Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Autopsy photos: Which are genuine and which are fake?

560 views

Skip to first unread message

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 9:06:33 PM1/30/12

At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the head
wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
version.

We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everybody
agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of the
head):

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm

with SOME of the autopsy photos:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy photos.
Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't know
what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, official
(not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 11:56:03 PM1/30/12

On Jan 30, 8:06 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the head
> wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
> version.
>
> We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everybody
> agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of the
> head):
>

> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm

>
> with SOME of the autopsy photos:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
> NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy photos.
> Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't know
> what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, official
> (not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?
>
> -Ramon

Can somebody please explain to me image "F8"? I cannot tell that thing
from a nebula or from an abstract painting. From where was it taken?
Which way is up?

Why didn't that stupid photographer zoom back a little?

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

Thx,

-Ramon

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 12:01:10 AM1/31/12

You need to drop the knee-jerk reaction to evidence. Just because LNers
believe something does not mean anything. The autopsy photos are genuine.

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 8:53:39 AM1/31/12

On Jan 30, 11:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 9:06 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:

>
> > At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the head
> > wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
> > version.
>
> > We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everybody
> > agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of the
> > head):
>
> >http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >http://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm
>
> > with SOME of the autopsy photos:
>
> > http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
> > NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy photos.
> > Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't know
> > what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, official
> > (not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?
>
> > -Ramon
>

> Just because LNers believe something does not mean anything.

Right, and I can try to play chess with them, when they happen to
believe we are playing soccer.

// End of cynicism

Some minimum agreement is needed, even in wars.

So the question is that we are supposed to believe that the set of
photos are consistent with each other. Hey, I am not saying that I
will reject them flatly. Let's just pretend I am John Q. Public, on
the day these images were first revealed. You cannot blame me for
being puzzled.

Any rational person would demand an explanation.

Did they shampoo his hair? for starters.

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 8:54:51 AM1/31/12

On Jan 30, 11:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The autopsy photos are genuine.

Well, the last official word from our government is:

"There is something wrong with those photos"

... or words to that effect.

-Ramon

John Canal

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 8:55:16 AM1/31/12

In article <81266948-d867-49c5...@b4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
Ramon F. Herrera says...

>
>On Jan 30, 8:06=A0pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the head
>> wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
>> version.
>>
>> We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everybody
>> agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of the
>> head):
>>

>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp://j=

>fkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm
>>
>> with SOME of the autopsy photos:
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>>

>> NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy photos=

>.
>> Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't know
>> what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, official
>> (not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?
>>
>> -Ramon
>
>Can somebody please explain to me image "F8"? I cannot tell that thing
>from a nebula or from an abstract painting. From where was it taken?
>Which way is up?

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2534/f8showorientation2.jpg

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3766/f8drawing91910.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7527/fractureslattof8.jpg

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7739/modeltof82stringer.jpg

>Why didn't that stupid photographer zoom back a little?

The published copies are cropped more and less clear than the originals.

John Canal

>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
>Thx,
>
>-Ramon
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 2:09:12 PM1/31/12

On Jan 31, 7:55 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <81266948-d867-49c5-b242-7b0cf6b56...@b4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> Ramon F. Herrera says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 30, 8:06=A0pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >> At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the head
> >> wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
> >> version.
>
> >> We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everybody
> >> agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of the
> >> head):
>

> >>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp...

> >fkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm
>
> >> with SOME of the autopsy photos:
>
> >>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
> >> NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy photos=
> >.
> >> Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't know
> >> what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, official
> >> (not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?
>
> >> -Ramon
>
> >Can somebody please explain to me image "F8"? I cannot tell that thing
> >from a nebula or from an abstract painting. From where was it taken?
> >Which way is up?
>
> http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2534/f8showorientation2.jpg
>
> http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3766/f8drawing91910.jpg
>
> http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
>
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7527/fractureslattof8.jpg
>
> http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7739/modeltof82stringer.jpg
>

Thanks, John!

I noticed that you can see the reflection of the camera at the bottom
of F8:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

-Ramon

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 2:10:09 PM1/31/12

Once again, those are not the words of "our government."
That was merely Horne, in a non-government venue.

Why didn't you get this the first time I pointed it out?
/sandy

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 2:12:02 PM1/31/12

On Jan 31, 7:55 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <81266948-d867-49c5-b242-7b0cf6b56...@b4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> >>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp...

Ah! Wow! Eureka! I (finally!) get it!!

It is now clear why the photographer was so close that the camera's
reflection shows up! They couldn't possibly show us how that blob (galaxy
nebula? modern painting?) connects to the rest of the body!

English not being my native language, it is only now that understand the
expression "the old switcharoo" and "pulling a wool (or is it a scalp?)
over the president's eye" (not to mention *our* eyes).

Gawd, what do they take us for? They have chutzpah, though, gotta give
them credit for that!

-Ramon

bigdog

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 5:27:26 PM1/31/12

Whose words were that? If you are talking about Doug Horne and his
amateurish analysis of the medical evidence, there is nothing official
about that. No government body endorsed any of his findings. He was hired
by the AARB as a military analyst and since the autopsy was performed by
military personnel, the release of records related to the autopsy was
under his jurisdiction. He has no medical expertise. The AARB was not a
fact finding body, Their job was solely to get documents released to the
public. They were not charged with reinvestigating the crime. Doug Horne's
published works in which he questions the validity of the medical evidence
have no official standing.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 5:33:29 PM1/31/12

What the Hell are you talking about? Just tell us what you think.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 5:34:06 PM1/31/12

You need to learn how to post messages correctly. All you did was point
to a main page. You need to post the URL of the picture you are talking
about. And point out what you think you see. We can't help you when you
are so vague.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 5:39:00 PM1/31/12

No, stop saying things like that. Just because you read a conspiracy
book does not mean that is the official word from the government.

> -Ramon
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 5:39:29 PM1/31/12

No, not shampoo. Washed. Nor did they use conditioner. That is one of the
clues to when each photo was taken. The very first photos show the gauze
squares packed into the head wound. The last photos show the brain
removed.

And there are many photos you have not seen and will never be allowed to
see.

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 9:44:16 PM1/31/12

Not all "objects" on the net have an URL associated with them. I *always*
try to provide the precise "street address", but sometimes you have to
finish the trip "on foot". Such is the case with that image:

> I noticed that you can see the reflection of the
> camera at the bottom of F8:

This is a precise as the URL protocol will allow me:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

Just scroll down and click on the "F8 Large Defect" photograph.

-Ramon

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 9:45:58 PM1/31/12

On 1/30/2012 11:56 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:06 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera"<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the head
>> wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
>> version.
>>
>> We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everybody
>> agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of the
>> head):
>>
>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm
>>
>> with SOME of the autopsy photos:
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>>
>> NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy photos.
>> Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't know
>> what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, official
>> (not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?
>>
>> -Ramon
>
> Can somebody please explain to me image "F8"? I cannot tell that thing
> from a nebula or from an abstract painting. From where was it taken?
> Which way is up?
>

What thing? Various articles have been written about it and some people
have marked and annotated things on it. What thing are you talking about?
Try searching in Google Images to see various markups. Canal has a bunch
of diagrams.

F-8 means Fox 8 black and white photo. It was taken after the brain was
removed.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/f-8_orientation.jpg

> Why didn't that stupid photographer zoom back a little?
>

The goal was to show things deep inside the back of the head.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>

Not specific enough.

> Thx,
>
> -Ramon
>

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 11:10:27 PM1/31/12

Doug Horne was appointed by your government.

It is not a conspiracy book (I have only read Garrison's) but the very
same page we are discussing:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

JFK Lancer is a site with high credibility (recommended by Von Pein,
no less).

Horne is as official as you can possibly get in this conspiracy of
silence.

-Ramon

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 3:41:38 PM2/1/12

On 1/31/2012 11:10 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:39 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2012 8:54 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 11:01 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> > The autopsy photos are genuine.
>>
>>> Well, the last official word from our government is:
>>
>>> "There is something wrong with those photos"
>>
>>> ... or words to that effect.
>>
>
> > No, stop saying things like that. Just because you read
> > a conspiracy book does not mean that is the official
> > word from the government.
>
> Doug Horne was appointed by your government.
>
> It is not a conspiracy book (I have only read Garrison's) but the very
> same page we are discussing:
>

Yes, it is.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
> JFK Lancer is a site with high credibility (recommended by Von Pein,
> no less).
>

Not as high as you pretend.

> Horne is as official as you can possibly get in this conspiracy of
> silence.
>

No, he is a Liftonite.

> -Ramon
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 3:42:44 PM2/1/12

Silly. Learn how to used your browser. Put the mouse over the picture
you are interested in and right click on the mouse. Then either chose
COPY IMAGE LOCATION or VIEW IMAGE then copy the URL in the URL window.
Some web sites will try to prevent you from saving the pictures.
Usually you can get around that by temporarily turning off Javascript.
Some clever sites will use FLASH or MacroVision to prevent you from
saving the pictures, but there are ways around that.

> try to provide the precise "street address", but sometimes you have to
> finish the trip "on foot". Such is the case with that image:
>

What image? You have not pointed out a specific image. Just a Web page.

> > I noticed that you can see the reflection of the
> > camera at the bottom of F8:
>
> This is a precise as the URL protocol will allow me:
>

No, silly.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
> Just scroll down and click on the "F8 Large Defect" photograph.
>

It says:

BE7_HI.jpg
F8 Large Defect

From Lifton's Best Evidence photo 7, which orients it incorrectly BTW.
Anyway I just did what I told you to do and you said is impossible to do
and this must be the photo you are talking about:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE7_HI.jpg

See how easy that was? Took me 2 seconds. And you say it can't be done.

> -Ramon
>

BTW, what you think is a reflection of the camera is the glass specimen
jar on the autopsy table. On the bottom left of the picture.

We have only discussed this a few million times and certain researchers
make a big deal out of it because it helps us orient the photo
correctly. Here is one such interpretation.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8161/specimenjar.png

John Canal

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 3:43:45 PM2/1/12

In article <a55116d9-860d-4ee1...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Ramon F. Herrera says...

>
>On Jan 31, 4:34=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2012 2:09 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Jan 31, 7:55 am, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> =A0wrote:
>> >> In article<81266948-d867-49c5-b242-7b0cf6b56...@b4g2000pbi.googlegroup=

>s.com>,
>> >> Ramon F. Herrera says...
>>

>> >>> On Jan 30, 8:06=3DA0pm, "Ramon F. Herrera"<ra...@conexus.net> =A0wrot=
>e:
>> >>>> At first, I thought that there were two incompatible versions of the=

> head
>> >>>> wound location and dimensions: the Parkland version and the Bethesda
>> >>>> version.
>>

>> >>>> We can actually reconcile the Parkland locations (essentially everyb=
>ody
>> >>>> agreed with a large gaping wound located in the lower right part of =
>the
>> >>>> head):
>>
>> >>>>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp=

>...
>> >>> fkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm
>>
>> >>>> with SOME of the autopsy photos:
>>
>> >>>>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>>

>> >>>> NB: Thanks to David Von Pein for providing the link to the autopsy p=
>hotos=3D
>> >>> .
>> >>>> Frankly, there is so much crap in the net and elsewhere that I don't=
> know
>> >>>> what to believe. This is what I mean: the above are bona fide, offic=

>ial
>> >>>> (not the original) autopsy photos, according to the LN side, right?
>>
>> >>>> -Ramon
>>

>> >>> Can somebody please explain to me image "F8"? I cannot tell that thin=

Oh oh, Ramon....you just invited Marsh to lambast you for at least two reasons,
re. what you think you see in F8.

It's my guess that you might want to get ready for the incoming storm.

:-)

John Canal

Message has been deleted

bigdog

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 5:42:38 PM2/1/12

On Jan 31, 11:10 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:39 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/31/2012 8:54 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 11:01 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > The autopsy photos are genuine.
>
> > > Well, the last official word from our government is:
>
> > > "There is something wrong with those photos"
>
> > > ... or words to that effect.
>
> > No, stop saying things like that. Just because you read
> > a conspiracy book does not mean that is the official
> > word from the government.
>
> Doug Horne was appointed by your government.
>

Doug Horne was appointed to oversee the release of documents related to
military matters, including the autopsy which was conducted by Army and
Navy officers. He was not appointed to reinvestigate the crime or reach
any conclusions about anything. He did that on his own for his own
enrichment. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm all for
capitalism. If he can create something that folks like you are willing to
fork over your money for, more power to him. Long before JFK was
assassinated, it has been a well known fact that bullshit sells.
Conspiracy authors have been milking JFK's death for decades. Why stop
while that goose is still laying golden eggs. Just don't get the idea that
there is anything official about what Horne has sold you.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 5:44:42 PM2/1/12

I don't remember if it was you or Paul Seaton who first pointed out the
specimen jar as a clue to how to orient F-8, but I think one of you
marked F-8 to point out the specimen jar.
Ramon calls it a reflection of the camera.
Well, it IS glass.

John Canal

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 7:55:44 PM2/1/12

In article <4f29a578$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Paul hadn't really paid much attention to F8 until I replicated it using a
male doll's head showing what I thought was the entry down near the EOP.

He scoffed at my replication, and probably rightly so, because of the
doll's head..not too scientific I agreed. Barb was upset that I destroyed
an expensive doll.

So I ordered a model skull from a medical training program catalog and
repeated the experiment...with the same results.

This time Paul scoffed and claimed (like you and McAdams do) that circular
defect wasn't the entry....but he agreed whatever it was was near the EOP.
Then he replicated F8 using a 3d computer generated skull and verified
that whatever that defect was was near the EOP and far from the cowlick.

Others agreed it was the entry but, because they were cowlick entry
theorists, claimed F8 showed that defect in the cowlick.

Paul was especially interested in F8 after I pointed out the ragged skull
edge near the EOP...this supported the autopsists' report that the rear
skull was fragmented and the pieces fell out or stuck to the reflected
scalp....which in turn supported the report there had been a BOH wound
larger than the entry. IOW had they sawed the rear skull the edge there
wouldn't have been so ragged.

Remember Boswell's note on the face sheet? "Ragged and slanting"? He was
referring to the skull edge which was indeed ragged and slanting.

In fact he drew the arrow going in towards JFK's left...and later was at a
loss to explain why the bullet wound in CE-388 and in F3 is slanted
towards JFK's right. He had forgotten that his arrow represented the skull
edge, which did slant to JFK's left at that point, and not the slant of
the bullet wound which slanted slightly to JFK's right.

Anyway, then both Hunt and Sturdivan replicated F8 with basically the same
results.

All along we argued with Brian Kelleher and a few others about the
orientation....and our opponents challenged us to reconcile the specimen
glass with the face on orientation.

That's when I used a dummy to stand in for JFK and positioned a glass and
"drain hole" near his head and took the photo the way I thought Stringer
did. Here's the link to the photo of that experiment:

Glass drain hole F8 match
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/9773/glassdrainholef8.jpg

The drain hole and glass in my demonstration did not exactly match those
features in F8 but they were reasonably close...and Paul aplauded the
results. I told him with more time I could have gotten the results more
exact.

But then Paul deserves the credit for irrefutably proving the accuracy of
the face on orientation. He demonstrated that the skull flap hanging off
the front right of JFK's head in F3 was the same flap seen hanging off the
front right of his head in F8.

Flap F3 to F8, Seaton?s graphic
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/9730/flaptof8.jpg

or

Bone flap F3 to F8
http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/9619/boneflapf3tof8.jpg

I also pointed out to those who orientated it the way Lifton and Mantik do
that with their orientation that skull flap sticks up out of the back of
JFK's head like a shark's dorsal fin....which is ridiculous.

It shouldn't have been necessary to go to such lengths to prove the face
on orientation was correct...after all, it was obvious that Dr. Angel
orientated it face on...and there were other reasons too.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 9:43:49 PM2/2/12

On 2/1/2012 7:55 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4f29a578$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

If what you see in near the EOP there is no cowlick left.

Well, you were up against Lifton and the kooks, who had actually made
the photos public instead of covering them up for 30 years. That gave
them more credibility.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 9:48:21 PM2/2/12

On 2/1/2012 3:48 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 8:45 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Not specific enough.
>
> Well, in addition to what I told you already (see below), let's see
> how we can provide additional help...
>
> How about this: "The 8th. image, vertically, counting from top to
> bottom, with the topmost being image number 1"?
>
> The other thing I could do is to design and implement an advanced
> Internet protocol which will scroll down and click for you. I would
> have to submit it for approval to the IETF, though.
>
> (have you tried remedial "Web Clicking 101" classes?)
>
> -Ramon
>

Let's see now. You were not smart enough to post the correct URL pointing
to the specific photo, which I had to do for you. Then you pretend to
"school" me on using the Internet?

> -------------------------------------------------------------

John Canal

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 11:18:56 PM2/2/12

In article <4f2b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Which speaks to the real reason why I think many of those who imply they
are familiar with the medical evidence participate in this
group.......it's not to learn from the work of others, but to take a stand
parroting the official story and not budge an inch from their silly
beliefs that Fisher, and Baden and the rest of thier buddies were spot on
with their findings.

Sure, it's obvious the cowlick was gone when F8 was taken...if the entry
was in the cowlick, it would have been in one of the bones sitting on the
table when F8 was taken....and not apparent along the skull edge deep in
the cranial cavity.

Nevertheless, the cowlick entry crew either insists the photo still shows
the circular defect to be in the cowlick...or that the circular defect
which is, not only centered in the photo titled, "Misile wound in
posterior skull...", but also (based on Seaton's work determining the
width of the ruler) 2.5 cm from the edge of the ruler, is not the entry.

God knows what their explanation for such a circular defect being there in
JFK's skull is.

Care to ask McAdams that question? My guess is that his answer would
simply include charges that non-forensic experts like me should not ask
such questions.

Personally, I think I've forgotten more about the medical evidence in this
case than Baden ever tried to learn.

When I pointed out to a couple of the members of that aforementioned
cowlick entry crew that the three ARRB forensic experts refuted the claims
of the Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA budies that the X-rays showed a cowlick
entry, their replies, IOM, showed just how valuable some college degrees
were.

One claimed that Doug Horne might have spun the reports of the three ARRB
experts his [Horne's] way.

Another refused to comment and didn't have the class to admit it was even
possible that the cowlick entry finding was a myth.

I stay here to defend myself from attacks, otherwise I wouldn't waste my
time posting.

Occasionally, I guess someone does learn something...but now even Ramon,
realizing he had F8 misorientated and thought the specimen glass was a
reflection, has rode off into the sunset.

John Canal

If they hadn't cropped the published photos so much, threads like this wouldn't
exist.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 8:54:58 AM2/3/12

"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:jgcjn...@drn.newsguy.com...

> Remember Boswell's note on the face sheet? "Ragged and slanting"? He was
> referring to the skull edge which was indeed ragged and slanting.

When did Boswell say this?

John Canal

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 10:15:22 AM2/3/12

In article <4f2b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

I know you guys think HB&F were complete morons (e.g. didn't know the
cowlick from the EOP, thought the rear skull was fragmented, couldn't
figure out the bullet transited his neck that night, in spite of the
abundance of medical evidence it did, etc., etc.), but do you also think
the little arrow extending from the EOP entry on the head diagram really
indicated the slant of the bullet hole? Come on man, the bullet hole
slanted to the right (see the BOH photos and CE-388)...not the left as he
drew it on his face sheet.

My point is that the "slanting" part of the "ragged and slanting" note
matched the skull edge near the entry and not the bullet wound.

Look at the graphic I've linked to, and remember Boswell testified that
the little piece of bone he drew on his face sheet (with the top of the
entry) did in fact fit on the edge of the skull to complete the entry
which was split in two......That's why the HSCA described it, as seen in
F8, as a "semicircular" beveled defect.

Now please notice the slant of the skull edge extending from the
entry...it slants to JFK's left and matches the slant of the arrow he
drew.

When he finally was asked to explain to the ARRB why the arrow on his face
sheet slanted to the left while the bullet wound slanted to the right in
CE-388 (and F3), he said he must have made a mistake!

Specter should have asked that question in March, 1964.

In any case, there was blood on the damn face sheet, there was no mistake
and he didn't forget (at least when he drew the arrow)...IOW, and again,
logically, his arrow was showing the slant of the skull at the entry thus
his "ragged and slanting" note was about the skull edge, not the bullet
wound.

Is there any way you can put your logic hat on and not your bear
protection coat?...Oh, and please loan that hat to McAdams and the rest of
your cowlick entry no-BOH crew.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5728/entrydwgtof8.jpg

Thanks in advance.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 8:59:05 PM2/3/12

On 2/3/2012 10:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4f2b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>
>>
>> "John Canal"<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgcjn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> Remember Boswell's note on the face sheet? "Ragged and slanting"? He was
>>> referring to the skull edge which was indeed ragged and slanting.
>>
>> When did Boswell say this?
>
> I know you guys think HB&F were complete morons (e.g. didn't know the
> cowlick from the EOP, thought the rear skull was fragmented, couldn't

That was not the source of their confusion. They saw nothing like a hole
in the cowlick. What they did see was a dab of tissue near the EOP which
they assumed was brains oozing back out of the entrance hole. They did not
shave around the entrance wound and photograph it as Dr. Earl Rose would
have. That's why the SS stole the body. To assure that an incompetent
autopsy would be done.

> figure out the bullet transited his neck that night, in spite of the
> abundance of medical evidence it did, etc., etc.), but do you also think

And couldn't even see the bullet hole in the forehead.

> the little arrow extending from the EOP entry on the head diagram really
> indicated the slant of the bullet hole? Come on man, the bullet hole
> slanted to the right (see the BOH photos and CE-388)...not the left as he
> drew it on his face sheet.
>

Who said that that drawing really represents? They used that excuse that
their face sheet was never intended to be accurate.

> My point is that the "slanting" part of the "ragged and slanting" note
> matched the skull edge near the entry and not the bullet wound.
>
> Look at the graphic I've linked to, and remember Boswell testified that
> the little piece of bone he drew on his face sheet (with the top of the
> entry) did in fact fit on the edge of the skull to complete the entry
> which was split in two......That's why the HSCA described it, as seen in
> F8, as a "semicircular" beveled defect.
>

Sure, sure, and in the EOP? I doubt it.

> Now please notice the slant of the skull edge extending from the
> entry...it slants to JFK's left and matches the slant of the arrow he
> drew.
>
> When he finally was asked to explain to the ARRB why the arrow on his face
> sheet slanted to the left while the bullet wound slanted to the right in
> CE-388 (and F3), he said he must have made a mistake!
>

It's an easy mistake for an incompetent doctor to make. He didn't know
the different between left and right. The last patient he worked on he
cut off the right arm instead of the left arm.

John Canal

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 11:58:21 PM2/3/12

In article <4f2c3b06$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 2/3/2012 10:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article<4f2b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Canal"<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jgcjn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>> Remember Boswell's note on the face sheet? "Ragged and slanting"? He was
>>>> referring to the skull edge which was indeed ragged and slanting.
>>>
>>> When did Boswell say this?
>>
>> I know you guys think HB&F were complete morons (e.g. didn't know the
>> cowlick from the EOP, thought the rear skull was fragmented, couldn't

You know Marsh, I've been reluctant to reply to your sillyness lately, but
I have some other things going on that I want to get my mind off of so
I'll resond.

>That was not the source of their confusion. They saw nothing like a hole
>in the cowlick. What they did see was a dab of tissue near the EOP which
>they assumed was brains oozing back out of the entrance hole.

And thanks for reminding me why after this partial response I'll go back
to not responding to your crap.

We've been over this dab of tissue thing many times before. You think you
see a way to make the autopsists look inept (which you desperately need
them to be so your wacky theory they missed seeing on the body a bullet
entry wound in his forehead appeals to newbie CTs)....and you lock onto to
it, like a wolf with fresh meat, regardless of how many times I've offered
you a good explanation for them mistakenly saying the entry was near the
dab of tissue.

I'll tell you once more and if you have an once of class you won't pull
out the dab of tissue mistake again without offering me a reason why my
explanation doesn't fly..and you calling my explanation wacky won't cut
it. Read on.

All the autopists were sure of before they faced the HSCA's inquisition
was that the entry was near the EOP. Now, if you can't see that Baden et
al had planned on endorsing their associate and/or good friend, Fisher's
cowlick entry before they talked with HB&F you know less about the medical
evidence than I thought...and that's not much. Continue.

HB&F were give about 48 hours notice to appear....meaning, as surely
planned by Baden et al, they'd have little time to prepare.

Now, they hadn't seen the BOH photos for God knows how long (remember they
weren't invited to meet with Fisher or the Rockefeller experts). So when
Humes was asked to point out the entry on the BOH photo he of course
looked near the EOP...and, guess what....right, there was none there.
Humes hadn't realized or recalled that when the morticians stretched the
relatively undamaged occipital scalp (as compared to the top/right/front)
to prepare JFK's body for an open-casket funeral the entry moved up to
near the cowlick.

I know you're getting ready to give your sooooo very valid reasons why
this doesn't wash, like " it's wacky", but hold back your sooo
enlightening reasons until later.

Anyway, when Humes saw no near EOP entry he looked elsewhere in the
BOH....(he just knew it had to be somewhere there), there were only two
choices..and both were bad. Neither was near the EOP. One was that dab of
tissue, which was too low and the other was the real bullet wound in the
scalp that had moved (because of the scalp stretching) several inches
higher into the cowlick.

The bottom line is that they were confused when they were questioned by
the HSCA....and that's why at various times they said the entry was near
those two incorrect locations.

NOW FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME HUMES SAID LATER HE HAD BEEN CONFUSED AND
REAFFIRMED THE ENTRY LOCATION AS BEING NEAR THE EOP. He went on to say
that he saw the body and that what he saw on the body shouldn't be
overturned because of some photographs.

But Marsh just has his teeth in Humes' error forever....and just gives no
quarter to him about him saying he was confused.

Now, I haven't read too far into your reply before I was turned off again
by you once again, ad nauseam, recycling previously explained
arguments....without an ounce of proof those explaations are invalid.

I'm tired of your tactics.

IMO, you committed yourself years too early to your wacky "no hits to the
BOH" theory and the "autopsists were so incompetent they missed seeing an
entry wound in JFK's forehead" (on the body) that, like some eagle eye
forensic expert, you have been able to detect on copies of photos.
Moreover, I've showed you an enlargement of your entry and it looks
nothing like a bullet wound of any kind...but does that slow you
down?...heck no...because you have half your life invested in your wacky
theory...and can't turn back now.

My guess is that one of your worst days was when I showed you the
enlargement of the entry in F8 that makes it clear to anyone who's not
blind that the circular defect centered in and below the ruler (and
obviously not anywhere near the cowlick) in that photo (which is titled,
"Missile wound in the posterior skull..." IS IN FACT THE ENTRY.

Now befre you say that you saw such an enlargement before I posted it
nearly a decade ago, go to Google or the NG archives and show me where you
or anyone else posted such an enlargement before me.

Good luck with that.

I'd bet my last dime that had you seen that enlargement before you
committed yourself to your "no hits to the BOH" silly theory, you never
would have gone there. That theory of yours is like an anchor hanging
around your neck...you can't get rid of it because no one here ever admits
being wrong on a major issue, especially after finding that out from
someone else.

And I'd also bet that had you realized the HSCA published an enlargement
of your so-called forehead entry wound before you committed yourself to
your ridiculous theory that defect in his forehead was an entry, you
wouldn't have gone there either.

BTW, if you use Google again my guess is that you won't find where anyone
else posted that enlargement before I did.

In any case, I'm tired of your recycled meaningess arguments that I've
refuted over and over again.

John Canal

[the rest of your sillyness deleted]

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 12:02:38 AM2/4/12

This is what Boswell told the ARRB about the meaning of the arrow:

Q. I'd like you to note on the right diagram; on the head there appears to
be a circle with an arrow pointing up and to the left. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you the person who made that mark?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?
A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a
--in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and
subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel
went.
Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and
the point where the bullet entered into the skull?
A. Yes.
Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in
the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?
A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across,
and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.
Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an
inch?
A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.

And this is Boswell to the HSCA regarding the arrow:

Dr. PETTY. Dr. Boswell, this is the diagram that I was referring to a moment
ago where the point of
K. KLEIN. Could you identify in some way what it is?
Dr. PETTY. The face sheet of Dr. Humes' protocol.
K. KLEIN. OK.
Dr. PETTY. Which shows an inshoot wound on the back of the head and the
arrow pointing upward and to the left--that just meant up.
Dr. BOSWELL. That just meant up. It wasn't intended to indicate direction
or anything.
[...]

Dr. BADEN. Dr. Boswell, I think you may have covered this once before
relative to the diagram that you made, The notation of the diagram on the
front sheet shows an arrow going toward the left by the perforation near
the external occipital protuberance. What does the arrow to the left
mean?
Dr. BOSWELL. I think it was only meant to indicate "upward," not laterality
at all.
Dr. BADEN. Not that it went to the left?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes, right.
Dr. BADEN. Thank you.

Given this, how you have decided that the arrow refers to the edge of the
skull is a mystery. Even Boswell has forsaken you.

"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:jggtg...@drn.newsguy.com...

