Does that
make it a fact?
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you think Baden is right about the cowlick entry?" <<<
Yes. The entry wound is where it is....right here, very near the
"cowlick":
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
But regardless of exactly where to the square inch the entry hole was,
we know there was only ONE entry hole....so, as stated many times
previously, this argument is largely a moot one.
Quoting Dr. Humes ( from 1991):
"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy
was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the
entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here
until hell freezes over, nothing on Earth will change this proof. It
happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until the day I
die.
"This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance
to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics...and it is
foolproof -- absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The
conspiracy crowd have [sic] totally ignored this central scientific
fact...and everything else is hogwash." -- James J. Humes; October
1991 JAMA Article
>>> "Do you think he {Baden} was right about the 6.5 mm opacity?" <<<
I really don't know. And I really don't care.
I don't know what the damn "object" is...and neither do you. And
neither does any other living soul on Earth, evidently. It's an issue
that's way too fuzzy. Always was. Always will be.
So, it's an argument that really goes nowhere (no matter what your
position is regarding the proverbial "opacity", as you like to call
it).
David Von Pein
Why on EARTH would I be silly enough to want to do something like
that?
That would be like having a choice between marrying the Wicked Witch
of the West and this person.....
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_14209~Raquel-Welch-Posters.jpg
.....and then choosing the witch.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>>>> "Do you think Baden is right about the cowlick entry?" <<<
>
>
>Yes. The entry wound is where it is....right here, very near the
>"cowlick":
Apparently, you'd follow Baden and VB just about anywhere. Of course you
didn't look at the two graphics I posted that prove the entry was where
the autopsists said it was.
So, summing up your position is.
First, you got the autopsists wrongly reporting (autopsy report) that: 1)
the entry was near the EOP, and 2) that the wound extended somewhat into
the temporal and occipital, as well as testifying to the WC that part of
the cerebellum was extesively lacerated...is that right?
Thne you've got about 20 BOH wound eyewitnesses lying or hallucinating.
That's compelling.
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>
>But regardless of exactly where to the square inch the entry hole was,
>we know there was only ONE entry hole....so, as stated many times
>previously, this argument is largely a moot one.
See, that's where we think differently. It's not a moot one, because if
the entry was indeed near the EOP (and it was) and the government changed
the entry location to where it'd seem more consstent with a shot from six
floors up, it shows that you, Posner, VB, McAdams et. al. have trusted
folks that perhaps you shouldn't have trusted...at least on the head
wounds.
>Quoting Dr. Humes ( from 1991):
[...]
>>>> "Do you think he {Baden} was right about the 6.5 mm opacity?" <<<
>
>
>I really don't know. And I really don't care.
>
>I don't know what the damn "object" is...and neither do you.
Well, I know it's not metal (it has grid lines showing on it...metal
objects in x-rays don't have grid lines showing on them) and that's why
it's important evidence. If it wasn't metal but made its way onto the
x-ray and was the same diameter as the ammo LHO used, and ended up
precisely the same distance (2.5 cm) right of midline as the autopsists'
near-EOP entry, and vertically (cowlick) where an entry near it would seem
to be high enough up on the BOH to be consistent with a shot from six
floors up (apparently, more consistent than an entry near the EOP
would)....only a few people would think it was a moot point.
>And neither does any other living soul on Earth, evidently.
If you'd put down RH and read other material on this case, IO, you
wouldn't feel that way.
>It's an issue
>that's way too fuzzy. Always was. Always will be.
As you'd prefer it to be?
>So, it's an argument that really goes nowhere (no matter what your
>position is regarding the proverbial "opacity", as you like to call
>it).
Your opinion. Which, like I said, would be impossible for me to
change...again, I'm just trying to make better arguments than you so the
newbies don't follow your path behind Baden and VB re. the head wounds.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <faaaf5b5-353b-46f1...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>>>> "Do you think Baden is right about the cowlick entry?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. The entry wound is where it is....right here, very near the
>> "cowlick":
>
> Apparently, you'd follow Baden and VB just about anywhere. Of course you
> didn't look at the two graphics I posted that prove the entry was where
> the autopsists said it was.
>
> So, summing up your position is.
>
> First, you got the autopsists wrongly reporting (autopsy report) that: 1)
> the entry was near the EOP, and 2) that the wound extended somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital, as well as testifying to the WC that part of
> the cerebellum was extesively lacerated...is that right?
>
> Thne you've got about 20 BOH wound eyewitnesses lying or hallucinating.
>
Then you have about 20 Parkland witness lying or hallucinating that the
throat wound was an entrance. You can't depend on witnesses for facts.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EI2dnYcrXuAl0Pza...@comcast.com...
> John Canal wrote:
>> In article
>> <faaaf5b5-353b-46f1...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> David Von Pein says...
>>>
>>>>>> "Do you think Baden is right about the cowlick entry?" <<<
>>>
>>> Yes. The entry wound is where it is....right here, very near the
>>> "cowlick":
>>
>> Apparently, you'd follow Baden and VB just about anywhere. Of course you
>> didn't look at the two graphics I posted that prove the entry was where
>> the autopsists said it was.
>>
>> So, summing up your position is.
>>
>> First, you got the autopsists wrongly reporting (autopsy report) that: 1)
>> the entry was near the EOP, and 2) that the wound extended somewhat into
>> the temporal and occipital, as well as testifying to the WC that part of
>> the cerebellum was extesively lacerated...is that right?
>>
>> Thne you've got about 20 BOH wound eyewitnesses lying or hallucinating.
>>
> Then you have about 20 Parkland witness lying or hallucinating that the
> throat wound was an entrance. You can't depend on witnesses for facts.
Marsh believes in Guilt by Proclamation.....HIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Guilt? Who said anything about guilt? Sometimes witnesses are wrong.