John Canal

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 9:40:09 AM2/4/12

In article <4f2cb958$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

Not true. Boswell wrote on his face sheet something was slanted...right?
Slanted means to the left or to the right...IOW he didn't write slanted to
mean upward...does that make sense.

The problem is that years later he forgot why he wrote that. Sure that
seems ridiculous to you, but compare that to slanting the arrow the wrong
direction on 11-22-63...if indeed he made the note about the entry. That's
more ridiculous.

Do you actually believe that he wrote "slanted" to describe an "upwards"
direction? Geesh, I hope not.

The skull edge slants to the left and is ragged that's why he wrote,
"ragged and slanting".

Furthermore, if the note referred to the entry, where did they say the
entry was ragged? Huh?

Again, the entry neither slants to the left or is ragged...the skull edge,
not only slants to the left, but is ragged.

Had Specter asked Boswell about the matter we wouldn't be having this
disagreement.

Issue closed.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 7:45:21 PM2/4/12

You are making two unwarranted assumptions. The first is that the "ragged,
slanting" notation corresponds to the arrow. The second is that the exact
direction of the arrow is the result of Boswell's deliberate thought and
action, rather than (say) poor draftsmanship by a note-taker who is not an
artist or illustrator. The autopsy protocol sketches are rough and
schematic, hardly the work of a meticulous Leonardo brushing up a piece
destined for the Louvre. Boswell has admitted this, regarding where he
drew the back wound on the face sheet.

"Ragged" either derives from the word "rag," or from a common ancestor to
both. Because of this, its generally used to refer to soft things. Calling
the edge of something like bone "ragged" is like calling a ripped shirt
"broken" or "shattered." To me, "ragged" refers to the scalp, likely the
entry wound or the torn edge nearby. You ask where the autopsists said the
entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
dictionary has too!

As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
bullet at it hit the head? The autopsy report says wound was measured to
be very oblong (15x6mm), and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 7:46:38 PM2/4/12

Or maybe he knew exactly why he wrote it, but was reminded that he should
pretend that he couldn't remember. Like Humes forgetting that he burned
the first autopsy report. Or Finck who "forgot" the name of the general
who ordered Humes to no dissect the back wound.

> seems ridiculous to you, but compare that to slanting the arrow the wrong
> direction on 11-22-63...if indeed he made the note about the entry. That's
> more ridiculous.
>

No, it's typical for The Three Stooges who didn't even know the
difference between left and right.

> Do you actually believe that he wrote "slanted" to describe an "upwards"
> direction? Geesh, I hope not.
>
> The skull edge slants to the left and is ragged that's why he wrote,
> "ragged and slanting".
>
> Furthermore, if the note referred to the entry, where did they say the
> entry was ragged? Huh?
>
> Again, the entry neither slants to the left or is ragged...the skull edge,
> not only slants to the left, but is ragged.
>
> Had Specter asked Boswell about the matter we wouldn't be having this
> disagreement.
>

Maybe Specter knew enough to NOT a ask. A good lawyer knows enough to
not ask a question if he fears the answer.

> Issue closed.
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 7:47:51 PM2/4/12

On 2/4/2012 12:02 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> This is what Boswell told the ARRB about the meaning of the arrow:
>
> Q. I'd like you to note on the right diagram; on the head there appears to
> be a circle with an arrow pointing up and to the left. Do you see that?
> A. Yes.
> Q. Are you the person who made that mark?
> A. Yes.
> Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?
> A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a
> --in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and
> subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel
> went.
> Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and
> the point where the bullet entered into the skull?
> A. Yes.
> Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in
> the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?
> A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across,
> and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.
> Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an
> inch?
> A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.
>

It's all phony. On the night of the assassination the autopsy doctors
thought the entrance wound was the dab of tissue near the EOP. They did
not dissect or shave around the wound to identify its characteristics.
They just knew that they were told that the shots came from above and to
the right so Boswell made up a story to make it look like the bullet
when right to left in the scalp.

> And this is Boswell to the HSCA regarding the arrow:
>
> Dr. PETTY. Dr. Boswell, this is the diagram that I was referring to a moment
> ago where the point of
> K. KLEIN. Could you identify in some way what it is?
> Dr. PETTY. The face sheet of Dr. Humes' protocol.
> K. KLEIN. OK.
> Dr. PETTY. Which shows an inshoot wound on the back of the head and the
> arrow pointing upward and to the left--that just meant up.
> Dr. BOSWELL. That just meant up. It wasn't intended to indicate direction
> or anything.
> [...]
>

Boswell is lying yet again.

> Dr. BADEN. Dr. Boswell, I think you may have covered this once before
> relative to the diagram that you made, The notation of the diagram on the
> front sheet shows an arrow going toward the left by the perforation near
> the external occipital protuberance. What does the arrow to the left
> mean?
> Dr. BOSWELL. I think it was only meant to indicate "upward," not laterality
> at all.
> Dr. BADEN. Not that it went to the left?
> Dr. BOSWELL. Yes, right.
> Dr. BADEN. Thank you.
>

Silly. How can it indicate UP when the bullet came from above?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 7:51:22 PM2/4/12

On 2/3/2012 11:58 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4f2c3b06$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>
>> On 2/3/2012 10:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article<4f2b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John Canal"<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jgcjn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Remember Boswell's note on the face sheet? "Ragged and slanting"? He was
>>>>> referring to the skull edge which was indeed ragged and slanting.
>>>>
>>>> When did Boswell say this?
>>>
>>> I know you guys think HB&F were complete morons (e.g. didn't know the
>>> cowlick from the EOP, thought the rear skull was fragmented, couldn't
>
> You know Marsh, I've been reluctant to reply to your sillyness lately, but
> I have some other things going on that I want to get my mind off of so
> I'll resond.
>
>> That was not the source of their confusion. They saw nothing like a hole
>> in the cowlick. What they did see was a dab of tissue near the EOP which
>> they assumed was brains oozing back out of the entrance hole.
>
> And thanks for reminding me why after this partial response I'll go back
> to not responding to your crap.
>
> We've been over this dab of tissue thing many times before. You think you
> see a way to make the autopsists look inept (which you desperately need
> them to be so your wacky theory they missed seeing on the body a bullet

It doesn't take much for me to make the autopsists look inept. Just read
the HSCA volumes and comments by the top forensic pathologists in the
world.

> entry wound in his forehead appeals to newbie CTs)....and you lock onto to
> it, like a wolf with fresh meat, regardless of how many times I've offered
> you a good explanation for them mistakenly saying the entry was near the
> dab of tissue.
>

Not a good explanation. A cover-up.

> I'll tell you once more and if you have an once of class you won't pull
> out the dab of tissue mistake again without offering me a reason why my
> explanation doesn't fly..and you calling my explanation wacky won't cut
> it. Read on.
>
> All the autopists were sure of before they faced the HSCA's inquisition
> was that the entry was near the EOP. Now, if you can't see that Baden et
> al had planned on endorsing their associate and/or good friend, Fisher's
> cowlick entry before they talked with HB&F you know less about the medical
> evidence than I thought...and that's not much. Continue.
>

I have no problem blaming it all on Fisher. You seem to forget that that
I call him a liar because there was no entrance wound in the cowlick,
only a bloodclot.

> HB&F were give about 48 hours notice to appear....meaning, as surely
> planned by Baden et al, they'd have little time to prepare.
>
> Now, they hadn't seen the BOH photos for God knows how long (remember they
> weren't invited to meet with Fisher or the Rockefeller experts). So when
> Humes was asked to point out the entry on the BOH photo he of course
> looked near the EOP...and, guess what....right, there was none there.
> Humes hadn't realized or recalled that when the morticians stretched the
> relatively undamaged occipital scalp (as compared to the top/right/front)
> to prepare JFK's body for an open-casket funeral the entry moved up to
> near the cowlick.
>

Physically impossible. You've been corrected on this hundreds of times
and yet you persist with this fiction.
Stretching the scalp that much would make the hairs stick out straight
like a Ghiapet.
When you are faced with an impossible situation you find an impossible
solution. Like the idiot who said the bullet entered the scalp near the
EOP and then tunneled up to enter the skull 4 inches higher.
The simplest solution is the correct solution. Humes did not examine the
entrance wound.

> I know you're getting ready to give your sooooo very valid reasons why
> this doesn't wash, like " it's wacky", but hold back your sooo
> enlightening reasons until later.
>
> Anyway, when Humes saw no near EOP entry he looked elsewhere in the
> BOH....(he just knew it had to be somewhere there), there were only two
> choices..and both were bad. Neither was near the EOP. One was that dab of
> tissue, which was too low and the other was the real bullet wound in the
> scalp that had moved (because of the scalp stretching) several inches
> higher into the cowlick.
>

That dab of tissue was NOT too low when he said the entrance wound was
in the hairline BELOW the EOP.
Humes was badgered into accepting what he called a bloodclot as an
entrance wound.

> The bottom line is that they were confused when they were questioned by
> the HSCA....and that's why at various times they said the entry was near
> those two incorrect locations.
>

Nothing new about that. They were always confused. They were born confused.

> NOW FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME HUMES SAID LATER HE HAD BEEN CONFUSED AND
> REAFFIRMED THE ENTRY LOCATION AS BEING NEAR THE EOP. He went on to say
> that he saw the body and that what he saw on the body shouldn't be
> overturned because of some photographs.
>

So is your only way out now to claim that the autopsy photos are fakes?
And the X-rays? And the Zapruder film?

> But Marsh just has his teeth in Humes' error forever....and just gives no
> quarter to him about him saying he was confused.
>

First you call it an error and then you admit that he was confused. I
say he was incompetent. And you defend him.

> Now, I haven't read too far into your reply before I was turned off again
> by you once again, ad nauseam, recycling previously explained
> arguments....without an ounce of proof those explaations are invalid.
>
> I'm tired of your tactics.
>
> IMO, you committed yourself years too early to your wacky "no hits to the
> BOH" theory and the "autopsists were so incompetent they missed seeing an
> entry wound in JFK's forehead" (on the body) that, like some eagle eye
> forensic expert, you have been able to detect on copies of photos.

For many years I accepted the two head shot theory. Then I finally got
to see the autopsy photographs for myself and could see the bullet hole
in the forehead, which you still can't.
Then the acoustical evidence rules out any simultaneous shots to the head.

> Moreover, I've showed you an enlargement of your entry and it looks
> nothing like a bullet wound of any kind...but does that slow you
> down?...heck no...because you have half your life invested in your wacky
> theory...and can't turn back now.
>

It looks exactly like the examples I've uploaded of an entrance wound
with external beveling.
I am 64 now and only changed to the single head shot from the front
after the Emerson College conference where Mark Crouch and Robert Cutler
showed the original Fox set.

> My guess is that one of your worst days was when I showed you the
> enlargement of the entry in F8 that makes it clear to anyone who's not
> blind that the circular defect centered in and below the ruler (and
> obviously not anywhere near the cowlick) in that photo (which is titled,
> "Missile wound in the posterior skull..." IS IN FACT THE ENTRY.
>

There is no there there. Only your imagination.

> Now befre you say that you saw such an enlargement before I posted it
> nearly a decade ago, go to Google or the NG archives and show me where you
> or anyone else posted such an enlargement before me.
>

You can enlarge any photo until you can see monkeys in the background.

> Good luck with that.
>
> I'd bet my last dime that had you seen that enlargement before you
> committed yourself to your "no hits to the BOH" silly theory, you never
> would have gone there. That theory of yours is like an anchor hanging

Your enlargement is crap. You see what you want to see.

> around your neck...you can't get rid of it because no one here ever admits
> being wrong on a major issue, especially after finding that out from
> someone else.
>
> And I'd also bet that had you realized the HSCA published an enlargement
> of your so-called forehead entry wound before you committed yourself to
> your ridiculous theory that defect in his forehead was an entry, you
> wouldn't have gone there either.
>

I bought the HSCA volumes in 1979.

> BTW, if you use Google again my guess is that you won't find where anyone
> else posted that enlargement before I did.
>

That enlargment? I had one of the prints.
I was one of the first to scan them and put them on the Internet.
I can scan in that area at 2400 DPI and you will see monkeys in the
background.

John Canal

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 9:18:45 PM2/4/12

In article <4f2da71e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Telling exchange no. 1.

I wrote:
?My guess is that one of your worst days was when I showed you the

enlargement of the entry in F8 that makes it clear to anyone who's not
blind that the circular defect centered in and below the ruler (and
obviously not anywhere near the cowlick) in that photo (which is titled,

"Missile wound in the posterior skull..." IS IN FACT THE ENTRY.?

To that Marsh said:
?There is no there. Only your imagination.?

Any lurkers care to look for themselves? If so, here?s the link:

F8 & Entry Blow-up, two versions
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

So Marsh, in order to keep his ?no hits to the back of JFK?s head? theory
alive, insists I?m just imagining that the circular defect shown in the
above links is a bullet wound, but insists that the defect shown in the
enlargement below of an autopsy photo copy IS A BULLET ENTRY WOUND,
RESULTING FROM A SHOT FIRED FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL (AND DRUM ROLL PLEASE)
THAT THE AUTOPSISTS DIDN?T REPORT (COVER-UP)?BUT WERE SO STUPID THEY TOOK
A PICTURE OF IT ANYWAY. YIKES!!!!

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9026/f60sizedrotatedlabled.jpg

No wonder the autopsy doctors never mentioned that defect.

Telling exchange no. 2.

Marsh says there were no hits to the back of JFK?s head and evidently
claims the defect shown (wound) is a blood clot.

The only thing is that close ups of that wound revealed there was an
abrasion collar. Hmmm, an abrasion collar around a blood clot? And this is
from a CT who?s ?studied? the case for decades.

Lurkers, how about taking a look at Marsh?s blood clot?here?s the link.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8531/bohautopsyphoto.jpg

Marsh, every time you attack me with your silliness, I think I?ll just
insert the above as a reminder why I don?t respond to those attacks.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

John Canal

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 2:06:06 PM2/5/12

In article <4f2d6cd6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

Be logical. What else could he have been referring to? What was ragged
besides the skull edge. Moreover, the arrow slanted, didn't it.

>The second is that the exact
>direction of the arrow is the result of Boswell's deliberate thought and
>action, rather than (say) poor draftsmanship by a note-taker who is not an
>artist or illustrator.

Now you're reaching. He indicated that "something" was slanted, didn't he?
Then, low and behold, we see a slanted arrow, don't we? And jeepers, the
skull edge extends to JFK's left from the entry (see F8) and the arrow
juuuust happens to extend from the little circle, doesn't it. Just a
coincidence? Oh that's right, Mitch is fine with coincidences....any
coincidence.

>The autopsy protocol sketches are rough and
>schematic, hardly the work of a meticulous Leonardo brushing up a piece
>destined for the Louvre.

For cripes sake, he said something was "slanted" ...he wouldn't have
written slanted to mean upwards!

He smply forgot why he drew the arrow slanted left and to save face (not
admit he forgot) he simply said the arrow meant the tunneling went
upwards. You're not naive enough to buy that, right? Tell me it's not so.

Also he sure as heck didn't want to say he had slanted the arrow for the
entry the wrong direction...they already had him and the other two
autopsists pegged as unqualified (re. the entry location).

If he was trying to say the tunneling went upwards he would have drawn the
arrow upwards.

And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
entry...but it completed the exit.

I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
(2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
perform the autopsy on JFK.

I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,

>Boswell has admitted this, regarding where he
>drew the back wound on the face sheet.

Right, and this opens another can of worms. IMO, your naivety is apparent
with regard to this case. So it's just another coincidence that his mark
for the back wound matches where the entry was on the clothes, eh? Sure,
it was. But, if he was just careless, in your mind the mark could just as
easily been four inches too high, right..but it wasn't too high or way too
far right or left...it was where the wound in the jacket was. A
coincidence.

Do you think just because they said they didn't see the clothes that night
that it's 100% certain they didn't?

LOL.

Sure, them not being precise and just trying to get everything in the ball
park works all the time for you guys...e.g. they weren't really precise
when they wrote that the entry was near the EOP (close enough to the
cowlick?), the back wound location on the face sheet, Burkley's
description of where the back wound was in the death certificate, etc.

>"Ragged" either derives from the word "rag," or from a common ancestor to
>both. Because of this, its generally used to refer to soft things. Calling
>the edge of something like bone "ragged" is like calling a ripped shirt
>"broken" or "shattered." To me, "ragged" refers to the scalp, likely the
>entry wound or the torn edge nearby.

I've never read where anyone said the entry was ragged...have you? If so
where?

>You ask where the autopsists said the
>entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
>entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
>"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
>wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
>caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
>dictionary has too!

They used the word laceration dozens of times and never associated it with
adjective ragged....but you're trying to tell me they assumed everyone
would know that when they said there was a laceration they the laceration
was ragged?

I didn't know lacerations were ragged. Did you before you check Dr.
Webster? So you assume that when they said laceration they knew the
individuals they were addressing knew that laceration was ragged?

Do you know they used the word laceration to many lawyers who questioned
them over the years? Do you think those lawyers knew that lacerations,
according to Dr. Webster, were ragged?

If the entry had been ragged, and I was reporting its description, I sure
as hell would have used the word ragged...somewhere, sometime, during all
the years following the assassination....not uust on the face sheet.

>As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
>bullet at it hit the head?

So the trajectory was ragged and slanting?

This is turning into something like the exchanges between Jean and Harris,

>The autopsy report says wound was measured to
>be very oblong (15x6mm),

Funny though Humes told the ARRB the entry in the skull was almost round.
And jeepers, the HSCA described the entry in the skull as semicircular,
not semi-elliptical...and by golly, if you look at the enlargement of the
entry in the copy of F8 I posted, one can see it's more circular than
elliptical.

What's my point you ask? In your mind's eye picture a bullet tunneling up
(causing an elliptical defect in the scalp) after contact with his head
and then causing a nearly round entry in the skull.

Did you do that?

Now, either the hole in the skull is also elliptical (meaning a lot of
people are seeing things) or the bullet didn't tunnel up through the
scalp.

How about a "magic bullet"?

I don't have time to get back into this with you but here's a question for
you: Do you think stretching the hell out of the scalp where the entry was
might distort the shape of that entry?

If you say it might...would it distort it so it were wider or more
elliptical.

Just food for thought...my opinion...I wasn't there.

>and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
>reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
>perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.

Look at Z-312. Draw a tangent touching JFK's skull near the EOP. Then draw
a line decending about 16 degrees to JFK's EOP.

The line is pretty much perpindicular to the tangent, isn't it?

More food for thought.

Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
be near the EOP?

Honestly, "yes" or "no".

If you answer "yes" then you make my kill file...if you answer "no", then
there's not much point arguing with you anymore...and I'd hope you'd
respect my wishes and not address any more posts to me.

Thanks.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 6:22:01 PM2/5/12

As usual you guess at things and call it fact.

>> The second is that the exact
>> direction of the arrow is the result of Boswell's deliberate thought and
>> action, rather than (say) poor draftsmanship by a note-taker who is not an
>> artist or illustrator.
>
> Now you're reaching. He indicated that "something" was slanted, didn't he?
> Then, low and behold, we see a slanted arrow, don't we? And jeepers, the
> skull edge extends to JFK's left from the entry (see F8) and the arrow
> juuuust happens to extend from the little circle, doesn't it. Just a
> coincidence? Oh that's right, Mitch is fine with coincidences....any
> coincidence.
>

Maybe the trajectory was slanted.

Tunneling? What tunneling? You mean his bullet which enters the scalp at
the EOP and then enters the skull 4 inches higher? Is there a
kindergartner stupid enough to fall for that lame explanation? Maybe
certain WC defenders though.

> Also he sure as heck didn't want to say he had slanted the arrow for the
> entry the wrong direction...they already had him and the other two
> autopsists pegged as unqualified (re. the entry location).
>
> If he was trying to say the tunneling went upwards he would have drawn the
> arrow upwards.
>
> And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
> told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
> entry...but it completed the exit.
>
> I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
> (2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
> perform the autopsy on JFK.
>
> I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,
>
>> Boswell has admitted this, regarding where he
>> drew the back wound on the face sheet.
>
> Right, and this opens another can of worms. IMO, your naivety is apparent
> with regard to this case. So it's just another coincidence that his mark
> for the back wound matches where the entry was on the clothes, eh? Sure,

Prove that it matches exactly.

> it was. But, if he was just careless, in your mind the mark could just as
> easily been four inches too high, right..but it wasn't too high or way too
> far right or left...it was where the wound in the jacket was. A
> coincidence.
>

How could it possibly be in exactly the same location if the jacket was
bunched up at all?

> Do you think just because they said they didn't see the clothes that night
> that it's 100% certain they didn't?
>

Kinda hard to see them when they are in Greer's locker, unless they have
X-ray vision.

Your conspiracy theory requires too many people to be lying even before
they knew what they had to lie abou.

> LOL.
>
> Sure, them not being precise and just trying to get everything in the ball
> park works all the time for you guys...e.g. they weren't really precise
> when they wrote that the entry was near the EOP (close enough to the
> cowlick?), the back wound location on the face sheet, Burkley's
> description of where the back wound was in the death certificate, etc.
>

They located the dab of fat precisely, within a few microns.

You mean the HALF that was still remaining.
The top part had supposed by been blown away.

> not semi-elliptical...and by golly, if you look at the enlargement of the
> entry in the copy of F8 I posted, one can see it's more circular than
> elliptical.
>
> What's my point you ask? In your mind's eye picture a bullet tunneling up
> (causing an elliptical defect in the scalp) after contact with his head
> and then causing a nearly round entry in the skull.
>

Has anyone ever documented a bullet doing that?

> Did you do that?
>
> Now, either the hole in the skull is also elliptical (meaning a lot of
> people are seeing things) or the bullet didn't tunnel up through the
> scalp.
>

They never saw a complete hole in the skull.

> How about a "magic bullet"?
>
> I don't have time to get back into this with you but here's a question for
> you: Do you think stretching the hell out of the scalp where the entry was
> might distort the shape of that entry?
>
> If you say it might...would it distort it so it were wider or more
> elliptical.
>
> Just food for thought...my opinion...I wasn't there.
>
>> and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
>> reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
>> perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.
>
> Look at Z-312. Draw a tangent touching JFK's skull near the EOP. Then draw
> a line decending about 16 degrees to JFK's EOP.
>
> The line is pretty much perpindicular to the tangent, isn't it?
>
> More food for thought.
>
> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
> be near the EOP?
>

What circular defect? It can't be a bullet hole because it would have to
be only have a circle as the top half was blown away.

> Honestly, "yes" or "no".
>
> If you answer "yes" then you make my kill file...if you answer "no", then
> there's not much point arguing with you anymore...and I'd hope you'd
> respect my wishes and not address any more posts to me.
>

Typical Canal. No matter what the answer is you killfile people.

> Thanks.
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 6:23:18 PM2/5/12

On 2/4/2012 9:18 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4f2da71e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> Telling exchange no. 1.
>
> I wrote:
> ?My guess is that one of your worst days was when I showed you the
> enlargement of the entry in F8 that makes it clear to anyone who's not
> blind that the circular defect centered in and below the ruler (and
> obviously not anywhere near the cowlick) in that photo (which is titled,
> "Missile wound in the posterior skull..." IS IN FACT THE ENTRY.?
>
> To that Marsh said:
> ?There is no there. Only your imagination.?
>
> Any lurkers care to look for themselves? If so, here?s the link:
>

> F8& Entry Blow-up, two versions

> http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> So Marsh, in order to keep his ?no hits to the back of JFK?s head? theory
> alive, insists I?m just imagining that the circular defect shown in the
> above links is a bullet wound, but insists that the defect shown in the
> enlargement below of an autopsy photo copy IS A BULLET ENTRY WOUND,
> RESULTING FROM A SHOT FIRED FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL (AND DRUM ROLL PLEASE)
> THAT THE AUTOPSISTS DIDN?T REPORT (COVER-UP)?BUT WERE SO STUPID THEY TOOK
> A PICTURE OF IT ANYWAY. YIKES!!!!

What you think you see can not be a bullet wound, because it would be
half circle instead of a complete circle.
The autopsy doctors said the top half was missing, blown out.

>
> http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9026/f60sizedrotatedlabled.jpg
>
> No wonder the autopsy doctors never mentioned that defect.
>
> Telling exchange no. 2.
>
> Marsh says there were no hits to the back of JFK?s head and evidently
> claims the defect shown (wound) is a blood clot.
>
> The only thing is that close ups of that wound revealed there was an
> abrasion collar. Hmmm, an abrasion collar around a blood clot? And this is
> from a CT who?s ?studied? the case for decades.
>

There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it.

> Lurkers, how about taking a look at Marsh?s blood clot?here?s the link.
>
> http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8531/bohautopsyphoto.jpg
>
> Marsh, every time you attack me with your silliness, I think I?ll just
> insert the above as a reminder why I don?t respond to those attacks.
>

So Humes was just insane or is it incompetent when he said it was a
bloodclot?

John Canal

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 10:57:48 PM2/5/12

Marsh wrote:

"There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."

To that I say:

So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an
abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the HSCA
simply "drew one in" even though:

1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available in
the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic pathologists
weren't making crap up about seeing (or drawing in)indications of an
abrasion collar around part of the scalp entry wound, and...

2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinaton of
secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well as
tiny bone fragments, at the wound margins.

Oh, you might want to ask Cyril Wecht what "coagulation necrosis" is
indicative of.

DID YOU REALLY JUST ACCUSE THE HSCA OF "DRAWING IN" AN ABRASION COLLAR
AROUND THE SCALP ENTRY WOUND...THAT REALLY DIDN'T EXIT? REALLY? I MEAN
SERIOUSLY?

Marsh, is that the kind of enlightening information that your, what 30
years (?) of studying this case has enabled you to bring to the table?

OMG.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 8:06:42 AM2/6/12

Pathologist of the Clark Panel who viewed the autopsy photographs
noted an ill-defined abrasion surrounding the 6 mm X 15 mm scalp
wound.

Source:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm

“Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours
of which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The
position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in
the lateral X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long
axis of this wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The
wound was judged to be approximately six millimeters wide and 15
millimeters long. The margin of this wound shows an ill-defined zone
of abrasion.”

So John, where have been in the last thirty years?

Herbert

John Canal

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 5:41:31 PM2/6/12

In article <9fa1253a-68bf-4ad7...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...

>
>On Feb 5, 10:57=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Marsh wrote:
>>
>> "There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
>> orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."
>>
>> To that I say:
>>
>> So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an

>> abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the HSC=

>A
>> simply "drew one in" even though:
>>
>> 1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available in

>> the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic pathologist=

>s
>> weren't making crap up about seeing (or drawing in)indications of an
>> abrasion collar around part of the scalp entry wound, and...
>>

>> 2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinaton o=

>f
>> secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well as
>> tiny bone fragments, at the wound margins.
>>
>> Oh, you might want to ask Cyril Wecht what "coagulation necrosis" is
>> indicative of.
>>
>> DID YOU REALLY JUST ACCUSE THE HSCA OF "DRAWING IN" AN ABRASION COLLAR
>> AROUND THE SCALP ENTRY WOUND...THAT REALLY DIDN'T EXIT? REALLY? I MEAN
>> SERIOUSLY?
>>
>> Marsh, is that the kind of enlightening information that your, what 30
>> years (?) of studying this case has enabled you to bring to the table?
>>
>> OMG.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>Pathologist of the Clark Panel who viewed the autopsy photographs
>noted an ill-defined abrasion surrounding the 6 mm X 15 mm scalp
>wound.
>
>Source:
>

>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image0=
>6.htm
>
>=93Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours

>of which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
>underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
>scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The
>position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in
>the lateral X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long
>axis of this wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The
>wound was judged to be approximately six millimeters wide and 15
>millimeters long. The margin of this wound shows an ill-defined zone

>of abrasion.=94

>
>So John, where have been in the last thirty years?

I guess you meant to say where "I've" been, and not where Marsh has been.

I the first place I don't place a lot of credence on what Fisher et al
concluded, especially re. F3. They said that photo showed that the
severely fragmented rear skull didn't extend into the occipital. The
autopsy report stated the rear skull was in pieces and fell out down to
the EOP when they reflected the scalp to remove the brain. Moreover, that
picture was taken after the brain had been removed, meaning the occipital
wasn't even there. Boswell's ARRB testimony is consistent with that.

The HSCA used a stereo-scopic viewer and saw indications of an abrasion
collar.

Anyway, what's your point?...are you saying Marsh was correct and the HSCA
"drew in" an abrasion collar that wasn't there?

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 5:44:11 PM2/6/12

Ill-defined as in non-existent.

> Source:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm
>
> ?Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours

> of which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
> underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
> scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The
> position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in
> the lateral X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long
> axis of this wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The
> wound was judged to be approximately six millimeters wide and 15
> millimeters long. The margin of this wound shows an ill-defined zone

> of abrasion.?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 6:32:25 PM2/6/12

On 2/5/2012 10:57 PM, John Canal wrote:
> Marsh wrote:
>
>
> "There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
> orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."
>
> To that I say:
>
> So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an
> abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the HSCA
> simply "drew one in" even though:
>
> 1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available in
> the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic pathologists
> weren't making crap up about seeing (or drawing in)indications of an
> abrasion collar around part of the scalp entry wound, and...
>

YOU've never seen the original autopsy photos and never will.
You haven't even seen the original Fox set. I have.
Ida Dox had to enhance that "abrasion collar" for the public exhibit.

> 2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinaton of
> secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well as
> tiny bone fragments, at the wound margins.
>

And where are these sections now so that we can verify their work?
Yes a bloodclot on the surface of the scalp is coagulation. That's what
clot means.

> Oh, you might want to ask Cyril Wecht what "coagulation necrosis" is
> indicative of.
>
> DID YOU REALLY JUST ACCUSE THE HSCA OF "DRAWING IN" AN ABRASION COLLAR
> AROUND THE SCALP ENTRY WOUND...THAT REALLY DIDN'T EXIT? REALLY? I MEAN
> SERIOUSLY?
>

Where did I say anything about exit?
I said that Ida Dox enhanced the bloodclot to make it look like an
entrance wound.

> Marsh, is that the kind of enlightening information that your, what 30
> years (?) of studying this case has enabled you to bring to the table?
>

Unlike you I've seen the original Fox set.

> OMG.
>

John Canal

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 10:02:37 PM2/6/12

In article <4f30...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 2/5/2012 10:57 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> Marsh wrote:
>>
>>
>> "There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
>> orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."
>>
>> To that I say:
>>
>> So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an
>> abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the HSCA
>> simply "drew one in" even though:
>>
>> 1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available in
>> the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic pathologists
>> weren't making crap up about seeing (or drawing in)indications of an
>> abrasion collar around part of the scalp entry wound, and...
>>
>
>YOU've never seen the original autopsy photos and never will.
>You haven't even seen the original Fox set. I have.
>Ida Dox had to enhance that "abrasion collar" for the public exhibit.

You never saw the originals though, much less examine the scalp entry
wound stereoscopically on them for an abrasion collar. The HSCA did..live
with it.

>> 2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinaton of
>> secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well as
>> tiny bone fragments, at the wound margins.
>>
>
>And where are these sections now so that we can verify their work?

Oh, so you're going to play the "government destroyed the evidence card"
as part of a cover-up, eh?

No chance RFK simply didn't want parts of his brother's body kept as
evidence is there? No, of course not...not in your CT mind anyway.

Next you'll be claiming the government caught some guy with a rifle on the
grassy knoll and liquidated him.

LOL....

>Yes a bloodclot on the surface of the scalp is coagulation. That's what
>clot means.

No, I sais coagulation necrosis around the MARGINS OF THE WOUND, Dr.
Marsh. Call Wecht and see what that means.

>> Oh, you might want to ask Cyril Wecht what "coagulation necrosis" is
>> indicative of.
>>
>> DID YOU REALLY JUST ACCUSE THE HSCA OF "DRAWING IN" AN ABRASION COLLAR
>> AROUND THE SCALP ENTRY WOUND...THAT REALLY DIDN'T EXIT? REALLY? I MEAN
>> SERIOUSLY?
>>
>
>Where did I say anything about exit?

That was a typo...should have been "exist" and you know it...just an
attempt on you part to divert attention away from your absurd claim that
there was no abrasion collar so the HSCA had one drawn in.

>I said that Ida Dox enhanced the bloodclot to make it look like an
>entrance wound.

Unbelievable....let's face it, your "no hits to the back of the head" is
ultra wacky, and, unfortunately for you, you're stuck with it. It's like
an anvil hanging around your neck for the rest of your life.

And I'm sure the other CTs are lining up to endorse your claims....ya
right.

>> Marsh, is that the kind of enlightening information that your, what 30
>> years (?) of studying this case has enabled you to bring to the table?
>>
>
>Unlike you I've seen the original Fox set.

Again, you haven't seen the originals in the archives, and much less
haven't examined them stereoscopically...have you?

>> OMG.

Indeed.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 11:55:28 PM2/6/12

On Feb 6, 10:02 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4f303...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -
>

The FPP reported an abrasion collar and did not mention a surrounding
abrasion.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm

(295) The panel examined photographs of the back of the head,
including Black and white negatives and prints Nos. 15 and 16; color
transparencies Nos. 42 and 43; and correspondingly numbered color
prints of the back of the head. These were studied with both the naked
eye and 10X magnification. The photographs again all appear to have
been taken from approximately the same position, and stereoscopic
visualization of the two 4 by 5 inch color transparencies enables
three-dimensional perception. In the center of the photographs is a
vertical centimeter ruler, which, by stereoscopic visualization, is
demonstrated to be slightly closer to the camera than the adjacent
skin surface. The upper portion of the ruler, which is in sharpest
focus, is adjacent to a slightly oval scalp defect located in the
"cowlick" area of the scalp just above or superior to a line drawn
between the superior or upper margins of the area. (See fig. 13, a
drawing of the back of the President's head.) This defect is partially
covered by hair and dried blood. This wound is located considerably
above the occipital protuberance, slightly to the right of the
midline, and approximately 13 centimeters above the most prominent
neck crease. It has a maximum vertical diameter in the photograph of
approximately 1.5 to 2 centimeters, and a maximum transverse diameter
of approximately 0.9 centimeter.

(296) Accurate reconstruction of the exact dimensions of the wound is
difficult because the ruler and wound are in different planes of
focus. The long axis of the wound more closely approximates a vertical
angle than that depicted within the "Autopsy Descriptive Sheet." (See
fig. 6.) The inferior margin of this wound, from 3 to 10 o'clock, is
surrounded by a crescent-shaped reddish-black area of denudation,
again presenting the appearance of an abrasion collar, resulting from
the rubbing of the skin by the bullet at the time of penetration. From
12 to 3 o'clock, there is a suggestion of undermining, that is,
tunneling of the tissue between the skin surface and the skull. Three
small linear lacerations or tears of the skin, measuring less than 0.2
centimeter, in length, extend radially from the margins of the defect
at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 3 o'clock. (See fig. 14, a close-up
photograph of this wound.)

End of quotation.

So where is the prominent abrasion that the firm substance of the
skull wound have produced in the thin soft tissues of the scalp? This
is no minor problem as it represents a major screw-up.

Herbert

John Canal

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 12:41:57 AM2/7/12

In article <7dce336d-20b7-498d...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...

>
>On Feb 6, 10:02=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4f303...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 2/5/2012 10:57 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> >> Marsh wrote:
>>
>> >> "There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
>> >> orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."
>>
>> >> To that I say:
>>
>> >> So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an

>> >> abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the =

>HSCA
>> >> simply "drew one in" even though:
>>

>> >> 1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available i=
>n
>> >> the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic patholog=

>ists
>> >> weren't making crap up about seeing (or drawing in)indications of an
>> >> abrasion collar around part of the scalp entry wound, and...
>>
>> >YOU've never seen the original autopsy photos and never will.
>> >You haven't even seen the original Fox set. I have.
>> >Ida Dox had to enhance that "abrasion collar" for the public exhibit.
>>
>> You never saw the originals though, much less examine the scalp entry
>> wound stereoscopically on them for an abrasion collar. The HSCA did..live
>> with it.
>>

>> >> 2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinato=
>n of
>> >> secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well =

>as
>> >> tiny bone fragments, at the wound margins.
>>
>> >And where are these sections now so that we can verify their work?
>>
>> Oh, so you're going to play the "government destroyed the evidence card"
>> as part of a cover-up, eh?
>>
>> No chance RFK simply didn't want parts of his brother's body kept as
>> evidence is there? No, of course not...not in your CT mind anyway.
>>

>> Next you'll be claiming the government caught some guy with a rifle on th=

>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_=

The point of my post was that I thought Marsh's claim that there was "no
abrasion collar" so the HSCA had Dox draw one in.

Do you agree with Marsh?

John Canal

P.S. Do you still have F8 orientated so the back of his skull faces the
camera?

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

John Canal

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 8:07:52 AM2/7/12

In article <7dce336d-20b7-498d...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>

>On Feb 6, 10:02=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4f303...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 2/5/2012 10:57 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> >> Marsh wrote:
>>
>> >> "There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
>> >> orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."
>>
>> >> To that I say:
>>
>> >> So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an

>> >> abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the =

>HSCA
>> >> simply "drew one in" even though:
>>

>> >> 1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available i=
>n
>> >> the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic patholog=

>> >> 2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinato=
>n of
>> >> secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well =

>> Next you'll be claiming the government caught some guy with a rifle on th=

>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_=

I didn't finish my thought nor did I respond to your last question.

I meant to write, "The point of my post was that I thought Marsh's claim was
absurd that there was no abrasion collar so the HSCA had Dox draw one in."

Again, do you agree with Marsh.

>So where is the prominent abrasion

Settng aside what Fisher et al said they saw, the HSCA said they saw indications
of an abrasion collar.

The autopsists reported seeing, from their microscopic examination of the
sectioned scalp entry wound, coagulation necrosis of the tissues at the wound
margins, and tiny bone fragments at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue.

>that the firm substance of the
>skull wound have produced in the thin soft tissues of the scalp?

>This
>is no minor problem as it represents a major screw-up.

Is the forensic pathologist, Dr. Blenner, saying that neither the indications of
an abrasion collar seen by the HSCA nor the "coagulation necrosis" seen by the
autopsists were caused by the bullet?

If so, I suggest you ask Cyril Wecht about that "major screw-up"....I'll give
you his address if you want.

John Canal

>Herbert

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 1:35:25 PM2/7/12

Exact when did they perform this? Where is this tissue now to
doublecheck their work?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 1:35:51 PM2/7/12

I.E. a bloodclot. That's all it is, a bloodclot, exactly as Humes said.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 2:49:50 PM2/7/12

On 2/6/2012 10:02 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4f30...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 2/5/2012 10:57 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "There is no abrasion collar. That was hand drawn in by Ida Dox under
>>> orders from Michal Baden expressly to fool YOU. And you fell for it."
>>>
>>> To that I say:
>>>
>>> So, let me get this straight. You're saying there really wasn't an
>>> abrasion collar around part of the entry wound in the scalp.......the HSCA
>>> simply "drew one in" even though:
>>>
>>> 1) The very clear autopsy photos have been, and still are, available in
>>> the National Archives to check to make sure the HSCA forensic pathologists
>>> weren't making crap up about seeing (or drawing in)indications of an
>>> abrasion collar around part of the scalp entry wound, and...
>>>
>>
>> YOU've never seen the original autopsy photos and never will.
>> You haven't even seen the original Fox set. I have.
>> Ida Dox had to enhance that "abrasion collar" for the public exhibit.
>
> You never saw the originals though, much less examine the scalp entry
> wound stereoscopically on them for an abrasion collar. The HSCA did..live
> with it.
>

And you trust them, especially when you know they lied about the "exit"
wound on the coronal suture?

>>> 2) The Supplementry Autopsy Report stated that a microscopic examinaton of
>>> secions from the scalp wound revealed "coagulation necrosis", as well as
>>> tiny bone fragments, at the wound margins.
>>>
>>
>> And where are these sections now so that we can verify their work?
>
> Oh, so you're going to play the "government destroyed the evidence card"
> as part of a cover-up, eh?
>

Not much of an answer. You can't tell me, can you?

> No chance RFK simply didn't want parts of his brother's body kept as
> evidence is there? No, of course not...not in your CT mind anyway.
>

I don't mind if you blame it all on RFK, just admit that there was a
cover-up and the evidence is missing.

John Canal

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 2:51:09 PM2/7/12

>> The autopsists reported seeing, from their microscopic examination of the
>> sectioned scalp entry wound, coagulation necrosis of the tissues at the wound
>> margins, and tiny bone fragments at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue.
>>
>
>Exact when did they perform this? Where is this tissue now to
>doublecheck their work?

Do you ever doublecheck what you plan to say to make sure it makes any
sense before you say it?

If an autopsy is performed do you expect them to keep the body so critics
can doublecheck their work?

And you ask when they did this...goes to show that you study the minutia
in this case too much compared to what's important.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 11:22:54 PM2/9/12

Another post that you didn't bother to read before replying --you would
have noted that I addressed that particular question. Worse, you couldn't
bring yourself to correct yourself once you realized you went off
half-cocked. Is this how you advertise your skill as a researcher?

>>The second is that the exact
>>direction of the arrow is the result of Boswell's deliberate thought and
>>action, rather than (say) poor draftsmanship by a note-taker who is not an
>>artist or illustrator.
>
> Now you're reaching. He indicated that "something" was slanted, didn't he?
> Then, low and behold, we see a slanted arrow, don't we? And jeepers, the
> skull edge extends to JFK's left from the entry (see F8) and the arrow
> juuuust happens to extend from the little circle, doesn't it. Just a
> coincidence? Oh that's right, Mitch is fine with coincidences....any
> coincidence.

As already mentioned, "ragged" is a word used to refer to soft materials
like fabrics, rather than hard ones like bone, so the notation argues
against your notion from the get-go. For that matter, would Boswell really
draw a slanting line to show a slanting whatever, then write out
"slanting" next to it just in case someone couldn't think of the right
word to describe the line? Really?

The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow. It should be obvious to
anyone what he was referring to. On top of all that, you still labor under
the gross misconception that the edge of the skull runs through the entry
in F8. Careful (or even half-careful) inspection shows that the edge is
about a ruler's width above the entry. So far, you are wrong, wrong,
wrong, and wrong. Two more, and you've got a half-dozen.

>>The autopsy protocol sketches are rough and
>>schematic, hardly the work of a meticulous Leonardo brushing up a piece
>>destined for the Louvre.
>
> For cripes sake, he said something was "slanted" ...he wouldn't have
> written slanted to mean upwards!
>
> He smply forgot why he drew the arrow slanted left and to save face (not
> admit he forgot) he simply said the arrow meant the tunneling went
> upwards. You're not naive enough to buy that, right? Tell me it's not so.
>
> Also he sure as heck didn't want to say he had slanted the arrow for the
> entry the wrong direction...they already had him and the other two
> autopsists pegged as unqualified (re. the entry location).
>
> If he was trying to say the tunneling went upwards he would have drawn the
> arrow upwards.

He said he was trying to show that the bullet was moving forwards. When
illustrators try to show something that would normally be perpendicular to
the pane of an image, they skew (slant, if you will) the line to mimic the
effect of perspective. The technical term, FWIR, is an oblique projection,
and the untrained draftsman will do this instinctively.

> And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
> told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
> entry...but it completed the exit.
>
> I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
> (2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
> perform the autopsy on JFK.
>
> I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,

Then, doesn't this little vignette shatter Boswell's story that the entry
was set at the edge of the skull and had to be completed by putting a
loose fragment in place?

>>Boswell has admitted this, regarding where he
>>drew the back wound on the face sheet.
>
> Right, and this opens another can of worms. IMO, your naivety is apparent
> with regard to this case. So it's just another coincidence that his mark
> for the back wound matches where the entry was on the clothes, eh? Sure,
> it was. But, if he was just careless, in your mind the mark could just as
> easily been four inches too high, right..but it wasn't too high or way too
> far right or left...it was where the wound in the jacket was. A
> coincidence.
>
> Do you think just because they said they didn't see the clothes that night
> that it's 100% certain they didn't?
>
> LOL.
>
> Sure, them not being precise and just trying to get everything in the ball
> park works all the time for you guys...e.g. they weren't really precise
> when they wrote that the entry was near the EOP (close enough to the
> cowlick?), the back wound location on the face sheet, Burkley's
> description of where the back wound was in the death certificate, etc.
>
>>"Ragged" either derives from the word "rag," or from a common ancestor to
>>both. Because of this, its generally used to refer to soft things. Calling
>>the edge of something like bone "ragged" is like calling a ripped shirt
>>"broken" or "shattered." To me, "ragged" refers to the scalp, likely the
>>entry wound or the torn edge nearby.
>
> I've never read where anyone said the entry was ragged...have you? If so
> where?

...He says, right before reading the part where I explain the point. And,
again doesn't bother to

>>You ask where the autopsists said the
>>entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
>>entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
>>"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
>>wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
>>caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
>>dictionary has too!
>
> They used the word laceration dozens of times and never associated it with
> adjective ragged....but you're trying to tell me they assumed everyone
> would know that when they said there was a laceration they the laceration
> was ragged?

Maybe that's because lacerations are ragged *by definition*. Having to
explicitly associate "ragged" with "laceration" is like saying "he's one
of them thar murderers what kills folks and such." An old joke about the
grammatical faux pas of "drunken Irishman" comes to mind.

> I didn't know lacerations were ragged. Did you before you check Dr.
> Webster? So you assume that when they said laceration they knew the
> individuals they were addressing knew that laceration was ragged?

Yes, I did. Someone in an emergency room pointed it out
to me many years ago.

> Do you know they used the word laceration to many lawyers who questioned
> them over the years? Do you think those lawyers knew that lacerations,
> according to Dr. Webster, were ragged?

It doesn't matter what the lawyers thought. It matters what Boswell wrote,
and what that means.

> If the entry had been ragged, and I was reporting its description, I sure
> as hell would have used the word ragged...somewhere, sometime, during all
> the years following the assassination....not uust on the face sheet.

That's you, but you are not Boswell. 'Nuff said.

>>As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
>>bullet at it hit the head?
>
> So the trajectory was ragged and slanting?

More likely that the bullet hit at a noticable slant to perpendicular, and
the resulting scalp wound was ragged.

> This is turning into something like the exchanges between Jean and Harris,

It's been like that for a long time. You probably fancy yourself playing
Jean's role but don't bet on it.

>>The autopsy report says wound was measured to
>>be very oblong (15x6mm),
>
> Funny though Humes told the ARRB the entry in the skull was almost round.
> And jeepers, the HSCA described the entry in the skull as semicircular,
> not semi-elliptical...and by golly, if you look at the enlargement of the
> entry in the copy of F8 I posted, one can see it's more circular than
> elliptical.
>
> What's my point you ask? In your mind's eye picture a bullet tunneling up
> (causing an elliptical defect in the scalp) after contact with his head
> and then causing a nearly round entry in the skull.
>
> Did you do that?
>
> Now, either the hole in the skull is also elliptical (meaning a lot of
> people are seeing things) or the bullet didn't tunnel up through the
> scalp.

Humes told the ARRB that the wound in the skull was "almost round, but a
little bit more ovoid." You seem to have missed the latter part of the
quote. The thing is, we are talking about the hole in the scalp, not the
one in the skull. Since skin and bone fail mechanically in different ways
(and skin is much more tensile), it's a mistake to automatically assume
that the scalp would correspond exactly to the underlying perforation in
the bone. As for the HSCA, the phrase in question is "semicircular beveled
defect" seen in F8; given that the upper half of the wound in that photo
is obscured by membrane and shadow, it appears that intended meaning was
(semicircular beveled) defect rather than semicircular (beveled defect). I
don't know how anyone can blithely assume the exact shape of the entire
hole with that much of it hidden.

Do you really want the rest of us to believe that the autopsists
got all Silly Putty with JFK's scalp, then measured the size
of the wound for the record while the hole was distorted so
far out of shape?

>>and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
>>reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
>>perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.
>
> Look at Z-312. Draw a tangent touching JFK's skull near the EOP. Then draw
> a line decending about 16 degrees to JFK's EOP.
>
> The line is pretty much perpindicular to the tangent, isn't it?
>
> More food for thought.
>
> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
> be near the EOP?
>
> Honestly, "yes" or "no".
>
> If you answer "yes" then you make my kill file...if you answer "no", then
> there's not much point arguing with you anymore...and I'd hope you'd
> respect my wishes and not address any more posts to me.

I've already told you what I believe and why in another thread, so I'm not
sure why you're demanding an answer now. The whole "I'm going to take my
ball and go home if you don't agree with me" act is amazingly childish,
and really is beneath you. If you insist, I can't stop you, of course.
However, don't think for a second that I'm going to just sit here in
silence just to avoid discomfiting you.

John Canal

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:56:52 AM2/10/12

In article <4f34...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

It's just that I can't get myself to take your B/S rhetoric seriously. You know
damn well the entry as seen in F8, is hardly in the cowlick....and you just
acn't bring yourself to admit you've been wrong all this time.

>>>The second is that the exact
>>>direction of the arrow is the result of Boswell's deliberate thought and
>>>action, rather than (say) poor draftsmanship by a note-taker who is not an
>>>artist or illustrator.
>>
>> Now you're reaching. He indicated that "something" was slanted, didn't he?
>> Then, low and behold, we see a slanted arrow, don't we? And jeepers, the
>> skull edge extends to JFK's left from the entry (see F8) and the arrow
>> juuuust happens to extend from the little circle, doesn't it. Just a
>> coincidence? Oh that's right, Mitch is fine with coincidences....any
>> coincidence.
>
>As already mentioned, "ragged" is a word used to refer to soft materials
>like fabrics, rather than hard ones like bone, so the notation argues
>against your notion from the get-go.

And you think Boswell knew that the word "ragged" refers to only to saof
materials? Jeeze what crap.

Doubleday's Thesaurus gives a couple alternative words to use in place of ragged
that you might find interesting..they are "uneven" and jagged". Get my point? Of
course you don't.

>For that matter, would Boswell really
>draw a slanting line to show a slanting whatever, then write out
>"slanting" next to it just in case someone couldn't think of the right
>word to describe the line? Really?

That's more likely than him drawing the arrow the wrong direction.

>The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
>notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
>little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow.

That line doesn't touch the entry and if he was referring to the entry, it was
along the edge of the skull that was slanting.

>It should be obvious to
>anyone what he was referring to.

That's to anyone who'd be silly enough to think he slanted the arrow the
opposite direction from the one it was supposed to point in. The entry slanted
to JFK's right, not to his left.

>On top of all that, you still labor under
>the gross misconception that the edge of the skull runs through the entry
>in F8. Careful (or even half-careful) inspection shows that the edge is
>about a ruler's width above the entry. So far, you are wrong, wrong,
>wrong, and wrong. Two more, and you've got a half-dozen.

Are you blind? If so, try getting someone to read 7HSCA para 300 to
you...slowly. It says they saw a semi-circular beveled defect!!!!!!!!
Translation for you: it's semicircular because the top half of the entry was in
a piece of skull that came out....and he drew that on his face sheet.

You're misinterpreting F8, big time.

>>>The autopsy protocol sketches are rough and
>>>schematic, hardly the work of a meticulous Leonardo brushing up a piece
>>>destined for the Louvre.
>>
>> For cripes sake, he said something was "slanted" ...he wouldn't have
>> written slanted to mean upwards!
>>
>> He smply forgot why he drew the arrow slanted left and to save face (not
>> admit he forgot) he simply said the arrow meant the tunneling went
>> upwards. You're not naive enough to buy that, right? Tell me it's not so.
>>
>> Also he sure as heck didn't want to say he had slanted the arrow for the
>> entry the wrong direction...they already had him and the other two
>> autopsists pegged as unqualified (re. the entry location).
>>
>> If he was trying to say the tunneling went upwards he would have drawn the
>> arrow upwards.
>
>He said he was trying to show that the bullet was moving forwards.

So he drew the arrow to the front LEFT? Get real.

>When
>illustrators try to show something that would normally be perpendicular to
>the pane of an image, they skew (slant, if you will) the line to mimic the
>effect of perspective. The technical term, FWIR, is an oblique projection,
>and the untrained draftsman will do this instinctively.

That sound like Blennerism...you are trying to complicate this to divert
attention away from the fact your argument is ridiculous. The entry slanted
right, not left and, whie you like to think Boswell could get the EOP and
cowlick confused, he wasn't careless enough to get the arrow pointed in the
opposite direction from what was correct.

>
>> And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
>> told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
>> entry...but it completed the exit.
>>
>> I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
>> (2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
>> perform the autopsy on JFK.
>>
>> I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,
>
>Then, doesn't this little vignette shatter Boswell's story that the entry
>was set at the edge of the skull and had to be completed by putting a
>loose fragment in place?

Huh? How? He told the HSCA they completed the entry with a late-arriving skull
piece, and that was wrong. He told it correctly to the ARRB that the little
piece he drew on his face sheet completed the entry. Both statements support the
fact that the entry was along the skull edge. You're dead wrong.

He didn't get the direction completely wrong...he made that slant with the body
right there in front of him! Don't be ridiculous.

>>>You ask where the autopsists said the
>>>entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
>>>entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
>>>"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
>>>wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
>>>caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
>>>dictionary has too!
>>
>> They used the word laceration dozens of times and never associated it with
>> adjective ragged....but you're trying to tell me they assumed everyone
>> would know that when they said there was a laceration they the laceration
>> was ragged?
>
>Maybe that's because lacerations are ragged *by definition*. Having to
>explicitly associate "ragged" with "laceration" is like saying "he's one
>of them thar murderers what kills folks and such." An old joke about the
>grammatical faux pas of "drunken Irishman" comes to mind.

Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.

>> I didn't know lacerations were ragged. Did you before you check Dr.
>> Webster? So you assume that when they said laceration they knew the
>> individuals they were addressing knew that laceration was ragged?
>
>Yes, I did. Someone in an emergency room pointed it out
>to me many years ago.
>
>
>> Do you know they used the word laceration to many lawyers who questioned
>> them over the years? Do you think those lawyers knew that lacerations,
>> according to Dr. Webster, were ragged?
>
>It doesn't matter what the lawyers thought. It matters what Boswell wrote,
>and what that means.

Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.

>> If the entry had been ragged, and I was reporting its description, I sure
>> as hell would have used the word ragged...somewhere, sometime, during all
>> the years following the assassination....not uust on the face sheet.
>
>That's you, but you are not Boswell. 'Nuff said.

Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.

>>>As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
>>>bullet at it hit the head?
>>
>> So the trajectory was ragged and slanting?
>
>More likely that the bullet hit at a noticable slant to perpendicular,

Yes, and that slant was to JFK's right.

>and
>the resulting scalp wound was ragged.

Show me where they said the scalp wound was ragged...and I don't mean on his
face sheet.

>> This is turning into something like the exchanges between Jean and Harris,
>
>It's been like that for a long time. You probably fancy yourself playing
>Jean's role but don't bet on it.

First good guess you've made about any of this stuff.

>>>The autopsy report says wound was measured to
>>>be very oblong (15x6mm),
>>
>> Funny though Humes told the ARRB the entry in the skull was almost round.
>> And jeepers, the HSCA described the entry in the skull as semicircular,
>> not semi-elliptical...and by golly, if you look at the enlargement of the
>> entry in the copy of F8 I posted, one can see it's more circular than
>> elliptical.
>>
>> What's my point you ask? In your mind's eye picture a bullet tunneling up
>> (causing an elliptical defect in the scalp) after contact with his head
>> and then causing a nearly round entry in the skull.
>>
>> Did you do that?
>>
>> Now, either the hole in the skull is also elliptical (meaning a lot of
>> people are seeing things) or the bullet didn't tunnel up through the
>> scalp.
>
>Humes told the ARRB that the wound in the skull was "almost round, but a
>little bit more ovoid."

Not hardly. A little round could mean a LITTLE BIT more ovid. The scalp wound is
not a little bit ovid...it's extremely ovid!

Now does the entry in these graphics look extemely ovid or elliptical likt the
scalp wound?

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

>You seem to have missed the latter part of the
>quote.

No. The later part does not help your silly argument.

>The thing is, we are talking about the hole in the scalp, not the
>one in the skull.

I'm just trying to tell you there was no tunneling. Look at the difference in
the degree of ovidness between the scalp wound and skull wound...it's
dramatic...IOW the bullet couldn't have tunneled up, making an extremely
elliptical scalp wound, and then made a right turn to make a LITTLE MOE OVID
skull wound...that's impossible and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to
figure that out.

>Since skin and bone fail mechanically in different ways
>(and skin is much more tensile), it's a mistake to automatically assume
>that the scalp would correspond exactly

Maybe not exactly, but the two wounds should be reasonably close in shape.

>to the underlying perforation in
>the bone. As for the HSCA, the phrase in question is "semicircular beveled
>defect" seen in F8; given that the upper half of the wound in that photo
>is obscured by membrane and shadow,

Not if Boswell wasn't hallucinating when he said he completed the the entry with
another piece of skull that had the top half in it!

>it appears that intended meaning was
>(semicircular beveled) defect rather than semicircular (beveled defect). I
>don't know how anyone can blithely assume the exact shape of the entire
>hole with that much of it hidden.

So the HSCA got it wrong and Boswll was hallucinating again?

Mitch you are playing Harris' role in this play.

>> How about a "magic bullet"?
>>
>> I don't have time to get back into this with you but here's a question for
>> you: Do you think stretching the hell out of the scalp where the entry was
>> might distort the shape of that entry?
>>
>> If you say it might...would it distort it so it were wider or more
>> elliptical.
>>
>> Just food for thought...my opinion...I wasn't there.
>
>Do you really want the rest of us to believe that the autopsists
>got all Silly Putty with JFK's scalp, then measured the size
>of the wound for the record while the hole was distorted so
>far out of shape?

They had no choice. Once they used the stretched scalp to photographically
document the entry they had to measure the entry in that photograph. I don't
think they planned it, but were stuck doing that.

>>>and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
>>>reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
>>>perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.
>>
>> Look at Z-312. Draw a tangent touching JFK's skull near the EOP. Then draw
>> a line decending about 16 degrees to JFK's EOP.
>>
>> The line is pretty much perpindicular to the tangent, isn't it?
>>
>> More food for thought.
>>
>> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
>> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
>> be near the EOP?
>>
>> Honestly, "yes" or "no".
>>
>> If you answer "yes" then you make my kill file...if you answer "no", then
>> there's not much point arguing with you anymore...and I'd hope you'd
>> respect my wishes and not address any more posts to me.
>
>I've already told you what I believe and why in another thread, so I'm not
>sure why you're demanding an answer now.

Can you forgive me and just tell me again, yes or no?

Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
be near the EOP?

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

>The whole "I'm going to take my
>ball and go home if you don't agree with me" act is amazingly childish,
>and really is beneath you. If you insist, I can't stop you, of course.
>However, don't think for a second that I'm going to just sit here in
>silence just to avoid discomfiting you.

Not IMO....what's childish, or better put, foolish at least on my part, is me
wasting my time arguing with you if you're not 100% certain I'm wrong...when I'm
100% certain I'm correct....not about every damn tiny detail, but certainly
about the entry location.

John Canal

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 17, 2012, 7:16:21 PM2/17/12

What, now you're down to calling me a liar? That's sinking pretty low.
IIRC, Harris got his peepee slapped for trying the same on Jean a couple
of months ago, since you like to bring them up, since you now wanna be all
up into their business.

>>>>The second is that the exact
>>>>direction of the arrow is the result of Boswell's deliberate thought and
>>>>action, rather than (say) poor draftsmanship by a note-taker who is not an
>>>>artist or illustrator.
>>>
>>> Now you're reaching. He indicated that "something" was slanted, didn't he?
>>> Then, low and behold, we see a slanted arrow, don't we? And jeepers, the
>>> skull edge extends to JFK's left from the entry (see F8) and the arrow
>>> juuuust happens to extend from the little circle, doesn't it. Just a
>>> coincidence? Oh that's right, Mitch is fine with coincidences....any
>>> coincidence.
>>
>>As already mentioned, "ragged" is a word used to refer to soft materials
>>like fabrics, rather than hard ones like bone, so the notation argues
>>against your notion from the get-go.
>
> And you think Boswell knew that the word "ragged" refers to only to saof
> materials? Jeeze what crap.
>
> Doubleday's Thesaurus gives a couple alternative words to use in place of ragged
> that you might find interesting..they are "uneven" and jagged". Get my point? Of
> course you don't.

If you want engage in thesaurus-to-thesaurus combat, look up "ragged" in
the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary. You can find an
online version here:

http://libra.englang.arts.gla.ac.uk/historicalthesaurus/synonym.php

Look at how many references to clothing you find under "ragged." As I've
said, the primary meaning (and fundamental connotation) of ragged revolved
around clothing. Jagged is, well, a bit different, even if the authors
cited by Roget needed one more synonym.

"Jagged" is, however, one of those frightfully common Anglo-Saxon words
that we all master as children. Why then would Boswell use "ragged" to
refer to something better described as "jagged," if that's what he meant?

>>For that matter, would Boswell really
>>draw a slanting line to show a slanting whatever, then write out
>>"slanting" next to it just in case someone couldn't think of the right
>>word to describe the line? Really?
>
> That's more likely than him drawing the arrow the wrong direction.

By all accounts, the autopsists didn't determine the exit perforation
until the bone fragments recovered in Dallas and the limousine were
brought in at the very end of the autopsy. The entry was a bit more
obvious and was discovered early on. Finck noted to Blumberg that Humes
pointed it out when Finck joined the autopsy. The cratering at the entry
site made figuring out the direction easy. Boswell easily could have drawn
in an arrow to show bullet direction long before the location of the exit
were known....which will mean that the arrow is facing the wrong direction
50% of the time, assuming a random distribution.

>>The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
>>notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
>>little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow.
>
> That line doesn't touch the entry and if he was referring to the entry, it was
> along the edge of the skull that was slanting.

The line may not actually touch the entry, but is obviously meant to refer
to it. Anyone needing to understand what I'm talking about can find the
face sheet here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/html/Image0.htm

>>It should be obvious to
>>anyone what he was referring to.
>
> That's to anyone who'd be silly enough to think he slanted the arrow the
> opposite direction from the one it was supposed to point in. The entry slanted
> to JFK's right, not to his left.
>
>>On top of all that, you still labor under
>>the gross misconception that the edge of the skull runs through the entry
>>in F8. Careful (or even half-careful) inspection shows that the edge is
>>about a ruler's width above the entry. So far, you are wrong, wrong,
>>wrong, and wrong. Two more, and you've got a half-dozen.
>
> Are you blind? If so, try getting someone to read 7HSCA para 300 to
> you...slowly. It says they saw a semi-circular beveled defect!!!!!!!!
> Translation for you: it's semicircular because the top half of the entry was in
> a piece of skull that came out....and he drew that on his face sheet.
>
> You're misinterpreting F8, big time.

If you take off the blinders, and examine the photo, you'll see that the
edge of the large defect is about an inch or so above the entry in F8. It
actually does slant down and to (JFK's) right, as the lateral and AP
x-rays demonstrate. Look at the area next to the ruler directly above the
entry. Notice the little section that glistens in the highlight caused by
the photographic illumination reflecting off of the ruler. This is part of
a band of discontinuity in tone and texture that runs from the glistening
bit down and to the right (again, JFK's right) before it disappears behind
a combination of loose membrane and shadow. *That's* the edge of the
broken skull.

If you think I'm misinterpreting the HSCA, please reference the drawings
that Ida Dox drew under the direction of the FPP, particularly this one:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm

As the ancient Chinese sage said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I have the picture. You have a sentence.

>>>>The autopsy protocol sketches are rough and
>>>>schematic, hardly the work of a meticulous Leonardo brushing up a piece
>>>>destined for the Louvre.
>>>
>>> For cripes sake, he said something was "slanted" ...he wouldn't have
>>> written slanted to mean upwards!
>>>
>>> He smply forgot why he drew the arrow slanted left and to save face (not
>>> admit he forgot) he simply said the arrow meant the tunneling went
>>> upwards. You're not naive enough to buy that, right? Tell me it's not so.
>>>
>>> Also he sure as heck didn't want to say he had slanted the arrow for the
>>> entry the wrong direction...they already had him and the other two
>>> autopsists pegged as unqualified (re. the entry location).
>>>
>>> If he was trying to say the tunneling went upwards he would have drawn the
>>> arrow upwards.
>>
>>He said he was trying to show that the bullet was moving forwards.
>
> So he drew the arrow to the front LEFT? Get real.

As I've mentioned, it is unclear (unlikely, really) that Boswell knew of
the exit location when he drew the arrow, and that the direction may just
be a general notation of the bullet's direction through the entry --ie,
forwards-- rather than an attempt to show the exact trajectory through the
head.

>>When
>>illustrators try to show something that would normally be perpendicular to
>>the pane of an image, they skew (slant, if you will) the line to mimic the
>>effect of perspective. The technical term, FWIR, is an oblique projection,
>>and the untrained draftsman will do this instinctively.
>
> That sound like Blennerism...you are trying to complicate this to divert
> attention away from the fact your argument is ridiculous. The entry slanted
> right, not left and, whie you like to think Boswell could get the EOP and
> cowlick confused, he wasn't careless enough to get the arrow pointed in the
> opposite direction from what was correct.

I'm just pointing out how people draw three dimensions of information onto
a two-dimensional sheet of paper. It's not rocket science, its art... 3rd
grade art-class art at that!

>>> And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
>>> told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
>>> entry...but it completed the exit.
>>>
>>> I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
>>> (2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
>>> perform the autopsy on JFK.
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,
>>
>>Then, doesn't this little vignette shatter Boswell's story that the entry
>>was set at the edge of the skull and had to be completed by putting a
>>loose fragment in place?
>
> Huh? How? He told the HSCA they completed the entry with a
> late-arriving skull piece, and that was wrong. He told it correctly to
> the ARRB that the little piece he drew on his face sheet completed
> the entry. Both statements support the fact that the entry was along
> the skull edge. You're dead wrong.

You can't figure out how!? The fragment is at the center of Boswell's
little tale. If he's wrong about the source of the fragment, then there is
a good chance that he's wrong about the destination of the fragment as
well. If Boswell's memory cannot be relied upon, then you have to turn to
the other autopsists, but they have no comfort to give you. When asked,
Finck and Humes said the wound was not bifurcated in the way that Boswell
remembered it. When Boswell tells the HSCA FPP about the split entry,
Humes responds with "I don't remember that in that detail..." To believe
Boswell is to deny Humes and Finck.

But I was referring to the simple fact that "laceration" inherently
implies "ragged," after noting that ragged's origins leave it with a
distinctively textile connotation. Somehow you got ahead of yourself and
got sidetracked.

>>>>You ask where the autopsists said the
>>>>entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
>>>>entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
>>>>"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
>>>>wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
>>>>caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
>>>>dictionary has too!
>>>
>>> They used the word laceration dozens of times and never associated it with
>>> adjective ragged....but you're trying to tell me they assumed everyone
>>> would know that when they said there was a laceration they the laceration
>>> was ragged?
>>
>>Maybe that's because lacerations are ragged *by definition*. Having to
>>explicitly associate "ragged" with "laceration" is like saying "he's one
>>of them thar murderers what kills folks and such." An old joke about the
>>grammatical faux pas of "drunken Irishman" comes to mind.
>
> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.

So you like to repeat, ad nauseum. Your problem here (and it's a problem
that you're ignoring) is that "ragged' and "laceration" go together hand
and hand, by definition.

>>> I didn't know lacerations were ragged. Did you before you check Dr.
>>> Webster? So you assume that when they said laceration they knew the
>>> individuals they were addressing knew that laceration was ragged?
>>
>>Yes, I did. Someone in an emergency room pointed it out
>>to me many years ago.
>>
>>> Do you know they used the word laceration to many lawyers who questioned
>>> them over the years? Do you think those lawyers knew that lacerations,
>>> according to Dr. Webster, were ragged?
>>
>>It doesn't matter what the lawyers thought. It matters what Boswell wrote,
>>and what that means.
>
> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.

Again with the repetition that doesn't address the point at hand!

>>> If the entry had been ragged, and I was reporting its description, I sure
>>> as hell would have used the word ragged...somewhere, sometime, during all
>>> the years following the assassination....not uust on the face sheet.
>>
>>That's you, but you are not Boswell. 'Nuff said.
>
> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.

And more repetition! Almost like you can't reply to these points and need
something to try to divert attention.

>>>>As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
>>>>bullet at it hit the head?
>>>
>>> So the trajectory was ragged and slanting?
>>
>>More likely that the bullet hit at a noticable slant to perpendicular,
>
> Yes, and that slant was to JFK's right.

Ugh, You totally missed this one. Maybe too much Doubleday.

>>and
>>the resulting scalp wound was ragged.
>
> Show me where they said the scalp wound was ragged...and I don't mean on his
> face sheet.

I've already demonstrated that a "laceration" already indicates "ragged."
Ipso facto, when they said "laceration" they said "ragged, too"

>>> This is turning into something like the exchanges between Jean and Harris,
>>
>>It's been like that for a long time. You probably fancy yourself playing
>>Jean's role but don't bet on it.
>
> First good guess you've made about any of this stuff.

Like I said, don't bet on it. Especially after this last go-round.

>>>>The autopsy report says wound was measured to
>>>>be very oblong (15x6mm),
>>>
>>> Funny though Humes told the ARRB the entry in the skull was almost round.
>>> And jeepers, the HSCA described the entry in the skull as semicircular,
>>> not semi-elliptical...and by golly, if you look at the enlargement of the
>>> entry in the copy of F8 I posted, one can see it's more circular than
>>> elliptical.
>>>
>>> What's my point you ask? In your mind's eye picture a bullet tunneling up
>>> (causing an elliptical defect in the scalp) after contact with his head
>>> and then causing a nearly round entry in the skull.
>>>
>>> Did you do that?
>>>
>>> Now, either the hole in the skull is also elliptical (meaning a lot of
>>> people are seeing things) or the bullet didn't tunnel up through the
>>> scalp.
>>
>>Humes told the ARRB that the wound in the skull was "almost round, but a
>>little bit more ovoid."
>
> Not hardly. A little round could mean a LITTLE BIT more ovid. The scalp wound is
> not a little bit ovid...it's extremely ovid!
>
> Now does the entry in these graphics look extemely ovid or elliptical likt the
> scalp wound?
>
> http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

They look like highly compressed and degraded copies, useless for the
level of detail needed here. I have a copy sharp enough to show scratches
on the original image; you can see that the apparent "top" of the entry is
a straight line. It's not the top of the entry perforation, unless you
think round bullets make holes with straight, flat edges. I'm thinking
that the line might be the edge of the blue towel referred to by those
who've seen color versions of the photos in the Archives.

>>You seem to have missed the latter part of the quote.
>
> No. The later part does not help your silly argument.

You're saying you didn't miss the "but a little bit more
ovoid?" It's there in black and white.

>>The thing is, we are talking about the hole in the scalp, not the
>>one in the skull.
>
> I'm just trying to tell you there was no tunneling. Look at the difference in
> the degree of ovidness between the scalp wound and skull wound...it's
> dramatic...IOW the bullet couldn't have tunneled up, making an extremely
> elliptical scalp wound, and then made a right turn to make a LITTLE MOE OVID
> skull wound...that's impossible and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to
> figure that out.

Humes and Boswell both said that there was tunneling. For the record, I've
been informed that it happens, but is the result of the bullet stretching
the scalp by pulling the scalp along with it at impact. This is combined
with the bone temporarily deforming around the entry site before the
failing and allowing the bullet to pass though. The result is that the
scalp and bony wounds are offset somewhat when everything snaps back after
the violence is over. I don't think that Boswell was right when he said
that the tunnel was 15mm long, but I can certainly see some "tunneling"
happen.

>>Since skin and bone fail mechanically in different ways
>>(and skin is much more tensile), it's a mistake to automatically assume
>>that the scalp would correspond exactly
>
> Maybe not exactly, but the two wounds should be reasonably close in shape.

And what would be considered reasonable?

>>to the underlying perforation in
>>the bone. As for the HSCA, the phrase in question is "semicircular beveled
>>defect" seen in F8; given that the upper half of the wound in that photo
>>is obscured by membrane and shadow,
>
> Not if Boswell wasn't hallucinating when he said he completed the the entry with
> another piece of skull that had the top half in it!

Not hallucinating. Misremembering. As I've pointed out repeatedly, Humes
and Finck have denied that the entry was partially on a loose piece of
skull.

>>it appears that intended meaning was
>>(semicircular beveled) defect rather than semicircular (beveled defect). I
>>don't know how anyone can blithely assume the exact shape of the entire
>>hole with that much of it hidden.
>
> So the HSCA got it wrong and Boswll was hallucinating again?
>
> Mitch you are playing Harris' role in this play.

Again, Boswell was wrong, confusing the state of the exit with the entry.
As for the HSCA, it should be clear from the Dox drawing (and from Angel's
report) that they did not believe that the entry was split in two by a
loose bone fragment. By the way, who actually wrote what you see in Vol
VII of the HSCA report, the FPP members or congressional staffers?

>>> How about a "magic bullet"?
>>>
>>> I don't have time to get back into this with you but here's a question for
>>> you: Do you think stretching the hell out of the scalp where the entry was
>>> might distort the shape of that entry?
>>>
>>> If you say it might...would it distort it so it were wider or more
>>> elliptical.
>>>
>>> Just food for thought...my opinion...I wasn't there.
>>
>>Do you really want the rest of us to believe that the autopsists
>>got all Silly Putty with JFK's scalp, then measured the size
>>of the wound for the record while the hole was distorted so
>>far out of shape?
>
> They had no choice. Once they used the stretched scalp to photographically
> document the entry they had to measure the entry in that photograph. I don't
> think they planned it, but were stuck doing that.

The fundamental problem with that idea: the wound shown in the BOH photos
isn't close to being 2.5x as long as it is wide, which is what you'd
expect were your hypothesis correct.

The BOH photos show the scalp being held by hand, and there is a ruler
next to the entry available for measurement (if the measurement hadn't
already been performed by then). There is no reason whatsoever the
autopsists could not have just taken another photo with the entry in its
correct location and proportion...and measured it correctly, to boot.

>>>>and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
>>>>reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
>>>>perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.
>>>
>>> Look at Z-312. Draw a tangent touching JFK's skull near the EOP. Then draw
>>> a line decending about 16 degrees to JFK's EOP.
>>>
>>> The line is pretty much perpindicular to the tangent, isn't it?
>>>
>>> More food for thought.
>>>
>>> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
>>> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
>>> be near the EOP?
>>>
>>> Honestly, "yes" or "no".
>>>
>>> If you answer "yes" then you make my kill file...if you answer "no", then
>>> there's not much point arguing with you anymore...and I'd hope you'd
>>> respect my wishes and not address any more posts to me.
>>
>>I've already told you what I believe and why in another thread, so I'm not
>>sure why you're demanding an answer now.
>
> Can you forgive me and just tell me again, yes or no?
>
> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
> be near the EOP?

What I see in F8 is the entry wound about an inch below the edge of the
skull, an edge that in appears in the AP and lateral x-rays inches above
the alleged EOP entry location. I do not see any landmarks in the photo
that I would expect to see were the entry where you put it (the cruciate
eminence, for example). Just like I've said before. Are you happy now?

> THANKS IN ADVANCE.
>
>>The whole "I'm going to take my
>>ball and go home if you don't agree with me" act is amazingly childish,
>>and really is beneath you. If you insist, I can't stop you, of course.
>>However, don't think for a second that I'm going to just sit here in
>>silence just to avoid discomfiting you.
>
> Not IMO....what's childish, or better put, foolish at least on my part, is me
> wasting my time arguing with you if you're not 100% certain I'm wrong...when I'm
> 100% certain I'm correct....not about every damn tiny detail, but certainly
> about the entry location.

!?!? This is no less juvenile at statement as before!

John Canal

unread,

Feb 17, 2012, 10:14:36 PM2/17/12

In article <4f3e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

Ok, I shouldn't have put it that way. I probably should have written
instead that I'd bet my last dime you aren't certain the defect that I
enlarged in the copy of F8 I posted (re. this link) isn't near the EOP.
Right?

My point is, re. Double Day's Thesaurus, that you can't be certain that
Boswell had to be referring to something like scalp when he wrote,
"ragged".

>>>For that matter, would Boswell really
>>>draw a slanting line to show a slanting whatever, then write out
>>>"slanting" next to it just in case someone couldn't think of the right
>>>word to describe the line? Really?
>>
>> That's more likely than him drawing the arrow the wrong direction.
>
>By all accounts, the autopsists didn't determine the exit perforation
>until the bone fragments recovered in Dallas and the limousine were
>brought in at the very end of the autopsy. The entry was a bit more
>obvious and was discovered early on.

Is this a review of JFK's autopsy?

>Finck noted to Blumberg that Humes
>pointed it out when Finck joined the autopsy.

Are you actually trying to say that H&B didn't see the entry when they
reflected the scalp to remove the brain?

>The cratering at the entry
>site made figuring out the direction easy. Boswell easily could have drawn
>in an arrow to show bullet direction long before the location of the exit
>were known....which will mean that the arrow is facing the wrong direction
>50% of the time, assuming a random distribution.

Oh, so he just guessed on the direction? Don't you think he realized that
he was performing an autopsy on the deceased President of the United
States and that his and Humes' performance would be intensly scrutinized?
IOW, no ridiculous guessing on such an important aspect of the
documentation.

You're fishing.

>>>The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
>>>notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
>>>little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow.

Gee, I always thought that was more circular than ovid. Anyway, again, the
line points in that direction, it doesn't not reach what you think is a
little ovoid indicator. Note that the entry , or the bottom half of it
anyway, sets on the edge of the skull that slants in the same direction as
Boswell's arrow.

But then you evidently now think it doesn't rest on the skull edge? A shot
from the storm drain is more believable than that. I wish you could
compose and post for us a graphic for us showing how you think this
semicircular beveled defect sets in relation to the skull edge.

>>That line doesn't touch the entry and if he was referring to the entry, it was
>> along the edge of the skull that was slanting.
>
>The line may not actually touch the entry, but is obviously meant to refer
>to it.

Ah ha, you're a lot older than I thought and you were there in the morgue
on 11-22-63...either that or you now can tell what Boswell was thinking
when he drew that line?

>Anyone needing to understand what I'm talking about can find the
>face sheet here:
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/html/Image0.htm

Gee thanks, I've never seen that before.

>>>It should be obvious to
>>>anyone what he was referring to.
>>
>> That's to anyone who'd be silly enough to think he slanted the arrow the
>>opposite direction from the one it was supposed to point in. The entry slanted
>> to JFK's right, not to his left.
>>
>>>On top of all that, you still labor under
>>>the gross misconception that the edge of the skull runs through the entry
>>>in F8. Careful (or even half-careful) inspection shows that the edge is
>>>about a ruler's width above the entry. So far, you are wrong, wrong,
>>>wrong, and wrong. Two more, and you've got a half-dozen.
>>
>> Are you blind? If so, try getting someone to read 7HSCA para 300 to
>> you...slowly. It says they saw a semi-circular beveled defect!!!!!!!!
>>Translation for you: it's semicircular because the top half of the entry was in
>> a piece of skull that came out....and he drew that on his face sheet.
>>
>> You're misinterpreting F8, big time.
>
>If you take off the blinders, and examine the photo, you'll see that the
>edge of the large defect is about an inch or so above the entry in F8.

Huh? What are you talking about? What's above the entry is the ruler.
You're confused.

See if the graphic this link is to helps.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2534/f8showorientation2.jpg

>It actually does slant down and to (JFK's) right, as the lateral and AP
>x-rays demonstrate. Look at the area next to the ruler directly above the
>entry. Notice the little section that glistens in the highlight caused by
>the photographic illumination reflecting off of the ruler. This is part of
>a band of discontinuity in tone and texture that runs from the glistening
>bit down and to the right (again, JFK's right) before it disappears behind
>a combination of loose membrane and shadow. *That's* the edge of the
>broken skull.
>
>If you think I'm misinterpreting the HSCA, please reference the drawings
>that Ida Dox drew under the direction of the FPP, particularly this one:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm

That drawing has more mistakes than you can count. In the first place the
large skull piece Dox drew flying out of his head was frontal bone, not
parietal. Then the occipital fractures they drew hardly reflect the status
of the rear of JFK's head (hell compare the fractures in the x-ray to the
ones in the drawing)....the skull was in pieces down to near the
EOP....which is exactly why Boswell drew that skull piece that included
the top part of the entry on his face sheet. So, unless the autopsists
were lying or hallucinating if the entry was actually where that drawing
shows it, it (in its entirety) would have been on the table with the other
skull pieces that came loose when they reflected the scalp.

>As the ancient Chinese sage said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
>I have the picture. You have a sentence.

But you have trouble--a lot of it--interpreting pictures...a la F8.

>>>>>The autopsy protocol sketches are rough and
>>>>>schematic, hardly the work of a meticulous Leonardo brushing up a piece
>>>>>destined for the Louvre.
>>>>
>>>> For cripes sake, he said something was "slanted" ...he wouldn't have
>>>> written slanted to mean upwards!
>>>>
>>>> He smply forgot why he drew the arrow slanted left and to save face (not
>>>> admit he forgot) he simply said the arrow meant the tunneling went
>>>> upwards. You're not naive enough to buy that, right? Tell me it's not so.
>>>>
>>>> Also he sure as heck didn't want to say he had slanted the arrow for the
>>>> entry the wrong direction...they already had him and the other two
>>>> autopsists pegged as unqualified (re. the entry location).
>>>>
>>>> If he was trying to say the tunneling went upwards he would have drawn the
>>>> arrow upwards.
>>>
>>>He said he was trying to show that the bullet was moving forwards.
>>
>> So he drew the arrow to the front LEFT? Get real.
>
>As I've mentioned, it is unclear (unlikely, really) that Boswell knew of
>the exit location when he drew the arrow, and that the direction may just
>be a general notation of the bullet's direction through the entry --ie,
>forwards-- rather than an attempt to show the exact trajectory through the
>head.

But the brain they removed showed the front right to be blasted out. Also,
the top/left/front of his skull was relatively intact compared to the
top/front/right...they certainly had some idea that the bullet transited
more to JFK's right than straight forward. And certainly more than to
JFK's left!!!!

>
>>>When
>>>illustrators try to show something that would normally be perpendicular to
>>>the pane of an image, they skew (slant, if you will) the line to mimic the
>>>effect of perspective. The technical term, FWIR, is an oblique projection,
>>>and the untrained draftsman will do this instinctively.
>>
>> That sound like Blennerism...you are trying to complicate this to divert
>> attention away from the fact your argument is ridiculous. The entry slanted
>> right, not left and, whie you like to think Boswell could get the EOP and
>> cowlick confused, he wasn't careless enough to get the arrow pointed in the
>> opposite direction from what was correct.
>
>I'm just pointing out how people draw three dimensions of information onto
>a two-dimensional sheet of paper. It's not rocket science, its art... 3rd
>grade art-class art at that!

And your point as it relates to this "discussion" is?

>>>> And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
>>>> told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
>>>> entry...but it completed the exit.
>>>>
>>>> I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
>>>> (2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
>>>> perform the autopsy on JFK.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,
>>>
>>>Then, doesn't this little vignette shatter Boswell's story that the entry
>>>was set at the edge of the skull and had to be completed by putting a
>>>loose fragment in place?
>>
>> Huh? How? He told the HSCA they completed the entry with a
>> late-arriving skull piece, and that was wrong. He told it correctly to
>> the ARRB that the little piece he drew on his face sheet completed
>> the entry. Both statements support the fact that the entry was along
>> the skull edge. You're dead wrong.
>
>You can't figure out how!?

Believe me I've got all of what you're confused about down pat.

>The fragment is at the center of Boswell's
>little tale.

More degrading of Boswell, eh? Marsh thinks he missed seeing an entry in
JFK's forehead...maybe you both ought to compare notes to see if you can
put together a argument for him being an imposter...IOW, not really a
pathologist, but a bricklayer or janitor?

>If he's wrong about the source of the fragment, then there is
>a good chance that he's wrong about the destination of the fragment as
>well.

Boswell misspoke about the late arriving piece completing the entry 15
years after the fact...he obviously was misremembering. He drew the piece
on his face sheet that night and it showed the top part of a circular
defect, which was obviously the entry....his ARRB testimony is consistent
with that conclusion.

>If Boswell's memory cannot be relied upon,

He sometimes misremembered, but when what he said is consistent with the
other evidence it's obvious that his recollection was accurate.

>then you have to turn to
>the other autopsists, but they have no comfort to give you. When asked,
>Finck and Humes said the wound was not bifurcated in the way that Boswell
>remembered it.

Huh?

>When Boswell tells the HSCA FPP about the split entry,
>Humes responds with "I don't remember that in that detail..." To believe
>Boswell is to deny Humes and Finck.

But Finck testified to the WC that "it was possible to have ENOUGH (my
caps) curvature and enough PORTION (my caps) of the crater...."

Also, in his letter to Blumberg he wrote, "....the skull shows a portion
of a crater..."

How are those statements not consistent with what Boswell said?

Not always....a knife cut could easily be a non-ragged laceration, right?

>after noting that ragged's origins leave it with a
>distinctively textile connotation. Somehow you got ahead of yourself and
>got sidetracked.

No. Your misinterpretation of F8, not to mention a host of other evidence,
is why we're here.

>>>>>You ask where the autopsists said the
>>>>>entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
>>>>>entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
>>>>>"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
>>>>>wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
>>>>>caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
>>>>>dictionary has too!
>>>>
>>>> They used the word laceration dozens of times and never associated it with
>>>> adjective ragged....but you're trying to tell me they assumed everyone
>>>> would know that when they said there was a laceration they the laceration
>>>> was ragged?
>>>
>>>Maybe that's because lacerations are ragged *by definition*. Having to
>>>explicitly associate "ragged" with "laceration" is like saying "he's one
>>>of them thar murderers what kills folks and such." An old joke about the
>>>grammatical faux pas of "drunken Irishman" comes to mind.
>>
>> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.
>
>So you like to repeat, ad nauseum. Your problem here (and it's a problem
>that you're ignoring) is that "ragged' and "laceration" go together hand
>and hand, by definition.

Not always...Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven work as alternatives
for ragged.

>>>> I didn't know lacerations were ragged. Did you before you check Dr.
>>>> Webster? So you assume that when they said laceration they knew the
>>>> individuals they were addressing knew that laceration was ragged?
>>>
>>>Yes, I did. Someone in an emergency room pointed it out
>>>to me many years ago.
>>>
>>>> Do you know they used the word laceration to many lawyers who questioned
>>>> them over the years? Do you think those lawyers knew that lacerations,
>>>> according to Dr. Webster, were ragged?
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter what the lawyers thought. It matters what Boswell wrote,
>>>and what that means.
>>
>> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.
>
>Again with the repetition that doesn't address the point at hand!

Alas, my repetition didn't work...you still don't get it.

>>>> If the entry had been ragged, and I was reporting its description, I sure
>>>> as hell would have used the word ragged...somewhere, sometime, during all
>>>> the years following the assassination....not uust on the face sheet.
>>>
>>>That's you, but you are not Boswell. 'Nuff said.
>>
>> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.
>
>And more repetition! Almost like you can't reply to these points and need
>something to try to divert attention.

Not to divert attention, but to draw it to a point.

>>>>>As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
>>>>>bullet at it hit the head?
>>>>
>>>> So the trajectory was ragged and slanting?
>>>
>>>More likely that the bullet hit at a noticable slant to perpendicular,
>>
>> Yes, and that slant was to JFK's right.
>
>Ugh, You totally missed this one. Maybe too much Doubleday.

The bullet trajectory through JFK's head was from the back to his
top/front/right....they knew that from the the location of the large
defect and the brain damage....IT WASN'T TO JFK'S LEFT!!!!!

Live with it!

>>>and
>>>the resulting scalp wound was ragged.
>>
>> Show me where they said the scalp wound was ragged...and I don't mean on his
>> face sheet.
>
>I've already demonstrated that a "laceration" already indicates "ragged."
>Ipso facto, when they said "laceration" they said "ragged, too"

In your mind they had to be referring to the laceration when he said
ragged...but, IMO, your opinion doesn't count very much, to be frank.

>>>> This is turning into something like the exchanges between Jean and Harris,
>>>
>>>It's been like that for a long time. You probably fancy yourself playing
>>>Jean's role but don't bet on it.
>>
>> First good guess you've made about any of this stuff.
>
>Like I said, don't bet on it. Especially after this last go-round.

You mean this go round where you said the entry was not along the skull
edge?

But Zimmerman, Davis, and Sturdivan, who have seen the very clear
originals STEREOSCOPICALLY agree with me....have you seen the originals?

>>>You seem to have missed the latter part of the quote.
>>
>> No. The later part does not help your silly argument.
>
>You're saying you didn't miss the "but a little bit more
>ovoid?" It's there in black and white.

I didn't miss seeing it, I just didn't note it for you. The bottom line is
that he said "almost round" (yes, a LITTLE BIT ovid)...which is radically
different than the extremely elliptical scalp entry.

But you don't see the conflict there, do you?

>>>The thing is, we are talking about the hole in the scalp, not the
>>>one in the skull.
>>
>> I'm just trying to tell you there was no tunneling. Look at the difference in
>> the degree of ovidness between the scalp wound and skull wound...it's
>> dramatic...IOW the bullet couldn't have tunneled up, making an extremely
>> elliptical scalp wound, and then made a right turn to make a LITTLE MOE OVID
>>skull wound...that's impossible and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to
>> figure that out.
>
>Humes and Boswell both said that there was tunneling.

Of course, after looking at the photos..they had to say that...and they
probably believed it. But ask Boswell to reconcile a little bit ovid
(almost round) with the highly elliptical scalp wound and see what they
say.

>For the record, I've
>been informed that it happens, but is the result of the bullet stretching
>the scalp by pulling the scalp along with it at impact. This is combined
>with the bone temporarily deforming around the entry site before the
>failing and allowing the bullet to pass though. The result is that the
>scalp and bony wounds are offset somewhat when everything snaps back after
>the violence is over. I don't think that Boswell was right when he said
>that the tunnel was 15mm long, but I can certainly see some "tunneling"
>happen.

There might have been a tiny bit of tunneling, but it was
insignificant...and yes, 15 mm is ridiculous.

The scalp wound was distorted when they stretched the scalp....they said
they stretched the scalp...so do you think they were lying or that the
shape of the scalp wound didn't change when they stretched it [the scalp]?

>>>Since skin and bone fail mechanically in different ways
>>>(and skin is much more tensile), it's a mistake to automatically assume
>>>that the scalp would correspond exactly
>>
>> Maybe not exactly, but the two wounds should be reasonably close in shape.
>
>And what would be considered reasonable?

Certainly the shape of the skull wound being a long long ways from 15 mm X
6 mm.

Now, do you need me to elaborate on what I mean by a long long ways?

>>>to the underlying perforation in
>>>the bone. As for the HSCA, the phrase in question is "semicircular beveled
>>>defect" seen in F8; given that the upper half of the wound in that photo
>>>is obscured by membrane and shadow,
>>
>>Not if Boswell wasn't hallucinating when he said he completed the the entry with
>> another piece of skull that had the top half in it!
>
>Not hallucinating. Misremembering.

But he drew that skull piece on his face sheet and what he said was
consistent with what his drawing shows.

And see how the shape of that skull piece fits nicely on JFK's skull as
seen in F8...at least when that photo is interpreted properly.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5728/entrydwgtof8.jpg

>As I've pointed out repeatedly, Humes
>and Finck have denied that the entry was partially on a loose piece of
>skull.

But both Boswell and Finck said the entry was incomplete...so, if we can
see part of the entry (per the HSCA, i.e. beveled semicircular defcet) in
F8 don't you think that means the other aprt of the entry must have been
in another skull piece?

>>>it appears that intended meaning was
>>>(semicircular beveled) defect rather than semicircular (beveled defect). I
>>>don't know how anyone can blithely assume the exact shape of the entire
>>>hole with that much of it hidden.
>>
>> So the HSCA got it wrong and Boswll was hallucinating again?
>>
>> Mitch you are playing Harris' role in this play.
>
>Again, Boswell was wrong, confusing the state of the exit with the entry.

15 years after the fact...he drew the skull piece that night!

>As for the HSCA, it should be clear from the Dox drawing (and from Angel's
>report) that they did not believe that the entry was split in two by a
>loose bone fragment.

The Dox drawing is a joke. Read 7HSCA, para 300....slowly.

>By the way, who actually wrote what you see in Vol
>VII of the HSCA report, the FPP members or congressional staffers?

And of course the FPP didn't read what the staffers wrote, right? Is that
what you think? None of them would have caught such an important mistake,
right?

>>>> How about a "magic bullet"?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to get back into this with you but here's a question for
>>>> you: Do you think stretching the hell out of the scalp where the entry was
>>>> might distort the shape of that entry?
>>>>
>>>> If you say it might...would it distort it so it were wider or more
>>>> elliptical.
>>>>
>>>> Just food for thought...my opinion...I wasn't there.
>>>
>>>Do you really want the rest of us to believe that the autopsists
>>>got all Silly Putty with JFK's scalp, then measured the size
>>>of the wound for the record while the hole was distorted so
>>>far out of shape?
>>
>> They had no choice. Once they used the stretched scalp to photographically
>> document the entry they had to measure the entry in that photograph. I don't
>> think they planned it, but were stuck doing that.
>
>The fundamental problem with that idea: the wound shown in the BOH photos
>isn't close to being 2.5x as long as it is wide, which is what you'd
>expect were your hypothesis correct.

The wound shown in the BOH photos is just about what I'd pretty much
expect if the scalp was stretched...changing the shape of a scalp wound
that was originally a little ovid into one that was 15 mm x 6 mm.

>The BOH photos show the scalp being held by hand, and there is a ruler
>next to the entry available for measurement (if the measurement hadn't
>already been performed by then). There is no reason whatsoever the
>autopsists could not have just taken another photo with the entry in its
>correct location and proportion...and measured it correctly, to boot.

If there were any pictures taken of the BOH before the rear scalp was
stretched, and I doubt any were, they were destroyed. When they took the
ones after it was stretched, I doubt they paid much attention to the fact
the wound moved (was stretched) up and to its shape...they were mostly
interested in the fact those pictures showed an intact BOH.

>>>>>and the pronounced tunneling that the autopsists
>>>>>reported indicate that the bullet struck at an angle well out of
>>>>>perpendicular to the surface of the skull at the point of impact.
>>>>
>>>> Look at Z-312. Draw a tangent touching JFK's skull near the EOP. Then draw
>>>> a line decending about 16 degrees to JFK's EOP.
>>>>
>>>> The line is pretty much perpindicular to the tangent, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> More food for thought.
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
>>>> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
>>>> be near the EOP?
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, "yes" or "no".
>>>>
>>>> If you answer "yes" then you make my kill file...if you answer "no", then
>>>> there's not much point arguing with you anymore...and I'd hope you'd
>>>> respect my wishes and not address any more posts to me.
>>>
>>>I've already told you what I believe and why in another thread, so I'm not
>>>sure why you're demanding an answer now.
>>
>> Can you forgive me and just tell me again, yes or no?
>>
>> Do you honestly feel the circular defect that's below the ruler (as
>> enlarged in the copy of f8 I've posted several times) could not possibly
>> be near the EOP?
>
>What I see in F8 is the entry wound about an inch below the edge of the
>skull, an edge that in appears in the AP and lateral x-rays inches above
>the alleged EOP entry location.

An interpretation which sharply conflicts with what the autopsists saw on
the body and documented and with what Sturdivan and Zimmerman (who were
both unsure of where the entry was before they went to the NA) saw
stereoscopically on the originals.

>I do not see any landmarks in the photo
>that I would expect to see were the entry

Sturdivan says he thinks he saw (stereoscopically on the very clear
originals) the cut edge of the tentorium and the lateral sinus near the
entry.

>where you put it (the cruciate
>eminence, for example).

As far as the autopsy knowledge goes (as compared to what the rest of you
guys know), yes, I'll accept that title.

>Just like I've said before. Are you happy now?

No. Because I don't think for one millisecond that you're 100% ceratin the
autopsists (and other eyewitnesses) as well as Sturdivan and Zimmerman
were/have been wrong...but you still keep arguing..as if you like to argue
and as if you're carrying the flag for McAdams, Fiorentino, et al.

>> THANKS IN ADVANCE.
>>
>>>The whole "I'm going to take my
>>>ball and go home if you don't agree with me" act is amazingly childish,
>>>and really is beneath you. If you insist, I can't stop you, of course.
>>>However, don't think for a second that I'm going to just sit here in
>>>silence just to avoid discomfiting you.
>>
>> Not IMO....what's childish, or better put, foolish at least on my part, is me
>>wasting my time arguing with you if you're not 100% certain I'm wrong...when I'm
>> 100% certain I'm correct....not about every damn tiny detail, but certainly
>> about the entry location.
>
>!?!? This is no less juvenile at statement as before!

Because the meaning cuts to the chase of our "discussions"?

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 5:58:29 PM2/27/12

John,

you wanted to see where I put the skull edge, its at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/75538798@N03/6935115267/in/photostream

John Canal

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 11:38:42 PM2/27/12

In article <4f4b96da$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

>
>John,
>
>you wanted to see where I put the skull edge, its at:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/75538798@N03/6935115267/in/photostream

LOL....as I shake my head in disbelief and roll my eyes at the same time.

Re. what you linked to above, I'll let Marsh explain to you what's wrong
with your supposition....because, at least for the time being, I'm
laughing too hard to respond to your not-so-well-founded (see your above
link, for example) weak attempts to argue that literally dozens of mostly
medically trained eye-witnesses, including the autopsists, were grossly
hallucinating about JFK's head wounds.

Anyway, thanks for the good laughs, Mitch. That said, whereas over these
past many months McAdams has probably been proud of you for pretty much
solely representing the hard-line Badenite LN team (no BOH wound and a
cowlick entry theorists) arging against me, I don't think he'll be
impressed at what you linked to.

I'm sure he'll overlook your mistake though.

:-)

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Mitch Todd

unread,

Feb 29, 2012, 10:27:36 PM2/29/12

Your little Harris-inspired reply conspicuously lacks any substantial
response or comment. I've been rattling 'round the 'tubes long enough to
know when I'm up against someone who knows their only defense is a good
offense, especially when the offense itself is concisely described by the
words "loud" and "vaporous".

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 10:03:16 PM3/1/12

Why are you sugar coating your response? You couldn't get your original
wording around the censors?

Mitch Todd

unread,

May 8, 2012, 5:25:58 PM5/8/12

The cloth/leather/etc connotation is the primary meaning of "ragged." The
"jagged" sense happens when the creative-writing types need a synonym for
"jagged." It undoubtedly helps that they rhyme, too. Boswell wasn't a
longhaired artiste pouring his immortal soul into a novels and odes, so
there's no reason to believe that he meant "jagged," especially when
"jagged" was readily available in his head.

>>>>For that matter, would Boswell really
>>>>draw a slanting line to show a slanting whatever, then write out
>>>>"slanting" next to it just in case someone couldn't think of the right
>>>>word to describe the line? Really?
>>>
>>> That's more likely than him drawing the arrow the wrong direction.
>>
>>By all accounts, the autopsists didn't determine the exit perforation
>>until the bone fragments recovered in Dallas and the limousine were
>>brought in at the very end of the autopsy. The entry was a bit more

>>obvious and was discovered early on. Finck noted to Blumberg that
>>Humes pointed it out when Finck joined the autopsy. The cratering

>>at the entry site made figuring out the direction easy. Boswell easily
>>could have drawn in an arrow to show bullet direction long before
>>the location of the exit were known....which will mean that the arrow
>>is facing the wrong direction 50% of the time, assuming a random
>>distribution.
>
> Oh, so he just guessed on the direction? Don't you think he realized that
> he was performing an autopsy on the deceased President of the United
> States and that his and Humes' performance would be intensly scrutinized?
> IOW, no ridiculous guessing on such an important aspect of the
> documentation.

I'm saying that Boswell drew the arrow to show that the wound at the back
of the head was an entry, and did so before the exit location had been
determined. Since he didn't know where the exit was when he drew the
arrow, it's unrealistic to expect him to have drawn the arrow in the
"correct" direction.

>>>>The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
>>>>notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
>>>>little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow.
>
> Gee, I always thought that was more circular than ovid. Anyway, again, the
> line points in that direction, it doesn't not reach what you think is a
> little ovoid indicator. Note that the entry , or the bottom half of it
> anyway, sets on the edge of the skull that slants in the same direction as
> Boswell's arrow.
>
> But then you evidently now think it doesn't rest on the skull edge? A shot
> from the storm drain is more believable than that. I wish you could
> compose and post for us a graphic for us showing how you think this
> semicircular beveled defect sets in relation to the skull edge.

If I ever thought that the entry was sitting at the edge of the skull
defect, it was a long long time ago. I think I may have entertained the
idea back in the dark ages when the only copies of F8 available were in
_Best_ _Evidence_ and HT2; however, as better and better copies became
available over the internet, I was able to determine where the edge of the
skull was.

Of course, I've already showed you where I think the edge of the broken
skull is.

>>>That line doesn't touch the entry and if he was referring to the entry, it was
>>> along the edge of the skull that was slanting.
>>
>>The line may not actually touch the entry, but is obviously meant to refer
>>to it.
>
> Ah ha, you're a lot older than I thought and you were there in the morgue
> on 11-22-63...either that or you now can tell what Boswell was thinking
> when he drew that line?

That's exactly what you've been doing all along, John! LOL!

>>Anyone needing to understand what I'm talking about can find the
>>face sheet here:
>>
>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/html/Image0.htm
>
> Gee thanks, I've never seen that before.

That was addressed to anyone who joined in and needed a reference. BTW,
that the measurements for the location of the back wound is present on the
face sheet, so why aren't the location measurements for the skull wound on
the sheet?

>>>>It should be obvious to
>>>>anyone what he was referring to.
>>>
>>> That's to anyone who'd be silly enough to think he slanted the arrow the
>>>opposite direction from the one it was supposed to point in. The entry slanted
>>> to JFK's right, not to his left.
>>>
>>>>On top of all that, you still labor under
>>>>the gross misconception that the edge of the skull runs through the entry
>>>>in F8. Careful (or even half-careful) inspection shows that the edge is
>>>>about a ruler's width above the entry. So far, you are wrong, wrong,
>>>>wrong, and wrong. Two more, and you've got a half-dozen.
>>>
>>> Are you blind? If so, try getting someone to read 7HSCA para 300 to
>>> you...slowly. It says they saw a semi-circular beveled defect!!!!!!!!
>>>Translation for you: it's semicircular because the top half of the entry was in
>>> a piece of skull that came out....and he drew that on his face sheet.
>>>
>>> You're misinterpreting F8, big time.
>>
>>If you take off the blinders, and examine the photo, you'll see that the
>>edge of the large defect is about an inch or so above the entry in F8.
>
> Huh? What are you talking about? What's above the entry is the ruler.
> You're confused.
>
> See if the graphic this link is to helps.
>
> http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2534/f8showorientation2.jpg

Good Lord! It looks like someone slathered the skull with pink and cr?me
frosting! Seriously, you can't see any detail in this image at all. If
that's what you are using, no wonder you're having issues seeing the bony
edge.

>>It actually does slant down and to (JFK's) right, as the lateral and AP
>>x-rays demonstrate. Look at the area next to the ruler directly above the
>>entry. Notice the little section that glistens in the highlight caused by
>>the photographic illumination reflecting off of the ruler. This is part of
>>a band of discontinuity in tone and texture that runs from the glistening
>>bit down and to the right (again, JFK's right) before it disappears behind
>>a combination of loose membrane and shadow. *That's* the edge of the
>>broken skull.
>>
>>If you think I'm misinterpreting the HSCA, please reference the drawings
>>that Ida Dox drew under the direction of the FPP, particularly this one:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm
>
> That drawing has more mistakes than you can count. In the first place the
> large skull piece Dox drew flying out of his head was frontal bone, not
> parietal. Then the occipital fractures they drew hardly reflect the status
> of the rear of JFK's head (hell compare the fractures in the x-ray to the
> ones in the drawing)....the skull was in pieces down to near the
> EOP....which is exactly why Boswell drew that skull piece that included
> the top part of the entry on his face sheet. So, unless the autopsists
> were lying or hallucinating if the entry was actually where that drawing
> shows it, it (in its entirety) would have been on the table with the other
> skull pieces that came loose when they reflected the scalp.

My point (and you've tried to argue around it without addressing it)
is that the drawing shows how the HSCA saw the skull damage, and
that they put the entry below the edge of the skull. This is what Baden
presented to the Committee as their conclusions. Wecht took to the
stand not long after Baden and IIRC voiced no objection to it. I
know of no other member of the FPP who has objected. I figure you
haven't either; otherwise we'd have heard about it by now.

I have my own issues with the Dox drawing, but it generally hews to the
x-rays and photos. Where the Dox drawing is wrong, I can understand
why a particular mistake was made. But I see no issue with where
it places the entry.

>>As the ancient Chinese sage said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
>>I have the picture. You have a sentence.
>
> But you have trouble--a lot of it--interpreting pictures...a la F8.

I'm quite confident with my take on the photo.

You're assuming that Boswell was trying to indicate the exact trajectory.
As I keep pointing out, the divination of the exit location happened at
the very end of the autopsy, but the entry was determined not long after
Finck set foot in the room. I'm saying that he was only trying to show
that the bullets path was from outside inwards, and did so before the
point of exit had been discovered.

>>>>When
>>>>illustrators try to show something that would normally be perpendicular to
>>>>the pane of an image, they skew (slant, if you will) the line to mimic the
>>>>effect of perspective. The technical term, FWIR, is an oblique projection,
>>>>and the untrained draftsman will do this instinctively.
>>>
>>> That sound like Blennerism...you are trying to complicate this to divert
>>> attention away from the fact your argument is ridiculous. The entry slanted
>>> right, not left and, whie you like to think Boswell could get the EOP and
>>> cowlick confused, he wasn't careless enough to get the arrow pointed in the
>>> opposite direction from what was correct.
>>
>>I'm just pointing out how people draw three dimensions of information onto
>>a two-dimensional sheet of paper. It's not rocket science, its art... 3rd
>>grade art-class art at that!
>
> And your point as it relates to this "discussion" is?

If you don't get it, no one can help you, John. Mean ol' Idee' Fixe done
grabbed your mind by the bowtie and won't let you think.

>>>>> And Boswell's memory was fading about other issues too. For instance, he
>>>>> told the HSCA one of the late arrving skull pieces completed the
>>>>> entry...but it completed the exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I interviewed him twice (and exchanged letters with him)...the last time
>>>>> (2002) I thought during our talk I might need to remind him he helped
>>>>> perform the autopsy on JFK.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not surprised one bit he forgot why he drew the arrow,
>>>>
>>>>Then, doesn't this little vignette shatter Boswell's story that the entry
>>>>was set at the edge of the skull and had to be completed by putting a
>>>>loose fragment in place?
>>>
>>> Huh? How? He told the HSCA they completed the entry with a
>>> late-arriving skull piece, and that was wrong. He told it correctly to
>>> the ARRB that the little piece he drew on his face sheet completed
>>> the entry. Both statements support the fact that the entry was along
>>> the skull edge. You're dead wrong.
>>
>>You can't figure out how!?
>
> Believe me I've got all of what you're confused about down pat.

Yeah. Except the part where you admit that your own star witness
has quite the problematic memory, then merrily plow along as if it
didn't matter. Do you whistle in the dark, too?

>>The fragment is at the center of Boswell's
>>little tale.
>
> More degrading of Boswell, eh? Marsh thinks he missed seeing an entry in
> JFK's forehead...maybe you both ought to compare notes to see if you can
> put together a argument for him being an imposter...IOW, not really a
> pathologist, but a bricklayer or janitor?

Oh, please!! For years, you've been accusing Humes, Boswell, Finck,
Ebersole, and Burkley and Baden and Fisher and God knows who else of
fabricating evidence and perjuring themselves. And yet you see fit to puff
up all fugu-and-spines when someone else questions the correctness of
Boswell's memory; something you have yourself admitted was notably faulty.

>>If he's wrong about the source of the fragment, then there is
>>a good chance that he's wrong about the destination of the fragment as
>>well.
>
> Boswell misspoke about the late arriving piece completing the entry 15
> years after the fact...he obviously was misremembering. He drew the piece
> on his face sheet that night and it showed the top part of a circular
> defect, which was obviously the entry....his ARRB testimony is consistent
> with that conclusion.

I think that Humes is correct when he stated that this little figure is
the piece the completed the exit, not the entry. The may be more to it
than that, as I'll explain.

When Boswell diagrammed the damage to the skull, he drew the loose
fragments on the left and right side of the defect in situ. Why would he
have treated a fragment that completed the entry separately, but not drawn
the segment that completed the exit at all? If you look at how Boz drew
the forward edge of the defect, you'll see that he first drew a (more or
less) straight line, then came back and drew in a more complex zigzag
affair that is obviously meant to show where the exit was found to be. If
he thought to go back and do that, then why would he not draw the
completing fragment, too?

Here's he part I find interesting:

In Finck's letter to Blumberg, he said that the exit wound was completed
by *two* of the late-arriving fragments put together. Of course, this
isn't in the autopsy report, etc, but.....

The figure that Boswell drew at the bottom of the page has a line running
through it about 3/4 of the way across, starting in the little
semi-circular indentation that indicates the partial perforation. More
interesting, the smaller piece in Boswell's little drawing bears an
uncanny resemblance to the middle-sized of the three late-arriving
fragments. I doubt you'll like it, but it's interesting nonetheless. Of
course, you can try to come up with a better explanation why the figure is
bifurcated.

>>If Boswell's memory cannot be relied upon,
>
> He sometimes misremembered, but when what he said is consistent with the
> other evidence it's obvious that his recollection was accurate.
>
>>then you have to turn to
>>the other autopsists, but they have no comfort to give you. When asked,
>>Finck and Humes said the wound was not bifurcated in the way that Boswell

>>remembered it. When Boswell tells the HSCA FPP about the split entry,

>>Humes responds with "I don't remember that in that detail..." To believe
>>Boswell is to deny Humes and Finck.
>
> But Finck testified to the WC that "it was possible to have ENOUGH (my
> caps) curvature and enough PORTION (my caps) of the crater...."
>
> Also, in his letter to Blumberg he wrote, "....the skull shows a portion
> of a crater..."
>
> How are those statements not consistent with what Boswell said?

In his Blumberg correspondence, Finck also describes the entry as a
"through and through wound." The HSCA asked him whether the wound was on a
loose fragment or attached to the body. That was a perfect opening for him
to say that it was slip by a fracture with one side being on a fragment;
however he answered "attached to the body." You are, I hope, aware, GSWs
don't always display a complete crater around the wound. You can even have
perforations with not one but two partial craters, one on the inside and
one on the outside. It's called a keyhole and is known around here as the
great Marsh hope. Finck is describing just the cratering itself rather
than the perforation as a whole.

A knife cut is properly called an incision. For instance, the autopsy
report's description of the wounds made by Parkland's attempts to insert
chest tubes.

>>after noting that ragged's origins leave it with a
>>distinctively textile connotation. Somehow you got ahead of yourself and
>>got sidetracked.
>
> No. Your misinterpretation of F8, not to mention a host of other evidence,
> is why we're here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>>>>>>You ask where the autopsists said the
>>>>>>entry was ragged. The answer is in the autopsy report. It described the
>>>>>>entry as "a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." Consider the term
>>>>>>"lacerated." Mirriam-Webster defines the word to mean "a torn and ragged
>>>>>>wound;" Wikipedia defines a laceration as "irregular tear-like wounds
>>>>>>caused by some blunt trauma." Not only has Boswell forsaken you, the
>>>>>>dictionary has too!
>>>>>
>>>>> They used the word laceration dozens of times and never associated it with
>>>>> adjective ragged....but you're trying to tell me they assumed everyone
>>>>> would know that when they said there was a laceration they the laceration
>>>>> was ragged?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe that's because lacerations are ragged *by definition*. Having to
>>>>explicitly associate "ragged" with "laceration" is like saying "he's one
>>>>of them thar murderers what kills folks and such." An old joke about the
>>>>grammatical faux pas of "drunken Irishman" comes to mind.
>>>
>>> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.
>>
>>So you like to repeat, ad nauseum. Your problem here (and it's a problem
>>that you're ignoring) is that "ragged' and "laceration" go together hand
>>and hand, by definition.
>
> Not always...Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven work as alternatives
> for ragged.

For frustrated poets, maybe. Not pathologists.

>>>>> I didn't know lacerations were ragged. Did you before you check Dr.
>>>>> Webster? So you assume that when they said laceration they knew the
>>>>> individuals they were addressing knew that laceration was ragged?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I did. Someone in an emergency room pointed it out
>>>>to me many years ago.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you know they used the word laceration to many lawyers who questioned
>>>>> them over the years? Do you think those lawyers knew that lacerations,
>>>>> according to Dr. Webster, were ragged?
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter what the lawyers thought. It matters what Boswell wrote,
>>>>and what that means.
>>>
>>> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.
>>
>>Again with the repetition that doesn't address the point at hand!
>
> Alas, my repetition didn't work...you still don't get it.

Repeating something foolish makes it no less foolish.

>>>>> If the entry had been ragged, and I was reporting its description, I sure
>>>>> as hell would have used the word ragged...somewhere, sometime, during all
>>>>> the years following the assassination....not uust on the face sheet.
>>>>
>>>>That's you, but you are not Boswell. 'Nuff said.
>>>
>>> Doubleday's thesaurus: Jagged or uneven works as alternatives for ragged.
>>
>>And more repetition! Almost like you can't reply to these points and need
>>something to try to divert attention.
>
> Not to divert attention, but to draw it to a point.

To draw it to a point away from the one I just made.

>>>>>>As for slanting, why could it not refer to the presumed trajectory of the
>>>>>>bullet at it hit the head?
>>>>>
>>>>> So the trajectory was ragged and slanting?
>>>>
>>>>More likely that the bullet hit at a noticable slant to perpendicular,
>>>
>>> Yes, and that slant was to JFK's right.
>>
>>Ugh, You totally missed this one. Maybe too much Doubleday.
>
> The bullet trajectory through JFK's head was from the back to his
> top/front/right....they knew that from the the location of the large
> defect and the brain damage....IT WASN'T TO JFK'S LEFT!!!!!
>
> Live with it!

I didn't say it was to the left, or that Boswell meant it that way. You
utterly miss the point.

>>>>and
>>>>the resulting scalp wound was ragged.
>>>
>>> Show me where they said the scalp wound was ragged...and I don't mean on his
>>> face sheet.
>>
>>I've already demonstrated that a "laceration" already indicates "ragged."
>>Ipso facto, when they said "laceration" they said "ragged, too"
>
> In your mind they had to be referring to the laceration when he said
> ragged...but, IMO, your opinion doesn't count very much, to be frank.

Since 'laceration' implies 'ragged' by defintion, yes.

>>>>> This is turning into something like the exchanges between Jean and Harris,
>>>>
>>>>It's been like that for a long time. You probably fancy yourself playing
>>>>Jean's role but don't bet on it.
>>>
>>> First good guess you've made about any of this stuff.
>>
>>Like I said, don't bet on it. Especially after this last go-round.
>
> You mean this go round where you said the entry was not along the skull
> edge?

Yes. Because it's not along the skull edge.

When did Davis claim that he saw the entry nbear the EOP in F8? And
Chad and Sturdivan still aren't exactly considered to be experts in
physical anthropology.

>>>>You seem to have missed the latter part of the quote.
>>>
>>> No. The later part does not help your silly argument.
>>
>>You're saying you didn't miss the "but a little bit more
>>ovoid?" It's there in black and white.
>
> I didn't miss seeing it, I just didn't note it for you. The bottom line is
> that he said "almost round" (yes, a LITTLE BIT ovid)...which is radically
> different than the extremely elliptical scalp entry.
>
> But you don't see the conflict there, do you?

Weirdly, I do, but not in a way that will give you any pleasure.

>>>>The thing is, we are talking about the hole in the scalp, not the
>>>>one in the skull.
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to tell you there was no tunneling. Look at the difference in
>>> the degree of ovidness between the scalp wound and skull wound...it's
>>> dramatic...IOW the bullet couldn't have tunneled up, making an extremely
>>> elliptical scalp wound, and then made a right turn to make a LITTLE MOE OVID
>>>skull wound...that's impossible and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to
>>> figure that out.
>>
>>Humes and Boswell both said that there was tunneling.
>
> Of course, after looking at the photos..they had to say that...and they
> probably believed it. But ask Boswell to reconcile a little bit ovid
> (almost round) with the highly elliptical scalp wound and see what they
> say.

The BOH photos don't show a highly elliptical wound. The 15x6mm
measurement is from Boswell's notes and the autopsy protocol itself. So
you complain that the autopsists could not have possibly been wrong about
the location of the wound, but were grossly off as to its size and shape.
And that they have been lying about a lot of stuff. Oh, and Boswell
coudn't remember his own shoe size. Almost forgot about that one.

>>For the record, I've
>>been informed that it happens, but is the result of the bullet stretching
>>the scalp by pulling the scalp along with it at impact. This is combined
>>with the bone temporarily deforming around the entry site before the
>>failing and allowing the bullet to pass though. The result is that the
>>scalp and bony wounds are offset somewhat when everything snaps back after
>>the violence is over. I don't think that Boswell was right when he said
>>that the tunnel was 15mm long, but I can certainly see some "tunneling"
>>happen.
>
> There might have been a tiny bit of tunneling, but it was
> insignificant...and yes, 15 mm is ridiculous.
>
> The scalp wound was distorted when they stretched the scalp....they said
> they stretched the scalp...so do you think they were lying or that the
> shape of the scalp wound didn't change when they stretched it [the scalp]?

Doesn't work for you. The entry wound in the BOH photos doesn't have the
proportions of a 15 x 6mm wound; in fact, it looks like the "almost round"
wound of Humes' description, yet you would have us believe that the photo
was taken after the scalp was considerably stretched ...stretched 5" or
so.

>>>>Since skin and bone fail mechanically in different ways
>>>>(and skin is much more tensile), it's a mistake to automatically assume
>>>>that the scalp would correspond exactly
>>>
>>> Maybe not exactly, but the two wounds should be reasonably close in shape.
>>
>>And what would be considered reasonable?
>
> Certainly the shape of the skull wound being a long long ways from 15 mm X
> 6 mm.
>
> Now, do you need me to elaborate on what I mean by a long long ways?

You don't have a photo of the complete wound. how can you say that?

>>>>to the underlying perforation in
>>>>the bone. As for the HSCA, the phrase in question is "semicircular beveled
>>>>defect" seen in F8; given that the upper half of the wound in that photo
>>>>is obscured by membrane and shadow,
>>>
>>>Not if Boswell wasn't hallucinating when he said he completed the the entry with
>>> another piece of skull that had the top half in it!
>>
>>Not hallucinating. Misremembering.
>
> But he drew that skull piece on his face sheet and what he said was
> consistent with what his drawing shows.
>
> And see how the shape of that skull piece fits nicely on JFK's skull as
> seen in F8...at least when that photo is interpreted properly.
>
> http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5728/entrydwgtof8.jpg

It doesn't. After all, where does the fragment show up in the x-rays?

>>As I've pointed out repeatedly, Humes
>>and Finck have denied that the entry was partially on a loose piece of
>>skull.
>
> But both Boswell and Finck said the entry was incomplete...so, if we can
> see part of the entry (per the HSCA, i.e. beveled semicircular defcet) in
> F8 don't you think that means the other aprt of the entry must have been
> in another skull piece?

Finck only said the crater was incomplete, and even that occurs only once
in a sequence of statements that conspicuously fail to endorse a
bifurcated, half-in half-out wound. Even when Finck was specifically
asked to clarify.

>>>>it appears that intended meaning was
>>>>(semicircular beveled) defect rather than semicircular (beveled defect). I
>>>>don't know how anyone can blithely assume the exact shape of the entire
>>>>hole with that much of it hidden.
>>>
>>> So the HSCA got it wrong and Boswll was hallucinating again?
>>>
>>> Mitch you are playing Harris' role in this play.
>>
>>Again, Boswell was wrong, confusing the state of the exit with the entry.
>
> 15 years after the fact...he drew the skull piece that night!

This doesn't make sense. Did he really draw the skull fragment 15 years
later that night? BTW, you realize the inherent incongruity of relying on
the testimony of a man whose memory is, as you are the first to admit,
prone to being spotty?

>>As for the HSCA, it should be clear from the Dox drawing (and from Angel's
>>report) that they did not believe that the entry was split in two by a
>>loose bone fragment.
>
> The Dox drawing is a joke. Read 7HSCA, para 300....slowly.

The Dox drawing is what Wecht and Baden got up and testified to, and w
which none of the HSCA FPs objected to. Against that, all you have is a
single sentence of unknown patrimony.

>>By the way, who actually wrote what you see in Vol
>>VII of the HSCA report, the FPP members or congressional staffers?
>
> And of course the FPP didn't read what the staffers wrote, right? Is that
> what you think? None of them would have caught such an important mistake,
> right?

I doubt that they considered that particular matter important. Just
because its a big deal for you doesn't mean it's a big deal for the pros.
Anyhow, one of the major complaints I seen over the years concerning the
way HSCA was run was that it was highly compartmentalized, and the various
experts were kept in the dark about what the other hand was up to. In
particular I remember something about Canning's trajectory group having
problems getting data from the FPP side. Wouldn't surpise me one bit if
any of the expert groups saw their reports as printed...until they were
actually printed and bound.

>>>>> How about a "magic bullet"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have time to get back into this with you but here's a question for
>>>>> you: Do you think stretching the hell out of the scalp where the entry was
>>>>> might distort the shape of that entry?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say it might...would it distort it so it were wider or more
>>>>> elliptical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just food for thought...my opinion...I wasn't there.
>>>>
>>>>Do you really want the rest of us to believe that the autopsists
>>>>got all Silly Putty with JFK's scalp, then measured the size
>>>>of the wound for the record while the hole was distorted so
>>>>far out of shape?
>>>
>>> They had no choice. Once they used the stretched scalp to photographically
>>> document the entry they had to measure the entry in that photograph. I don't
>>> think they planned it, but were stuck doing that.
>>
>>The fundamental problem with that idea: the wound shown in the BOH photos
>>isn't close to being 2.5x as long as it is wide, which is what you'd
>>expect were your hypothesis correct.
>
> The wound shown in the BOH photos is just about what I'd pretty much
> expect if the scalp was stretched...changing the shape of a scalp wound
> that was originally a little ovid into one that was 15 mm x 6 mm.

In your dreams, cowboy. The wound seen in the BOH photo is only 1.5x
as long as wide, not 2.5x.

>>The BOH photos show the scalp being held by hand, and there is a ruler
>>next to the entry available for measurement (if the measurement hadn't
>>already been performed by then). There is no reason whatsoever the
>>autopsists could not have just taken another photo with the entry in its
>>correct location and proportion...and measured it correctly, to boot.
>
> If there were any pictures taken of the BOH before the rear scalp was
> stretched, and I doubt any were, they were destroyed. When they took the
> ones after it was stretched, I doubt they paid much attention to the fact
> the wound moved (was stretched) up and to its shape...they were mostly
> interested in the fact those pictures showed an intact BOH.

So they took a number of photographs specifically of the entry wound in
the scalp with a ruler placed next to it for scale, but failed to notice
that the dimensions would be way off due to their stretching? And yet you
sneer at anyone who suggests that they might not have located the wound
correctly. Really! You really expect us to believe that?

Of course you'd also have us believe that they went to all the trouble to
falsify photographic and x-ray evidence to hornschnookle the rest of us
into believing that the wound was near the cowlick, then turn around and
certify that they wound was near the EOP. I guess they were attempting to
prove that the #3 theorum of the Three Stooges was correct: a plan that
crazy has GOT to work!

Did Larry and Chad actually say that the edge of the skull is where you
say it is?

>>I do not see any landmarks in the photo that I would expect to see

>> were the entry where you put it (the cruciate eminence, for example).

>
> Sturdivan says he thinks he saw (stereoscopically on the very clear
> originals) the cut edge of the tentorium and the lateral sinus near the
> entry.
>

> As far as the autopsy knowledge goes (as compared to what the rest of you
> guys know), yes, I'll accept that title.

[John kinda murdered my sentence here by splitting it in two. I've taken
the liberty to put it back together, and moved his responses accordingly.
I was gentle, I swear, and addedor subtracted nothing]

You don't agree with Larry on the tentorium, so I'm not sure why you keep
bringing it up.

>>Just like I've said before. Are you happy now?
>
> No. Because I don't think for one millisecond that you're 100% ceratin the
> autopsists (and other eyewitnesses) as well as Sturdivan and Zimmerman
> were/have been wrong...but you still keep arguing..as if you like to argue
> and as if you're carrying the flag for McAdams, Fiorentino, et al.
>
>>> THANKS IN ADVANCE.
>>>
>>>>The whole "I'm going to take my
>>>>ball and go home if you don't agree with me" act is amazingly childish,
>>>>and really is beneath you. If you insist, I can't stop you, of course.
>>>>However, don't think for a second that I'm going to just sit here in
>>>>silence just to avoid discomfiting you.
>>>
>>> Not IMO....what's childish, or better put, foolish at least on my part, is me
>>>wasting my time arguing with you if you're not 100% certain I'm wrong...when I'm
>>> 100% certain I'm correct....not about every damn tiny detail, but certainly
>>> about the entry location.
>>
>>!?!? This is no less juvenile at statement as before!
>
> Because the meaning cuts to the chase of our "discussions"?

Well, yes. Just not in a way that flatters you. Once you were certain that
you were going to restore the honor of Humes, Boswell, and Finck in a
Congressional hearing. Years and a pile of rejection notices later, you
are down to arguing that you must be right because you are 100% ironclad
certain and (you claim) I am not.

BTW, what ever did happen to that article that you were going to get
published in an important online mag? I'd always assumed it was Salon.

John Canal

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:42:15 PM5/8/12

In article <4fa8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

I shouldn't even waste my time discussing these matters with you...not after
that ridiculous graphic you posted.

Look, the HSCA used a stereoscopic viewer ON THE ORIGINALS to conclude the
entry was a semicircular beveled defect...translation: F8 shows the bottom
half of the entry along the top margin of the remaining rear skull.

Boswell testified that the skull piece he drew on his face sheet included
the top half of the entry...translation: F8 shows the bottom half of the
entry along the top margin of the remaining rear skull.

Sturdivan and Zimmerman used a stereoscopic viewer ON THE ORIGINALS to
conclude the entry was a semicircular beveled defect...translation: F8
shows the bottom half of the entry along the top margin of the remaining
rear skull.

Your attempt to reason that it was an uninformed (?) rogue (writing away
on his own, evidently not worrying (?) whether or not the FPP members
would review or read what he wrote) who mistakenly wrote that the defect
was a semicircular beveled one...is laughable...check that...it compares
to the logic Marsh uses to form his wacky theories.

So you think that he drew the arrow markedly slanted to the left to show
that the bullet was going back to front?

I realize you think he was sloppy and/or about as competent an autopsist
as a plummer, but come on..they knew the bullet went from the rear of the
head to somewhere in the top right front, IOW the direction was slanted to
the front right...cripes, that part of his head was blown out.

Give him just a little credit for a change.

>>>>>For that matter, would Boswell really
>>>>>draw a slanting line to show a slanting whatever, then write out
>>>>>"slanting" next to it just in case someone couldn't think of the right
>>>>>word to describe the line? Really?
>>>>
>>>> That's more likely than him drawing the arrow the wrong direction.
>>>
>>>By all accounts, the autopsists didn't determine the exit perforation
>>>until the bone fragments recovered in Dallas and the limousine were
>>>brought in at the very end of the autopsy. The entry was a bit more
>>>obvious and was discovered early on. Finck noted to Blumberg that
>>>Humes pointed it out when Finck joined the autopsy. The cratering
>>>at the entry site made figuring out the direction easy. Boswell easily
>>>could have drawn in an arrow to show bullet direction long before
>>>the location of the exit were known....which will mean that the arrow
>>>is facing the wrong direction 50% of the time, assuming a random
>>>distribution.
>>
>> Oh, so he just guessed on the direction? Don't you think he realized that
>> he was performing an autopsy on the deceased President of the United
>> States and that his and Humes' performance would be intensly scrutinized?
>> IOW, no ridiculous guessing on such an important aspect of the
>> documentation.
>
>I'm saying that Boswell drew the arrow to show that the wound at the back
>of the head was an entry, and did so before the exit location had been
>determined.

Yes, way before the exit location had been determined...but not before the
general back to top/front/right direction had been obvious....you know the
top/right/front where most of the bone was blown out from.

If he didn't have any idea that the bullet's direction was towards the
front right, than why on earth didn't he simply draw the arrow going
forward?

>Since he didn't know where the exit was when he drew the
>arrow, it's unrealistic to expect him to have drawn the arrow in the
>"correct" direction.

Really? So says you....the same guy who's figured out from the copies of
F8 that he's examined that the HSCA staffer, Boswell, and Zimmerman and
Sturdivan were wrong to say the defect, as seen in F8, was beveled and
semicircular?

Sure, I follow your logic about the arrow direction...but I've seen
better. Marsh, where are you when you're being referred to?

:-)

>>>>>The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
>>>>>notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
>>>>>little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow.
>>
>> Gee, I always thought that was more circular than ovid. Anyway, again, the
>> line points in that direction, it doesn't not reach what you think is a
>> little ovoid indicator. Note that the entry , or the bottom half of it
>> anyway, sets on the edge of the skull that slants in the same direction as
>> Boswell's arrow.
>>
>> But then you evidently now think it doesn't rest on the skull edge? A shot
>> from the storm drain is more believable than that. I wish you could
>> compose and post for us a graphic for us showing how you think this
>> semicircular beveled defect sets in relation to the skull edge.
>
>If I ever thought that the entry was sitting at the edge of the skull
>defect, it was a long long time ago.

Oh, you changed your mind when you saw the originals stereoscopically?

>I think I may have entertained the
>idea back in the dark ages when the only copies of F8 available were in
>_Best_ _Evidence_ and HT2; however, as better and better copies became
>available over the internet, I was able to determine where the edge of the
>skull was.

Sort of like Marsh was able to determine from the copies that Humes missed
seeing on the body a bullet entry wound above his right eye?

Good for you both.

>Of course, I've already showed you where I think the edge of the broken
>skull is.

Yah, I got a chuckle out of that...and I printed out your graphic to look
at anytime I get tempted to respect your views.

>>>>That line doesn't touch the entry and if he was referring to the entry, it was
>>>> along the edge of the skull that was slanting.
>>>
>>>The line may not actually touch the entry, but is obviously meant to refer
>>>to it.
>>
>> Ah ha, you're a lot older than I thought and you were there in the morgue
>> on 11-22-63...either that or you now can tell what Boswell was thinking
>> when he drew that line?
>
>That's exactly what you've been doing all along, John! LOL!

I'm glad you think this is funny...I think it's kind of sad. You're not
representing the McAdams hard-line club too well IMO.

>>>Anyone needing to understand what I'm talking about can find the
>>>face sheet here:
>>>
>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/html/Image0.htm
>>
>> Gee thanks, I've never seen that before.
>
>That was addressed to anyone who joined in and needed a reference. BTW,
>that the measurements for the location of the back wound is present on the
>face sheet, so why aren't the location measurements for the skull wound on
>the sheet?

Gee, maybe you didn't notice that the entry is directly below the 2.5 cm
mark on the ruler (the replications show that the edge of that ruler is at
midline)...and maybe they thought the person examining the original photo
could recognize the IOP (Internal Occipital Protuberance) and therefore
tell where the entry was?

That graphic was to show the "orientation" of F8, that's all.

So Baden et al really wouldn't have had the staffer write 7HSCA, para 300
the way he did...i.e., that the defect was a semicircular beveled one?

>I have my own issues with the Dox drawing, but it generally hews to the
>x-rays and photos. Where the Dox drawing is wrong, I can understand
>why a particular mistake was made. But I see no issue with where
>it places the entry.

So HB&F must have been smoking that funny stuff when they wrote in the
autopsy report that the rear skull was fragmented alll the way down to
near the EOP?????

Heck they must have been because the Dox drawing hardly shows the entry in
fragmented bone.

Of course you've trashed just about everything else the autopsists
stated..so why not that too?

>>>As the ancient Chinese sage said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
>>>I have the picture. You have a sentence.
>>
>> But you have trouble--a lot of it--interpreting pictures...a la F8.
>
>I'm quite confident with my take on the photo.

So there was no semicircular beveled defect seen in F8, per 7HSCA, para
300?

Mitch, that's a good comment to end this on...I just remembered, I've got
something more pressing to do (the Red Sox vs. Athletics game) than to
read your sillyness.

John Canal

[...]

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 9, 2012, 12:35:09 PM5/9/12

On 5/8/2012 11:42 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4fa8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>
> I shouldn't even waste my time discussing these matters with you...not after
> that ridiculous graphic you posted.
>
> Look, the HSCA used a stereoscopic viewer ON THE ORIGINALS to conclude the
> entry was a semicircular beveled defect...translation: F8 shows the bottom
> half of the entry along the top margin of the remaining rear skull.
>
> Boswell testified that the skull piece he drew on his face sheet included
> the top half of the entry...translation: F8 shows the bottom half of the
> entry along the top margin of the remaining rear skull.
>
> Sturdivan and Zimmerman used a stereoscopic viewer ON THE ORIGINALS to
> conclude the entry was a semicircular beveled defect...translation: F8
> shows the bottom half of the entry along the top margin of the remaining
> rear skull.
>

And yet you keep claiming that the entrance was a complete hole embedded
low in intact skull.

The reason why he drew that arrow does not have to coincide with the
excuse he gave for doing that.

> I realize you think he was sloppy and/or about as competent an autopsist
> as a plummer, but come on..they knew the bullet went from the rear of the

Well, that's not as bad as your thinking that he was the mastermind of
the conspiracy.

> head to somewhere in the top right front, IOW the direction was slanted to
> the front right...cripes, that part of his head was blown out.
>
> Give him just a little credit for a change.
>

Nope.

Does the arrow go forward or just to the left?

>> Since he didn't know where the exit was when he drew the
>> arrow, it's unrealistic to expect him to have drawn the arrow in the
>> "correct" direction.
>
> Really? So says you....the same guy who's figured out from the copies of
> F8 that he's examined that the HSCA staffer, Boswell, and Zimmerman and
> Sturdivan were wrong to say the defect, as seen in F8, was beveled and
> semicircular?
>
> Sure, I follow your logic about the arrow direction...but I've seen
> better. Marsh, where are you when you're being referred to?

Not sure which person you want me to attack. So many targets, so little
time.

>
> :-)
>
>>>>>> The kicker is that Boswell drew a line from the "ragged, slanting"
>>>>>> notation and the object he was referring to. That line points to the
>>>>>> little ovoid that marks the entry, not the arrow.
>>>
>>> Gee, I always thought that was more circular than ovid. Anyway, again, the
>>> line points in that direction, it doesn't not reach what you think is a
>>> little ovoid indicator. Note that the entry , or the bottom half of it
>>> anyway, sets on the edge of the skull that slants in the same direction as
>>> Boswell's arrow.
>>>
>>> But then you evidently now think it doesn't rest on the skull edge? A shot
>>> from the storm drain is more believable than that. I wish you could
>>> compose and post for us a graphic for us showing how you think this
>>> semicircular beveled defect sets in relation to the skull edge.
>>
>> If I ever thought that the entry was sitting at the edge of the skull
>> defect, it was a long long time ago.
>
> Oh, you changed your mind when you saw the originals stereoscopically?
>

Tell us about when you saw the originals. Hell, you didn't even see the
Fox set.

>> I think I may have entertained the
>> idea back in the dark ages when the only copies of F8 available were in
>> _Best_ _Evidence_ and HT2; however, as better and better copies became
>> available over the internet, I was able to determine where the edge of the
>> skull was.
>
> Sort of like Marsh was able to determine from the copies that Humes missed
> seeing on the body a bullet entry wound above his right eye?
>

Copies?

Mainly to point out that the foreground is the forehead not the back of
the head.

Maybe someone told them to write that.
It was actually fractured BELOW the EOP. The fracturing did not end at
the EOP.

> Heck they must have been because the Dox drawing hardly shows the entry in
> fragmented bone.
>
> Of course you've trashed just about everything else the autopsists
> stated..so why not that too?
>

So little time, so much work to do.

Mitch Todd

unread,

May 13, 2012, 5:05:11 PM5/13/12

Ah, the Top Post! A favored tactic of those who hope that the readers just
reads the top before wading into the detailed stuff below it. Well,
actually, you seem to have given up somewhere around half way and deleted
the rest. Have it your way then... sauce, goose, gander, and all.

It's all the same stuff anyway. No matter how many times you bring up
paragraph 300, the simple fact remains that the Dox drawing is what the
FPP actually stood up and testified to in front of the HSCA. The same Dox
drawing completely contradicts your read on P300, and you don't understand
(or refuse to admit) that "semicircular beveled defect" can mean
"(semicircular beveled) defect" as well as "semicircular (beveled
defect)".

Per longstanding tradition, you bring Chad and Larry into the discussion,
but I keep noticing that you omit something. Where do Chad and Larry put
the edge of the skull, which is the really important issue? I notice
you're very careful to talk around that.

I've already addressed the bit about Boswell and the fragment diagram,
though I think you deleted it in your reply for some reason. It still
tickles me that you claim that Boswell had a shoddy memory and perjured
himself by falsifying evidence, yet have no problem believing the guy even
when the other two autopsists contradict him.

BTW, If the graphic I put on Flickr is so ridiculous, then it shouldn't be
so hard to come up with specific reasons as to why. So far, you've managed
is to dust off a couple of flaccid attempts at ridicule before splitting
the scene post haste.

Oh, I'd really like to know how the article you were writing for the
prominent online publication turned out.

I am. I'm saying that he did what everyone else does when they want to
indicate a third dimension on a two dimensional drawing: he drew the third
dimensions at an angle to the other two. I honestly have no idea why the
concept is so difficult for you.

He did. Say you have a two-dimensional coordinate system, which is a
mathematical description of a sheet of paper. Now let's say you want to
indicate a third dimension on the sheet. The way to do it is to draw the
third dimension obliquiely to the other two, which is what Boswell did.

>>Since he didn't know where the exit was when he drew the
>>arrow, it's unrealistic to expect him to have drawn the arrow in the
>>"correct" direction.
>
> Really? So says you....the same guy who's figured out from the copies of
> F8 that he's examined that the HSCA staffer, Boswell, and Zimmerman and
> Sturdivan were wrong to say the defect, as seen in F8, was beveled and
> semicircular?

I don't think that Chad or Larry

And still, you can't think of an actual refutation.

>>>>>That line doesn't touch the entry and if he was referring to the entry, it was
>>>>> along the edge of the skull that was slanting.
>>>>
>>>>The line may not actually touch the entry, but is obviously meant to refer
>>>>to it.
>>>
>>> Ah ha, you're a lot older than I thought and you were there in the morgue
>>> on 11-22-63...either that or you now can tell what Boswell was thinking
>>> when he drew that line?
>>
>>That's exactly what you've been doing all along, John! LOL!
>
> I'm glad you think this is funny...I think it's kind of sad. You're not
> representing the McAdams hard-line club too well IMO.

Apparently, your formula for winning an argument is:

1. get into an argument
2. declare yourself the winner.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

>>>>Anyone needing to understand what I'm talking about can find the
>>>>face sheet here:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/html/Image0.htm
>>>
>>> Gee thanks, I've never seen that before.
>>
>>That was addressed to anyone who joined in and needed a reference. BTW,
>>that the measurements for the location of the back wound is present on the
>>face sheet, so why aren't the location measurements for the skull wound on
>>the sheet?
>
> Gee, maybe you didn't notice that the entry is directly below the 2.5 cm
> mark on the ruler (the replications show that the edge of that ruler is at
> midline)...and maybe they thought the person examining the original photo
> could recognize the IOP (Internal Occipital Protuberance) and therefore
> tell where the entry was?

And other than your need for it to be true, the evidence for this theory
is?

I have yet to find anyone who can recognize the IOP in F8. You haven't
brought up anyone, so I don't think you do, either. Anyway, The IOP's
location can't be counted on to correspond to that of the EOP, so your
assertion makes no sense to begin with. While I'm at it, if they would
rely on a ruler in the photo for the location of the head wound, why not
also for the back wound? After all, there's a scale there too!

The attempt at colorizing the different bits wasn't a bad idea, but you
needed a better tool to do it: the effect of the colorization was to
obscure as much as it cleared up. I doubt that's the effect you were
after.

By the way, your orientation is off. For instance, the crack seen in F8
between the bone flap and the exit semicircle is over the outer corner of
the right orbit, as seen in the autopsy photos of the right side of the
head.

You'd really have us believe that Baden sat over the staffer(s) who
actually wrote Vol VII and dictated it?

>>I have my own issues with the Dox drawing, but it generally hews to the
>>x-rays and photos. Where the Dox drawing is wrong, I can understand
>>why a particular mistake was made. But I see no issue with where
>>it places the entry.
>
> So HB&F must have been smoking that funny stuff when they wrote in the
> autopsy report that the rear skull was fragmented alll the way down to
> near the EOP?????

Where does the autopsy report specifically say that the skull was
fragmented down to the EOP? Maybe you're the one smoking stuff?

> Heck they must have been because the Dox drawing hardly shows the entry in
> fragmented bone.

Like I said, the Dox drawing shows the HSCA FPPs conclusions as to the
skull wound. We know it represents their thinking because that's what
Baden and Wecht testified to on the stand.

> Of course you've trashed just about everything else the autopsists
> stated..so why not that too?

The only thing I've really taken issue with is the lower entry wound
location. You're the one who's claiming that they perjured themselves
and falsified evidence.

>>>>As the ancient Chinese sage said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
>>>>I have the picture. You have a sentence.
>>>
>>> But you have trouble--a lot of it--interpreting pictures...a la F8.
>>
>>I'm quite confident with my take on the photo.
>
> So there was no semicircular beveled defect seen in F8, per 7HSCA, para
> 300?

There certainly is a semicircular section of cratering shown. However, the
upper half of the wound is hidden by epicranial tissue and shadow in F8,
so there is no way of proving whether the cratering extended above it or
not. The edge of the skull is still about an inch of where you say it is.

John Canal

unread,

May 13, 2012, 7:10:14 PM5/13/12

In article <4faf30d9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

>
>Ah, the Top Post! A favored tactic of those who hope that the readers just
>reads the top before wading into the detailed stuff below it.

It's also a tactic of mine that I use whenever someone who's arguing with
me ignores the evidence that shows he's wrong...but continues to argue,
IMO, because he wants to carry the day for team McAdams and the rest of
the "All those who saw the body were hallucinating club".

>Well,
>actually, you seem to have given up somewhere around half way and deleted
>the rest. Have it your way then... sauce, goose, gander, and all.
>
>It's all the same stuff anyway. No matter how many times you bring up
>paragraph 300, the simple fact remains that the Dox drawing is what the
>FPP actually stood up and testified to in front of the HSCA. The same Dox
>drawing completely contradicts your read on P300, and you don't understand
>(or refuse to admit) that "semicircular beveled defect" can mean
>"(semicircular beveled) defect" as well as "semicircular (beveled
>defect)".

Are you saying that the Dox drawing shows that the entry is semicircular?

>Per longstanding tradition, you bring Chad and Larry into the discussion,

Gee, you think maybe it's because they examined the originals
stereoscopically?....and you and the rest of team McAdams [more in a
minute about him] have thrown them under the bus because you don't like
what they said they saw?

I emailed Sturdivan your graphic and what he wrote I agree with, but
promised him I wouldn't post it.

IMO, some people here argue for the just for the sake of arguing...you,
Marsh and a few others here come to mind.

Now use that vivid, out-of-control imagination you use to come up with
your points and visualize this: You and Sturdivan debating (in front of an
audience of unbiased forensic experts) whose interpretation of where the
skull edge is shown in F8...not to mention where the entry was.

Can you see that in your mind's eye...I can and I see you trying to hide
under the podium.

Speaking of McAdams, he at least had the courage to admit that the defect
I call the entry (the one you seem to agree is the entry) is shown in F8
to be "deep inside the cranial cavity"......that said he says it's not the
entry.

Heck, the top two members of the aforementioned club can't even agree.

Why?

Because they're [you and McAdams] are both wrong!

Zimmerman wrote in his after action report (after examining the originals
stereoscopically) that he could see athe reflection of the blue towel the
autopsists had placed beneath JFK's head through the skull entry (in F8)
and SCALP behind it!

Sturdivan saw the same.

Were they lying, Mitch?????????...or was there something wrong with their
stereoscopic viewer?

Tell me, Mitch, inquiring minds want to know!

Not that I need it in view of the mountain of other evidence that shows
the entry was near the EOP, but I'm working on a demonstration that
positively and scientifically proves F8 shows the defect centered in the
photo to be where McAdams said it was....and hardly near the cowlick.

What do you say to the fact that Dr. Joe Davis [FPP] even went on the
record to say that the bullet struck the back of JFK's head in the region
of the EOP (based on the trail of tiny opacities he saw near there on the
lateral).....only to be stopped from discussing that lead by his FPP
colleagues.

Geeze, I wonder why...but not Mitch...he thinks they didn't have time or
something.

Oh, BTW, ever wonder why the EOP area has been cropped off the HSCA's
published copies of the lateral?

Not that you think Sturdivan makes a lick of sense, but he thinks it's
because the lateral (even the copies) show, not only that trail, but also
the entry.

Again, Mitch doesn't wonder...he probably thinks they saved ink by
cropping that area out of their published copies?

Oh, another question for you....Baden testified that there was NO evidence
on the X-rays of a low hit.....so what about the trail of tiny
opacities...didn't they count in Baden's mind...but just an innocent
oversight, right?

Just like the HSCA published a 2nd copy of Chester Boyers' report of
interview in which he said he saw the entry to the right of the EOP...they
changed it to read he saw the entry in the back of JFK's head.

I showed both versions to Boyers myself, and he was pissed.

I guess I should have had you explain that the HSCA simply made an
innocent error?

Speaking of the Dox drawing....you know damn well it's full of gross
errors...but because it shows the entry where you want it has your
blessings, right?

Have you ever looked at the trajectory of the exiting bullet? How do you
and Baden reconcile that trajectory with the two large fragments that hit
the windshield area, huh?

I want to hear your answer on this.

And least we not talk about the entering trajectory (WHICH BADEN SAID
UNDER OATH WAS FAIRLY ACCURATE)...did you know that the lean was based on
Nasa's Tom Canning's trajectory study?

Oh, you knew that..of course you did. But did you also know that Canning
used an 11 degree forward lean for his model to base his calculations on?

Did you say, "sp what"?

Mitch, do you and McAdams think using an 11 degree forward lean instead of
the approximately 27 degree correct (Z-312) would make even a itsi-bitsi
difference in the trajectory accuracy?

:-)

Geesh, maybe that's why Myers said that the HSCA's cowlick entry
trajectory pointed back (going from memory) 124' above the roofline of NOT
THE TSBD, BUT THE DALTEX BLDG?

You know, as I recall, every human who said they saw the entry on the body
said it was low?

Heck, let me ask a rear researcher...can you name one human who said they
saw the entry on the body and said it was in the cowlick?

Any comment, besides you can't trust the recollections of eyewitnesses?

>but I keep noticing that you omit something. Where do Chad and Larry put
>the edge of the skull, which is the really important issue? I notice
>you're very careful to talk around that.

For cripes sake, Mitch....there is so much evidence that the entry was
near the EOP and not hardly near the cowlick, I can't mention all of it
every time I respond to your Marsh-like B/S.

Anyway, see above for the answer to your question.

Did you ever answer this? Do you think the autopsists were hallucinating
or just plain lying when they said that the rear skull was fragmented down
to the area of the EOP?

Mitch, I need to know your answer on tnat...it's kind of important to this
discussion...beacuse, for instance your Dox drawing hardly shows that the
rear skull is fragmented.

Oh, do you even think the fractures shown in that drawing reflect the ones
shown on the lateral?

An oversight by the HSCA, ya think?

And going back to Baden...what do you think of his testimony that

>I've already addressed the bit about Boswell and the fragment diagram,
>though I think you deleted it in your reply for some reason.

I'm mostly referring to the autopsy report.

Can you respond to that...or do you think I'm misinterpreting that part?

Let's let everybody read it, shall we?

"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple COMPLETE fracture lines are seen to
radiate from Both the large defect at the vertex and the SMALLER WOUND AT
THE OCCIPUT......These result in the production of numerous
fragments......."

First, the caps are mine.

Now, if you're having trouble understanding what he was saying...ask
someone else to interpret it for you.....whatever you do, don't believe me
when I tell you he was saying that the bone just above the EOP was
fragmented.

Again, do you see anything remotely like that depicted in the Dox drawing?

Why, Mitch?

If you're at a loss to come up with an answer that does not sound overly
silly, try this:

If the bloody area around at least the top part of the entry was
fragmented then it could not possibly have been where the Dox drawing
shows it..it would have been on the table with the bone fragments that
came out.

Make sense to you.

Can we go back to Baden, whom you seem to have so much faith in vs. the
autopsists?

He testified that there was NO lower brain damage consistent with a low
entry.

IOM, some nerve...did he think no one who listened to or read his
testimony would read the Supplementry Autopsy Report...which said there
was a longitudinal laceration [through the brain] that began at the tip of
the occipital lobe...."

Mitch, maybe Baden forgot where the occipital lobe was, but I'm confident
you know....it's hardly in the upper part of the brain! So, he lied or
forgot...but team McAdams gives him another free pass right as they rip
the autopsists right and left.

BTW, how about using your vivid imagination to picture in your mind's eye
a bullet traveling downward from the sixth floor of the TSBD at an angle
of appx. 16 degrees entering the skull in the cowlick and penetrating the
parietal lobe of JFK's brain....and then reversing itself and looping back
to enter the occipital lobe?

How's that mental image work for you Mitch?

And should we not mention what the three ARRB experts wrote about the
cowlick entry? You know, Mitch, don't you....for others reading this, they
said that they saw no evidence on the X-rays of any entry in the
cowlick...sure they didn't mention seeing one near the EOP either, but it
was all the buddies of Fisher who claimed the cowlick entry could be seen
on the X-arys...I don't recall Humes, Boswell or Finck claiming an entry
could be seen near the EOP.

In fact I believe Finck said X-rays aren't usually that reliable for
seeing bullet entry defects....they're best for finding bullet fragments
and fractures, etc.

Oh, I'd be remiss to not mention that you think Horne "spun" the words of
the ARRB forensic experts to say what he wanted them to say....how
ridiculous...especially since others attended the interviews and surely
read the reports!!!!!

>It still
>tickles me that you claim that Boswell had a shoddy memory and perjured
>himself by falsifying evidence, yet have no problem believing the guy even
>when the other two autopsists contradict him.

If you'd give me a specific example I'd like to explain why I think that.

>BTW, If the graphic I put on Flickr is so ridiculous, then it shouldn't be
>so hard to come up with specific reasons as to why. So far, you've managed
>is to dust off a couple of flaccid attempts at ridicule before splitting
>the scene post haste.

Duh, firstly and foremost because your graphic puts the entry in the
cowlick...see above for SOME of the evidence it was near the
EOP....especially the evidence that shows the skull was fragmented near
the entry contrary to your graphic and the Dox drawing.

Secondly, both Zimmerman and Sturdivan clearly state they could see a blue
towel through, not only the skull entry, but also the "scalp" in F8.

Humes said that he could see that blue towel as well.

>Oh, I'd really like to know how the article you were writing for the
>prominent online publication turned out.

Have patience, I'm confident It'll be done...good things are worth waiting
for...anyway, even though the author is highly respected in non-conspiracy
community you and the rest of team McAdams will surely throw him under the
bus for what he writes...I hope he doesn't back out.

BTW, I asked you once if you were 100% ceratin that Humes was wrong about
the entry location....I don't believe you answered that...will you now?

John Canal

P.S. Warning: This obviously has not been proofed...spent too much time
already arguing with someone who can't admit when he's wrong.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 14, 2012, 12:52:09 AM5/14/12

On 5/13/2012 5:05 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> Ah, the Top Post! A favored tactic of those who hope that the readers just
> reads the top before wading into the detailed stuff below it. Well,
> actually, you seem to have given up somewhere around half way and deleted
> the rest. Have it your way then... sauce, goose, gander, and all.
>

Didn't you just top post?

> It's all the same stuff anyway. No matter how many times you bring up
> paragraph 300, the simple fact remains that the Dox drawing is what the
> FPP actually stood up and testified to in front of the HSCA. The same Dox
> drawing completely contradicts your read on P300, and you don't understand
> (or refuse to admit) that "semicircular beveled defect" can mean
> "(semicircular beveled) defect" as well as "semicircular (beveled
> defect)".
>

Testified to? Jeez, I'd like to get them into court and make them testify.
If you mean the Dox drawing of the trajectory, don't make the same mistake
that John Hunt and others have made. That is not supposed to represent
what the head looks like in the autopsy photos. It only shows the
condition of the head as BADEN thought it was at the very instant of the
head shot.

> Per longstanding tradition, you bring Chad and Larry into the discussion,
> but I keep noticing that you omit something. Where do Chad and Larry put
> the edge of the skull, which is the really important issue? I notice
> you're very careful to talk around that.
>

Why are you taking it so easy on Canal? Are you two going out or
something? The first thing I would demand of Canal is that HE show where
he thinks the margin of missing skull is in the back of the head. He
points to some vague spot deep in the back of the head, well below where
we see the fracture and missing bone. But Humes and Boswell said the
entrance wound was only a semicircle on the margin because the top piece
had been blown out or had fallen out.

> I've already addressed the bit about Boswell and the fragment diagram,
> though I think you deleted it in your reply for some reason. It still
> tickles me that you claim that Boswell had a shoddy memory and perjured
> himself by falsifying evidence, yet have no problem believing the guy even
> when the other two autopsists contradict him.
>
> BTW, If the graphic I put on Flickr is so ridiculous, then it shouldn't be
> so hard to come up with specific reasons as to why. So far, you've managed
> is to dust off a couple of flaccid attempts at ridicule before splitting
> the scene post haste.
>

Maybe he killfiled you again. He does that every other month.

> Oh, I'd really like to know how the article you were writing for the
> prominent online publication turned out.
>

Shh!
National Enquirer went out of business.

Mitch Todd

unread,

May 18, 2012, 11:06:14 PM5/18/12

"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4faf30d9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>
>>Ah, the Top Post! A favored tactic of those who hope that the readers just
>>reads the top before wading into the detailed stuff below it.
>
> It's also a tactic of mine that I use whenever someone who's arguing with
> me ignores the evidence that shows he's wrong...but continues to argue,
> IMO, because he wants to carry the day for team McAdams and the rest of
> the "All those who saw the body were hallucinating club".

Here we go again with the substitution of hyperbolic bloviation for
meaningful discussion.

>>Well,
>>actually, you seem to have given up somewhere around half way and deleted
>>the rest. Have it your way then... sauce, goose, gander, and all.
>>
>>It's all the same stuff anyway. No matter how many times you bring up
>>paragraph 300, the simple fact remains that the Dox drawing is what the
>>FPP actually stood up and testified to in front of the HSCA. The same Dox
>>drawing completely contradicts your read on P300, and you don't understand
>>(or refuse to admit) that "semicircular beveled defect" can mean
>>"(semicircular beveled) defect" as well as "semicircular (beveled
>>defect)".
>
> Are you saying that the Dox drawing shows that the entry is semicircular?

No, John. Duh! I'm saying that "semicircular" refers to the beveling,
rather than the defect as a whole (pun intended, for a change). You might
also want to consider the simple fact that the top half of the entry is
hidden beneath tissue and shadow in F8.

>>Per longstanding tradition, you bring Chad and Larry into the discussion,
>
> Gee, you think maybe it's because they examined the originals
> stereoscopically?....and you and the rest of team McAdams [more in a
> minute about him] have thrown them under the bus because you don't like
> what they said they saw?
>
> I emailed Sturdivan your graphic and what he wrote I agree with, but
> promised him I wouldn't post it.

Actually, I'd like to see what he had to say. Please post the whole
conversation!

> IMO, some people here argue for the just for the sake of arguing...you,
> Marsh and a few others here come to mind.
>
> Now use that vivid, out-of-control imagination you use to come up with
> your points and visualize this: You and Sturdivan debating (in front of an
> audience of unbiased forensic experts) whose interpretation of where the
> skull edge is shown in F8...not to mention where the entry was.
>
> Can you see that in your mind's eye...I can and I see you trying to hide
> under the podium.

You've already demonstrated that your mind's eye sees all manner of weird
stuff, so I'm not surprised.

> Speaking of McAdams, he at least had the courage to admit that the defect
> I call the entry (the one you seem to agree is the entry) is shown in F8
> to be "deep inside the cranial cavity"......that said he says it's not the
> entry.
>
> Heck, the top two members of the aforementioned club can't even agree.
>
> Why?
>
> Because they're [you and McAdams] are both wrong!

John Canal says so! Who can argue with that? ;-D

BTW, John, there is no "club McAdams" or "team McAdams"
or "McAdams LLC" or even "MC Adams and DJ Mitchy Mitch"
(he only does old school; I'm more into DnB anyway). The only
people who complain about "Team McAdams" are you and
Pam. Think about that for a minute.

> Zimmerman wrote in his after action report (after examining the originals
> stereoscopically) that he could see athe reflection of the blue towel the
> autopsists had placed beneath JFK's head through the skull entry (in F8)
> and SCALP behind it!
>
> Sturdivan saw the same.
>
> Were they lying, Mitch?????????...or was there something wrong with their
> stereoscopic viewer?
>
> Tell me, Mitch, inquiring minds want to know!
>

Here is what Sturdivan has actually written:

On #45, the inferior of the two, Chad noticed a small blue-tinged
highlight at one edge of the hole through the clot in the entry crater.
This highlight was the same shade of blue as the cloth on the table under
the head. I agree that this highlight was likely from light reflected
through the hole open all the way through the back of the skull.

"open all the way through the back of the skull." My, my... what an
interesting way to put it!

> Not that I need it in view of the mountain of other evidence that shows
> the entry was near the EOP, but I'm working on a demonstration that
> positively and scientifically proves F8 shows the defect centered in the
> photo to be where McAdams said it was....and hardly near the cowlick.
>
> What do you say to the fact that Dr. Joe Davis [FPP] even went on the
> record to say that the bullet struck the back of JFK's head in the region
> of the EOP (based on the trail of tiny opacities he saw near there on the
> lateral).....only to be stopped from discussing that lead by his FPP
> colleagues.
>
> Geeze, I wonder why...but not Mitch...he thinks they didn't have time or
> something.

Davis *speculated* that the bullet could have entered low and that a large
fragment caused the perforation near that cowlick. That is, he saw a wound
near the cowlick, like the rest of the FPP. Davis followed up on this feat
by being spectacularly unable to convince anyone else at the FPP to agree
with it.

> Oh, BTW, ever wonder why the EOP area has been cropped off the HSCA's
> published copies of the lateral?
>
> Not that you think Sturdivan makes a lick of sense, but he thinks it's
> because the lateral (even the copies) show, not only that trail, but also
> the entry.
>
> Again, Mitch doesn't wonder...he probably thinks they saved ink by
> cropping that area out of their published copies?

Again, Sturdivan in his own words:

However, there is no unequivocal evidence of a crater at either proposed
entry point visible on either the original or the enhanced print. There is
a craterlike dark area at the autopsy entry location that I would
ordinarily think was an entry crater, but it is not too unlike the dark
area in JFK's life x-ray printed in the HSCA report.

BTW, there are two separate lateral x-rays. One has the entire skull on
it, the other has the back end cropped of. Jerrol Custer talked about it a
little bit in his ARRB deposition. The original lateral view published by
the HSCA shows the entire skull; only the enhanced version had the rear
end cropped.

> Oh, another question for you....Baden testified that there was NO evidence
> on the X-rays of a low hit.....so what about the trail of tiny
> opacities...didn't they count in Baden's mind...but just an innocent
> oversight, right?

The ARRB radiologists, whom you'd like to believe are some sort of
forensic get-out-of-jail-free card, didn't see the opacities as evidence
of an entry. Neither did the other members of the FPP, with the possible
exception of Davis. Neither did Seaman. The opacities are just that,
little lucent specs. They could be any number of things. Dirt and debris
on the film. Contamination in the developing machine. Bits of Lord Knows
What in the former President's hair. Without correlating the opacities
with others in the AP view, you can't even say they're within the skull.

> Just like the HSCA published a 2nd copy of Chester Boyers' report of
> interview in which he said he saw the entry to the right of the EOP...they
> changed it to read he saw the entry in the back of JFK's head.
>
> I showed both versions to Boyers myself, and he was pissed.
>
> I guess I should have had you explain that the HSCA simply made an
> innocent error?

So what does this have to do with the x-rays? Argument by Innuendo?
An attempt to change the subject? An imitation of the classic Fetzer
style?

> Speaking of the Dox drawing....you know damn well it's full of gross
> errors...but because it shows the entry where you want it has your
> blessings, right?

It has a few errors, but those are understandable given the source
material, and/or the need to make a complex set of information into a
single, concise image.

The point I've been making about Dox drawing is that we know it shows what
the FPP was thinking. Baden stood up in front of it and directly endorsed
it. Wecht watched Baden's presentation, then stood up to rebut the rest of
his colleagues' conclusions. He did not, however, object to Dox's drawing.
Neither did Petty when given a chance to testify.

> Have you ever looked at the trajectory of the exiting bullet? How do you
> and Baden reconcile that trajectory with the two large fragments that hit
> the windshield area, huh?
>
> I want to hear your answer on this.

I figure the bullet changed course on impact, changed course as it began
disintegrating within the skull, them changed direction again at the exit.
For any number of reasons, not the least that the exact location of entry
and exit are not precisely know, any attempt at a trajectory will be
compromised by a battery of unknowns and uncertainties. If you want to
push a straight line trajectory, you are fooling yourself. If you want to
push a trajectory with a deflection and a single straight line thereafter,
you are also fooling yourself.

> And least we not talk about the entering trajectory (WHICH BADEN SAID
> UNDER OATH WAS FAIRLY ACCURATE)...did you know that the lean was based on
> Nasa's Tom Canning's trajectory study?
>
> Oh, you knew that..of course you did. But did you also know that Canning
> used an 11 degree forward lean for his model to base his calculations on?
>
> Did you say, "sp what"?
>
> Mitch, do you and McAdams think using an 11 degree forward lean instead of
> the approximately 27 degree correct (Z-312) would make even a itsi-bitsi
> difference in the trajectory accuracy?
>
> :-)
>
> Geesh, maybe that's why Myers said that the HSCA's cowlick entry
> trajectory pointed back (going from memory) 124' above the roofline of NOT
> THE TSBD, BUT THE DALTEX BLDG?
>
> You know, as I recall, every human who said they saw the entry on the body
> said it was low?
>
> Heck, let me ask a rear researcher...can you name one human who said they
> saw the entry on the body and said it was in the cowlick?
>
> Any comment, besides you can't trust the recollections of eyewitnesses?

How many people actually, honestly, got as good a look at it as is now
claimed?

>>but I keep noticing that you omit something. Where do Chad and Larry put
>>the edge of the skull, which is the really important issue? I notice
>>you're very careful to talk around that.
>
> For cripes sake, Mitch....there is so much evidence that the entry was
> near the EOP and not hardly near the cowlick, I can't mention all of it
> every time I respond to your Marsh-like B/S.
>
> Anyway, see above for the answer to your question.

As you are now aware, I went to the source, and find your, uh,
explanations lacking.

> Did you ever answer this? Do you think the autopsists were hallucinating
> or just plain lying when they said that the rear skull was fragmented down
> to the area of the EOP?
>
> Mitch, I need to know your answer on tnat...it's kind of important to this
> discussion...beacuse, for instance your Dox drawing hardly shows that the
> rear skull is fragmented.

The x-rays, lateral and AP, show no significant fragmentation at the rear
of the skull.

> Oh, do you even think the fractures shown in that drawing reflect the ones
> shown on the lateral?

Yes I do.

>>I've already addressed the bit about Boswell and the fragment diagram,
>>though I think you deleted it in your reply for some reason.
>
> I'm mostly referring to the autopsy report.
>
> Can you respond to that...or do you think I'm misinterpreting that part?
>
> Let's let everybody read it, shall we?
>
> "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple COMPLETE fracture lines are seen to
> radiate from Both the large defect at the vertex and the SMALLER WOUND AT
> THE OCCIPUT......These result in the production of numerous
> fragments......."
>
> First, the caps are mine.

You're overinterpreting. The are they refer to stretches across the whole
upper half of the cranium. While the words "fragments" and "occiput,"
appear, there is no association of any fragments with the occiput..... or
any other specific location.

> Now, if you're having trouble understanding what he was saying...ask
> someone else to interpret it for you.....whatever you do, don't believe me
> when I tell you he was saying that the bone just above the EOP was
> fragmented.
>
> Again, do you see anything remotely like that depicted in the Dox drawing?
>
> Why, Mitch?

Because there is nothing like that to be seen in the photos, or x-rays.

> If you're at a loss to come up with an answer that does not sound overly
> silly, try this:
>
> If the bloody area around at least the top part of the entry was
> fragmented then it could not possibly have been where the Dox drawing
> shows it..it would have been on the table with the bone fragments that
> came out.

You are basically arguing that "if I am correct, than I must be correct,"
once the puffery is peeled away.

> Make sense to you.
>
> Can we go back to Baden, whom you seem to have so much faith in vs. the
> autopsists?
>
> He testified that there was NO lower brain damage consistent with a low
> entry.
>
> IOM, some nerve...did he think no one who listened to or read his
> testimony would read the Supplementry Autopsy Report...which said there
> was a longitudinal laceration [through the brain] that began at the tip of
> the occipital lobe...."

Here is what Baden actually said:

"photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show
the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The
bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have
been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in
the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area,
the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it
was not injured."

That's not exactly what you have him saying. Some nerve, indeed!

> Mitch, maybe Baden forgot where the occipital lobe was, but I'm confident
> you know....it's hardly in the upper part of the brain! So, he lied or
> forgot...but team McAdams gives him another free pass right as they rip
> the autopsists right and left.

> BTW, how about using your vivid imagination to picture in your mind's eye
> a bullet traveling downward from the sixth floor of the TSBD at an angle
> of appx. 16 degrees entering the skull in the cowlick and penetrating the
> parietal lobe of JFK's brain....and then reversing itself and looping back
> to enter the occipital lobe?
>
> How's that mental image work for you Mitch?

I keep pointing out that, by your physics, a rock hitting a car windshield
will only damage the glass at the point of impact. We all know that isn't
true.

> And should we not mention what the three ARRB experts wrote about the
> cowlick entry? You know, Mitch, don't you....for others reading this, they
> said that they saw no evidence on the X-rays of any entry in the
> cowlick...sure they didn't mention seeing one near the EOP either, but it
> was all the buddies of Fisher who claimed the cowlick entry could be seen
> on the X-arys...I don't recall Humes, Boswell or Finck claiming an entry
> could be seen near the EOP.

Horne has three of the ARRB forensics experts saying that they see no
evidence of an entry at the rear of the skull. That includes your EOP
entry, and your take on Sturdivan....which I've already demonstrated is
rather different from Sturdivan's take on Sturdivan. If Horne has your
skill with paraphrase, then they probably said that the wound was
unquestionably near the cowlick, but that the lighting in the room could
have been a little better to see it a little more clearly.

> In fact I believe Finck said X-rays aren't usually that reliable for
> seeing bullet entry defects....they're best for finding bullet fragments
> and fractures, etc.

When you have fractures radiating from the entry,

> Oh, I'd be remiss to not mention that you think Horne "spun" the words of
> the ARRB forensic experts to say what he wanted them to say....how
> ridiculous...especially since others attended the interviews and surely
> read the reports!!!!!

All we have is Horne's account, and in hindsight it's clear that he went
into the ARRB with an agenda all his own. You will, of course, complain
that "other people were present," but, as always, you will be utterly
unable to relate a single word of these other people's accounts.

>>It still
>>tickles me that you claim that Boswell had a shoddy memory and perjured
>>himself by falsifying evidence, yet have no problem believing the guy even
>>when the other two autopsists contradict him.
>
> If you'd give me a specific example I'd like to explain why I think that.

I've been doing that for years now! You just blow it off an continue on
your march to Jerusalem, army of children crusaders in tow.

But, have it your way. You keep on pushing Boswell's statement that the
autopsists knew the whole time that the wound exited he throat. Humes says
that they didn't actually know that there was a bullet hole in the throat
until the next morning, when he talked to Perry. Finck says the same thing
as Humes. Karnei told the ARRB that Boswell told him that they has
problems finding the exit. Sibert and O'Neill wrote that the autopsists
examined the tracheotomy incision for a bullet wound, and decided that
there was no exit there. Let you think Humes was just pulling a fast one
on the FBI agents, Finck also wrote (to Blumberg) that they examined the
trach incision and decided against a bullet wound being there.

For support you will attempt to claim that Perry said that Humes called
him at 3PM. Perry does initially say 3PM, but also said that he wasn't
sure. He soon realized that he was in the OR to assist with Governor
Connolly at that time, and that the call had to have happened later. He
also divulged that Humes asked him about the incisions made in the
President's chest. Had Humes already known about the chest tubes, he
wouldn't have needed to ask. The only reason Humes would have asked is
because Humes had already seen the body before he called.

You might also try to bring up Dan Rather's statement about a bullet
entering the throat and exiting the back of the neck. Here's the rub: when
some reporter coughs up a possible scoop, the other reporters hit up their
own sources to see if there's anything to the scoop. If the story pans
out, then it gets legs and everyone starts to repeat it. If the other
reporters' sources can't corroborate or deny the story, then it dies. Did
you notice that Rather's story never seemed to get repeated by anyone
else? There's a reason for that. Of course, there is always the matter of
Rather's description of the Zapruder film. I seem to remember that his
version of the film is....interesting. After all, we're talking about a
man who is probably the greatest journalistic buffoon of the past 100
years. Courage!

>>BTW, If the graphic I put on Flickr is so ridiculous, then it shouldn't be
>>so hard to come up with specific reasons as to why. So far, you've managed
>>is to dust off a couple of flaccid attempts at ridicule before splitting
>>the scene post haste.
>
> Duh, firstly and foremost because your graphic puts the entry in the
> cowlick...see above for SOME of the evidence it was near the
> EOP....especially the evidence that shows the skull was fragmented near
> the entry contrary to your graphic and the Dox drawing.
>
> Secondly, both Zimmerman and Sturdivan clearly state they could see a blue
> towel through, not only the skull entry, but also the "scalp" in F8.
>
> Humes said that he could see that blue towel as well.

That means that the scalp entry was aligned with the skull entry in that
particular photograph. That's not exactly unexpected in a GSW

>>Oh, I'd really like to know how the article you were writing for the
>>prominent online publication turned out.
>
> Have patience, I'm confident It'll be done...good things are worth waiting
> for...anyway, even though the author is highly respected in non-conspiracy
> community you and the rest of team McAdams will surely throw him under
> the bus for what he writes...I hope he doesn't back out.

So it's not your article anymore. Was it ever yours? Or did the prominent
online journal reject you, and the task was pushed off to someone else.
NBC seems to have passed a while back, and I'm guessing that NatGeo is no
longer a hopeful destination. And it sounds like your great white hope
isn't particularly confident in his new mission, either.

> BTW, I asked you once if you were 100% ceratin that Humes was wrong about
> the entry location....I don't believe you answered that...will you now?

I've already said it: I'm a never-say-never guy, but I'm as sure as I can
be that the wound is well above the EOP. It's going to take a lot to
convince me otherwise, and you haven't come close to it.

John Canal

unread,

May 19, 2012, 10:00:24 AM5/19/12

In article <4fb7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...

>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4faf30d9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>>
>>>Ah, the Top Post! A favored tactic of those who hope that the readers just
>>>reads the top before wading into the detailed stuff below it.
>>
>> It's also a tactic of mine that I use whenever someone who's arguing with
>> me ignores the evidence that shows he's wrong...but continues to argue,
>> IMO, because he wants to carry the day for team McAdams and the rest of
>> the "All those who saw the body were hallucinating club".
>
>Here we go again with the substitution of hyperbolic bloviation for
>meaningful discussion.

But that's exactly how I feel. I mean it's absurd that you have the gall
to refute what Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and the FPP's Dr. Davis concluded
after examining the originals stereoscopically, not to mention HB&F after
they examined the body, while also ignoring the four replications of F8
(one which was endorsed in writing by the autopsy photographer)....... and
you've only seen the copies.

Can't you understand my frustration?

You, IMO, are the LNs "ducking theory" advocate.

>>>Well,
>>>actually, you seem to have given up somewhere around half way and deleted
>>>the rest. Have it your way then... sauce, goose, gander, and all.
>>>
>>>It's all the same stuff anyway. No matter how many times you bring up
>>>paragraph 300, the simple fact remains that the Dox drawing is what the
>>>FPP actually stood up and testified to in front of the HSCA. The same Dox
>>>drawing completely contradicts your read on P300, and you don't understand
>>>(or refuse to admit) that "semicircular beveled defect" can mean
>>>"(semicircular beveled) defect" as well as "semicircular (beveled
>>>defect)".
>>
>> Are you saying that the Dox drawing shows that the entry is semicircular?
>
>No, John. Duh! I'm saying that "semicircular" refers to the beveling,
>rather than the defect as a whole (pun intended, for a change).

No wonder I didn't understand where you were going with that......it's
such a ridiculous interpretation.

Funny, three weeks ago or so, you were throwing whatever HSCA staffer
under the bus because semicircular to you meant that the top part of the
entry was missing and the bottom part was along the skull margin (as
Boswell tesified, BTW). But now, the staffer is a good guy now because of
your strange interpretation....of what they meant by semicircular beveled
defect....which again conflicts with how Boswell testified.

Geesh! Unbelievable.

>You might
>also want to consider the simple fact that the top half of the entry is
>hidden beneath tissue and shadow in F8.

But Boswell's drawing and his testimony tells us different!

>>>Per longstanding tradition, you bring Chad and Larry into the discussion,
>>
>> Gee, you think maybe it's because they examined the originals
>> stereoscopically?....and you and the rest of team McAdams [more in a
>> minute about him] have thrown them under the bus because you don't like
>> what they said they saw?
>>
>> I emailed Sturdivan your graphic and what he wrote I agree with, but
>> promised him I wouldn't post it.
>
>Actually, I'd like to see what he had to say. Please post the whole
>conversation!

You wouldn't like it. How about I give you his mailing address and you and
he have a private exchange?

>> IMO, some people here argue for the just for the sake of arguing...you,
>> Marsh and a few others here come to mind.
>>
>> Now use that vivid, out-of-control imagination you use to come up with
>> your points and visualize this: You and Sturdivan debating (in front of an
>> audience of unbiased forensic experts) whose interpretation of where the
>> skull edge is shown in F8...not to mention where the entry was.
>>
>> Can you see that in your mind's eye...I can and I see you trying to hide
>> under the podium.
>
>You've already demonstrated that your mind's eye sees all manner of weird
>stuff, so I'm not surprised.

And you with an interpretation of what they meant by semicircular beveled
defect that's off the charts wierd as refutes what the guy who had the
body right in front of him reported, say my mind's eye is seeing wierd
stuff?

You didn't like what the ARRB experts wrote you you accused Horne of
spinning what they said his way...when there were several others present
at the interviews and the experts surely had a chance to read what Horne
wrote....now that's wierd.

>> Speaking of McAdams, he at least had the courage to admit that the defect
>> I call the entry (the one you seem to agree is the entry) is shown in F8
>> to be "deep inside the cranial cavity"......that said he says it's not the
>> entry.
>>
>> Heck, the top two members of the aforementioned club can't even agree.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because they're [you and McAdams] are both wrong!
>
>John Canal says so! Who can argue with that? ;-D

Ok, then one of you has to be wrong....can you argue with that?

>BTW, John, there is no "club McAdams" or "team McAdams"
>or "McAdams LLC" or even "MC Adams and DJ Mitchy Mitch"
>(he only does old school; I'm more into DnB anyway). The only
>people who complain about "Team McAdams" are you and
>Pam. Think about that for a minute.

I call those who refute pretty much what all those who saw the body
reported (a BOH wound and low entry) and agree with all those (mostly
associates of one another) who didn't see the body (high entry and no BOH
wound)....team McAdams.

>> Zimmerman wrote in his after action report (after examining the originals
>> stereoscopically) that he could see athe reflection of the blue towel the
>> autopsists had placed beneath JFK's head through the skull entry (in F8)
>> and SCALP behind it!
>>
>> Sturdivan saw the same.
>>
>> Were they lying, Mitch?????????...or was there something wrong with their
>> stereoscopic viewer?
>>
>> Tell me, Mitch, inquiring minds want to know!
>>
>
>Here is what Sturdivan has actually written:
>
>On #45, the inferior of the two, Chad noticed a small blue-tinged
>highlight at one edge of the hole through the clot in the entry crater.
>This highlight was the same shade of blue as the cloth on the table under
>the head. I agree that this highlight was likely from light reflected
>through the hole open all the way through the back of the skull.
>
>"open all the way through the back of the skull." My, my... what an
>interesting way to put it!

Actually, I've never really been clear what he meant by that, but didn't
want to argue with him....I believe he even says what I've always taken as
the skull edge as the cut edge of the tentorium.

But Mitch, do you think they put the towel under his cowlick?

Also, Larry sees the tentorium edgec and lateral sinus...now to you want
to use him as a witness for your case that the skull edge was in the
cowlick?

I didn't think so.

Now, I also sent your graphic to Chad and he's says you misinterpret an
undulation in the scalp which is above the entry as the edge of the skull.

He was certain of that.

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but don't take it out on the
messenger.

Do you want his mailing address.....heck you can tell him to check his
stereoscopic viewer or wake up...whatever.

>> Not that I need it in view of the mountain of other evidence that shows
>> the entry was near the EOP, but I'm working on a demonstration that
>> positively and scientifically proves F8 shows the defect centered in the
>> photo to be where McAdams said it was....and hardly near the cowlick.
>>
>> What do you say to the fact that Dr. Joe Davis [FPP] even went on the
>> record to say that the bullet struck the back of JFK's head in the region
>> of the EOP (based on the trail of tiny opacities he saw near there on the
>> lateral).....only to be stopped from discussing that lead by his FPP
>> colleagues.
>>
>> Geeze, I wonder why...but not Mitch...he thinks they didn't have time or
>> something.
>
>Davis *speculated* that the bullet could have entered low and that a large
>fragment caused the perforation near that cowlick.

But he said there was evidence for that on the lateral X-ray....evidence
that Baden denied existed...and that was after they abruptly stopped the
discussion that Davis started about his speculation the bullet hit low.

Andhe didn't speculate about the evidence for his speculation....he was
certain about it...and Chad and Larry confirmed its presence.

>That is, he saw a wound
>near the cowlick, like the rest of the FPP. Davis followed up on this feat
>by being spectacularly unable to convince anyone else at the FPP to agree
>with it.

Because they had predecided to agree with Fisher and not Humes, duh!

>> Oh, BTW, ever wonder why the EOP area has been cropped off the HSCA's
>> published copies of the lateral?
>>
>> Not that you think Sturdivan makes a lick of sense, but he thinks it's
>> because the lateral (even the copies) show, not only that trail, but also
>> the entry.
>>
>> Again, Mitch doesn't wonder...he probably thinks they saved ink by
>> cropping that area out of their published copies?
>
>Again, Sturdivan in his own words:
>
>However, there is no unequivocal evidence of a crater at either proposed
>entry point visible on either the original or the enhanced print. There is
>a craterlike dark area at the autopsy entry location that I would
>ordinarily think was an entry crater, but it is not too unlike the dark
>area in JFK's life x-ray printed in the HSCA report.

Well, he's swallowed those words...after I showed him my replication of F8
and after he saw the originals.

You won't let him take those words back will you?

You know he wasn't too happy that, according to him, Baden et al only
showed him copies of F8 that were terribly out of focus...which is why he
agreed with Baden et al about the cowlick entry.

But at least he's admitted he was wrong earlier...not like some
people..that is afraid to admit they're wrong.

>BTW, there are two separate lateral x-rays. One has the entire skull on
>it, the other has the back end cropped of. Jerrol Custer talked about it a
>little bit in his ARRB deposition. The original lateral view published by
>the HSCA shows the entire skull; only the enhanced version had the rear
>end cropped.

Right, but according to Chad the bone frags and low entry only show up on
the unenhanced film....and yes, I said that Chad is all but certain one
can see the near EOP entry (as well as the near-EOP bone frags) on the
lateral....he went on to say that there is no entry defect in the
cowlick...geesh, didn't the ARRB forensic exparts say that too?

>> Oh, another question for you....Baden testified that there was NO evidence
>> on the X-rays of a low hit.....so what about the trail of tiny
>> opacities...didn't they count in Baden's mind...but just an innocent
>> oversight, right?
>
>The ARRB radiologists, whom you'd like to believe are some sort of
>forensic get-out-of-jail-free card,

No, I'd just like to see them get out from under the buss that you and the
rest of team McAdams have thrown them under for disputing what the HSCA
said about seeing an entry in the cowlick on the X-rays.

>didn't see the opacities as evidence
>of an entry.

Horne and Gunn did a lousy job of interviewing them. They should have been
asked about that critical evidence...I'm not sure either Horne or Gunn
even knew about the opacities.

They also should have been asked if they saw something that looked like an
entry near the EOP...obviously they weren't asked that critical question
either.

>Neither did the other members of the FPP, with the possible
>exception of Davis.

Possible exception...he saw the opacities....or is your interpretation
such that he though he might have seen them?

Cripes, Mitch, get real.

>Neither did Seaman. The opacities are just that,
>little lucent specs. They could be any number of things. Dirt and debris
>on the film. Contamination in the developing machine. Bits of Lord Knows
>What in the former President's hair.

Huh? the beveled out bone had to go somewhere...it didn't disolve.

So you think it's just a coincidence that there were tiny opacities right
where Humes et al said they saw the entry?

Give me a break....

Oh that's right you're the guy who said it could very well happen that
someone could be mauled by a blak bear and a polar bear in the same
day......and that it wasn't that much against the odds that an artifact
could end up accidently on the AP X-ray, roundish, virtually the same
diameter as LHO's ammo , the same exact distance right of midline as the
two proposed entries and just below what "some" say is a cowlick entry and
some say is just a depressed fracture.

>Without correlating the opacities
>with others in the AP view, you can't even say they're within the skull.

Duh, need to catch up on your reading, Mitch re. the medical
evidence.....no one can correlate the tiny opacities seen near the EOP on
the lateral with the AP view because the EOP region doesn't show up on the
AP.

>> Just like the HSCA published a 2nd copy of Chester Boyers' report of
>> interview in which he said he saw the entry to the right of the EOP...they
>> changed it to read he saw the entry in the back of JFK's head.
>>
>> I showed both versions to Boyers myself, and he was pissed.
>>
>> I guess I should have had you explain that the HSCA simply made an
>> innocent error?
>
>So what does this have to do with the x-rays? Argument by Innuendo?

When there's evidence that supports a theory I mention it.

The HSCA had predecided the entry was in the cowlick (Fisher vs.
Humes)...so things happened that support that conclusion...like reports of
interviews being cahnged, a NASA engineer uses 11 degrees for JFK's lean
to calculate the trajectory, X-rays are cropped, discussions about
possible evidence Humes' entry was correct are dropped, lies are told
about the evidence (no lower brain damage reported?, no evidence on the
x-rays for a low hit?), etc.

You know things like that.

Mitch you wouldn't connect the dots even if they were all but touching
each other...why?

You want to know what I think? I'll tell you anyway...you're carrying the
torch for team McAdams...and you're their last hope...you can't let them
down and admit you've been wrong, no matter what the evidence shows.

>An attempt to change the subject? An imitation of the classic Fetzer
>style?

If you can't see the connection to what happened to Boyer's report of
interview, you need to take off that welder's mask.

>> Speaking of the Dox drawing....you know damn well it's full of gross
>> errors...but because it shows the entry where you want it has your
>> blessings, right?
>
>It has a few errors, but those are understandable given the source
>material, and/or the need to make a complex set of information into a
>single, concise image.

A few? Understandable? You're joking, right? No, sadly you're not. I mean
errors like the damn bullet going towards Connally? The lean adjusted (oh
that's right, it was an innocent miscalculation, sorry) by more than half
to get the entering trajectory even close to being consistent with a shot
from the SN. Good grief, man.

>The point I've been making about Dox drawing is that we know it shows what
>the FPP was thinking.

Or trying to sell?

>Baden stood up in front of it and directly endorsed
>it.

Yup, he's the guy that forgot about the autopsy report saying there was
damage to the occipital lobe and about the tiny opacities on the
lateral...that guy.

>Wecht watched Baden's presentation, then stood up to rebut the rest of
>his colleagues' conclusions. He did not, however, object to Dox's drawing.
>Neither did Petty when given a chance to testify.

I doubt Wecht even read the autopsy report.

>> Have you ever looked at the trajectory of the exiting bullet? How do you
>> and Baden reconcile that trajectory with the two large fragments that hit
>> the windshield area, huh?
>>
>> I want to hear your answer on this.
>
>I figure the bullet changed course on impact,

Oh, Baden testified the trajectory in that drawing was fairly
accurate...don't you think a deflection should have been important enough
for them to draw or even mention?

>changed course as it began
>disintegrating within the skull, them changed direction again at the exit.

I know you like coincidences so try this. Take Z-312 and draw a straight
line from JFK's EOP through the agreed upon exit and extend it to the
front...see where it goes? I know it's just a coincidence that it poibnts
to the windshield damage...yup just a coincidence like being mauled by a
black bear and a polar bear in the same day.

>For any number of reasons, not the least that the exact location of entry
>and exit are not precisely know,

The entry can be known if a team of experts examines F8, actually 44 and
45, with state of the art equipment.....

>any attempt at a trajectory will be
>compromised by a battery of unknowns and uncertainties. If you want to
>push a straight line trajectory, you are fooling yourself. If you want to
>push a trajectory with a deflection and a single straight line thereafter,
>you are also fooling yourself.

Right because the aforementioned straight line trajectory (with a 23
degree deflection up of the bullet as it entered) works for the near-EOP
entry advocates it doesn't count, right?

>> And least we not talk about the entering trajectory (WHICH BADEN SAID
>> UNDER OATH WAS FAIRLY ACCURATE)...did you know that the lean was based on
>> Nasa's Tom Canning's trajectory study?
>>
>> Oh, you knew that..of course you did. But did you also know that Canning
>> used an 11 degree forward lean for his model to base his calculations on?
>>
>> Did you say, "sp what"?
>>
>> Mitch, do you and McAdams think using an 11 degree forward lean instead of
>> the approximately 27 degree correct (Z-312) would make even a itsi-bitsi
>> difference in the trajectory accuracy?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Geesh, maybe that's why Myers said that the HSCA's cowlick entry
>> trajectory pointed back (going from memory) 124' above the roofline of NOT
>> THE TSBD, BUT THE DALTEX BLDG?
>>
>> You know, as I recall, every human who said they saw the entry on the body
>> said it was low?
>>
>> Heck, let me ask a rear researcher...can you name one human who said they
>> saw the entry on the body and said it was in the cowlick?
>>
>> Any comment, besides you can't trust the recollections of eyewitnesses?
>
>How many people actually, honestly, got as good a look at it as is now
>claimed?

Grossman at PH, HB&F, Boyers, and a few others.

But here's the rub...all this will be over, one way or the other if let's
say Nat. Geo. sends a team to the archives to determine that
question...and they will not have seen the entry...on the body.

It might not be Nat. Geo, but someone will.

I hope team McAdams is still around and me too.

>>>but I keep noticing that you omit something. Where do Chad and Larry put
>>>the edge of the skull, which is the really important issue? I notice
>>>you're very careful to talk around that.
>>
>> For cripes sake, Mitch....there is so much evidence that the entry was
>> near the EOP and not hardly near the cowlick, I can't mention all of it
>> every time I respond to your Marsh-like B/S.
>>
>> Anyway, see above for the answer to your question.
>
>As you are now aware, I went to the source, and find your, uh,
>explanations lacking.

Surprise, surprise, surprise....no bias there for sure.

>> Did you ever answer this? Do you think the autopsists were hallucinating
>> or just plain lying when they said that the rear skull was fragmented down
>> to the area of the EOP?
>>
>> Mitch, I need to know your answer on tnat...it's kind of important to this
>> discussion...beacuse, for instance your Dox drawing hardly shows that the
>> rear skull is fragmented.
>
>The x-rays, lateral and AP, show no significant fragmentation at the rear
>of the skull.

One can't tell from the X-rays whther or not the fractures are
complete...but HB&F said they were...do you think they lied?

>> Oh, do you even think the fractures shown in that drawing reflect the ones
>> shown on the lateral?
>
>Yes I do.

Have your eyes checked, will you.

Two of the rear fractures run nearly horizontally.....the fractures shown
in the Dox drawing do not!

Come on be truthful...you're crossing the line when you deny the obvious.

Also, the Dox drawing sows the fractures radiating from your entry...the
HSCA's own radiologist said they more or less radiate from the opacity
[the 6.5 mm one].

Another small innocent error, right?

>>>I've already addressed the bit about Boswell and the fragment diagram,
>>>though I think you deleted it in your reply for some reason.
>>
>> I'm mostly referring to the autopsy report.
>>
>> Can you respond to that...or do you think I'm misinterpreting that part?
>>
>> Let's let everybody read it, shall we?
>>
>> "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple COMPLETE fracture lines are seen to
>> radiate from Both the large defect at the vertex and the SMALLER WOUND AT
>> THE OCCIPUT......These result in the production of numerous
>> fragments......."
>>
>> First, the caps are mine.
>
>You're overinterpreting. The are they refer to stretches across the whole
>upper half of the cranium. While the words "fragments" and "occiput,"
>appear, there is no association of any fragments with the occiput..... or
>any other specific location.

Bull.

They said from the entry whicj they reported was slightly above the
EOP...put 2 and 2 together, Mithch...the complete fractures radiated from
near the EOP and multiple fragments resulted....which is exactly why
pieces of skull fell to the table when they reflected the scalp..and they
didn't have to use a saw to remove the brain.....

And why Larry sees the entry near the tentorium and lateral sinus and Chad
says you're mmisinterpreting an undulation in the scalp above the entry as
skull edge....and why McAdams is correct that the defcet I think is the
entry (and you do too) is deep inside the cranial cavity.

>> Now, if you're having trouble understanding what he was saying...ask
>> someone else to interpret it for you.....whatever you do, don't believe me
>> when I tell you he was saying that the bone just above the EOP was
>> fragmented.
>>
>> Again, do you see anything remotely like that depicted in the Dox drawing?
>>
>> Why, Mitch?
>
>Because there is nothing like that to be seen in the photos, or x-rays.

Ask someoine else to interpret that passage from the autopsy report for
you...just not any others on team McAdams.

How about it Mitch....there's a challenge for you...are you up for it?

I didn't think so. Very telling.

>> If you're at a loss to come up with an answer that does not sound overly
>> silly, try this:
>>
>> If the bloody area around at least the top part of the entry was
>> fragmented then it could not possibly have been where the Dox drawing
>> shows it..it would have been on the table with the bone fragments that
>> came out.
>
>You are basically arguing that "if I am correct, than I must be correct,"
>once the puffery is peeled away.

Just accept the challenge and we'll be done with this.

>> Make sense to you.
>>
>> Can we go back to Baden, whom you seem to have so much faith in vs. the
>> autopsists?
>>
>> He testified that there was NO lower brain damage consistent with a low
>> entry.
>>
>> IOM, some nerve...did he think no one who listened to or read his
>> testimony would read the Supplementry Autopsy Report...which said there
>> was a longitudinal laceration [through the brain] that began at the tip of
>> the occipital lobe...."
>
>Here is what Baden actually said:
>
>"photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show
>the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain.

What about the longitudinal laceration to the occipital lobe?

>The
>bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have
>been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in
>the autopsy report, was intact.

Not if the bullet deflected up as it penetrated skirting just along the
top of the tentorium.

The nose of the bullet was deformed..because it hit something hard...and
that something hard was JFK's rear skull which also caused the bullet to
deflect.

>If a bullet entered in this lower area,
>the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it
>was not injured."

That'd be true if the bullet went straight...but with a deformed nose like
that no deflections makes no sense...ask ballistics experts, fro cripes
sake.

>That's not exactly what you have him saying. Some nerve, indeed!

Didn't he say somewhere that there was no lower brain damage reoported?

Geeze, I just checked and he did say there was no description of lower
brain damage...was he lying or did he forget neuroanatomy....i.e. that the
occipital lobe is not in the top portion of the brain.

>> Mitch, maybe Baden forgot where the occipital lobe was, but I'm confident
>> you know....it's hardly in the upper part of the brain! So, he lied or
>> forgot...but team McAdams gives him another free pass right as they rip
>> the autopsists right and left.
>
>
>
>
>> BTW, how about using your vivid imagination to picture in your mind's eye
>> a bullet traveling downward from the sixth floor of the TSBD at an angle
>> of appx. 16 degrees entering the skull in the cowlick and penetrating the
>> parietal lobe of JFK's brain....and then reversing itself and looping back
>> to enter the occipital lobe?
>>
>> How's that mental image work for you Mitch?
>
>I keep pointing out that, by your physics, a rock hitting a car windshield
>will only damage the glass at the point of impact. We all know that isn't
>true.

The longitudinal laceration began 2.5 cm right of midline (does that
measurement ring any bells with you?) that meant to us that apply logic
that Humes was saying the bullet that caused the entry 2.5 cm right of
midline also entered the occipital lobe there too.

Now, reconcile your rock hitting the windshield example to a cowlick
bullet entering in the parietal lobe entering also in the occipital
lobe.....or do you think the autopsists didn't know the parietal lobe from
the occipital.

Heck, Marsh thinks they were dumb enough to make such a mistake, put him
on your team, why don't you?

>> And should we not mention what the three ARRB experts wrote about the
>> cowlick entry? You know, Mitch, don't you....for others reading this, they
>> said that they saw no evidence on the X-rays of any entry in the
>> cowlick...sure they didn't mention seeing one near the EOP either, but it
>> was all the buddies of Fisher who claimed the cowlick entry could be seen
>> on the X-arys...I don't recall Humes, Boswell or Finck claiming an entry
>> could be seen near the EOP.
>
>Horne has three of the ARRB forensics experts saying that they see no
>evidence of an entry at the rear of the skull.

I'm loosing my patience...they said nada nothing about the
EOP.....obviously because they didn't look...and nothing about any
opacities, obviously because they didn't look.

Horne doesn't know squat about the medical evidence, and that's why he
didn't ask them about the EOP!!!!!!

What they did say, however, team McAdams doesn't like...which is exactly
why you first suggested that Horne spun the reports his way...right Mitch?

>That includes your EOP
>entry, and your take on Sturdivan....which I've already demonstrated is
>rather different from Sturdivan's take on Sturdivan.

And you've got the autopsists placing a towel under his head in the
cowlick?? How does that mental picture work for you Mitch?

>If Horne has your
>skill with paraphrase,

And you should talk about twisting the words of witnesses....complete
fractures radiating from the wound in the OCCIPUT resulting in multiple
fragments.

Ask some impartial intelligent individual to read that....and tell us what
they said Mitch...without twisting what they said.

And Chad says you've got an undulation in the scalp mixed up with the
skull edge...do you want to talk to him about that refutation...no, I
didn't think so.

And, whicle Larry said the bullet hole was through the skull, he sure as
hell didn't endorse your take on where the skull edge was.....ask him
too...or do you want to simply argue here that they're wrong.

Show some character, Mitch and ask them...hell if you want I'll see if
they'll allow me to give you their email address...and discuss this with
you.......

or do you prefer simply to say they were wrong here so that they can't
defend themselves or discuss the matter with you?

Let me guess...you're not interested, right?

>then they probably said that the wound was
>unquestionably near the cowlick, but that the lighting in the room could
>have been a little better to see it a little more clearly.

You really think that's what they probably said...you're joking right?

> In fact I believe Finck said X-rays aren't usually that reliable for
>> seeing bullet entry defects....they're best for finding bullet fragments
>> and fractures, etc.
>
>When you have fractures radiating from the entry,

The fractures can be seen but the entry no....that's what he said, so they
wouldn't be useful to determeine if fractures radiated from the entry.

Get it?

>> Oh, I'd be remiss to not mention that you think Horne "spun" the words of
>> the ARRB forensic experts to say what he wanted them to say....how
>> ridiculous...especially since others attended the interviews and surely
>> read the reports!!!!!
>
>All we have is Horne's account,

It's not just Horne's account...try to get that into your mind.

>and in hindsight it's clear that he went
>into the ARRB with an agenda all his own.

And Baden didn't want to endorse Fisher over Humes?

>You will, of course, complain
>that "other people were present," but, as always, you will be utterly
>unable to relate a single word of these other people's accounts.

Are you really saying that Horne wrote things in those reports that the
others didn't want in them...but the reports never were ammended to
reflect any disagreement?

Did you really suggest that?

Absurd.

>>>It still
>>>tickles me that you claim that Boswell had a shoddy memory and perjured
>>>himself by falsifying evidence, yet have no problem believing the guy even
>>>when the other two autopsists contradict him.
>>
>> If you'd give me a specific example I'd like to explain why I think that.
>
>I've been doing that for years now! You just blow it off an continue on
>your march to Jerusalem, army of children crusaders in tow.

That's specific?

>But, have it your way. You keep on pushing Boswell's statement that the
>autopsists knew the whole time that the wound exited he throat.

Don't change the subject. Accept my challenges...one to get an impartial
interpretation of what the autopsy report said about the fractures and
fragments, and two to tell both Zimmerman and Larry that you disagree with them.

Man up, Mitch..team McAdams is counting on you.

>Humes says
>that they didn't actually know that there was a bullet hole in the throat
>until the next morning, when he talked to Perry.

This damn post has taken me an hour to type, even without proofing it, and
now you want to sidetrack onto a different matter, why?

Accept my challenges.

I'm going to skip over your diversion about the throat wound..it's not
important as the entry and BOH wounds...so we'll leave that for now.

Towel under his head in the cowlick?

Try that the next time you're lying on your back Mitch...and see how it
works for you.

Never mind, it'd work great for you.

Neither Chad nor Larry like your interpretation much at all.

Man up....Contact them.

>>>Oh, I'd really like to know how the article you were writing for the
>>>prominent online publication turned out.
>>
>> Have patience, I'm confident It'll be done...good things are worth waiting
>> for...anyway, even though the author is highly respected in non-conspiracy
>> community you and the rest of team McAdams will surely throw him under
>> the bus for what he writes...I hope he doesn't back out.
>
>So it's not your article anymore. Was it ever yours? Or did the prominent
>online journal reject you, and the task was pushed off to someone else.
>NBC seems to have passed a while back, and I'm guessing that NatGeo is no
>longer a hopeful destination. And it sounds like your great white hope
>isn't particularly confident in his new mission, either.

We'll see what happens....actually someone I respect a great deal has
advised me to say no more about any article or book about any of this, so
again, we'll see what happens.

Accept my challenges.

>> BTW, I asked you once if you were 100% ceratin that Humes was wrong about
>> the entry location....I don't believe you answered that...will you now?
>
>I've already said it: I'm a never-say-never guy, but I'm as sure as I can
>be that the wound is well above the EOP. It's going to take a lot to
>convince me otherwise, and you haven't come close to it.

Well I interpret that to mean you're not a 100% certain the entry was in
the cowlick...so why, if I'm 100% certain it didn't (and I am) am I
arguing with you?

I need to ask myself that question and give it some serious thought.

Accept my challenges.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 20, 2012, 12:06:43 AM5/20/12

Excuse me. I feel hurt when you leave me out. I also complain about Team
McAdams. They were invented to attack Judyth Baker.

>
>
>> Zimmerman wrote in his after action report (after examining the originals
>> stereoscopically) that he could see athe reflection of the blue towel the
>> autopsists had placed beneath JFK's head through the skull entry (in F8)
>> and SCALP behind it!
>>
>> Sturdivan saw the same.
>>
>> Were they lying, Mitch?????????...or was there something wrong with their
>> stereoscopic viewer?
>>
>> Tell me, Mitch, inquiring minds want to know!
>>
>
> Here is what Sturdivan has actually written:
>
> On #45, the inferior of the two, Chad noticed a small blue-tinged
> highlight at one edge of the hole through the clot in the entry crater.

Clot? Oh, so now the WC defenders admit it was only a bloodclot.

> This highlight was the same shade of blue as the cloth on the table under
> the head. I agree that this highlight was likely from light reflected
> through the hole open all the way through the back of the skull.
>

I'd like to see some objective proof that the shade was EXACTLY the same.

Finally we get a WC defender that there was no entrance wound on the
back of the head, so Canal has to throw him under the bus now.

> a craterlike dark area at the autopsy entry location that I would
> ordinarily think was an entry crater, but it is not too unlike the dark
> area in JFK's life x-ray printed in the HSCA report.
>
> BTW, there are two separate lateral x-rays. One has the entire skull on
> it, the other has the back end cropped of. Jerrol Custer talked about it a
> little bit in his ARRB deposition. The original lateral view published by
> the HSCA shows the entire skull; only the enhanced version had the rear
> end cropped.

Cropped off by whom? Why? To cover up evidence?

>
>
>> Oh, another question for you....Baden testified that there was NO evidence
>> on the X-rays of a low hit.....so what about the trail of tiny
>> opacities...didn't they count in Baden's mind...but just an innocent
>> oversight, right?
>
> The ARRB radiologists, whom you'd like to believe are some sort of
> forensic get-out-of-jail-free card, didn't see the opacities as evidence
> of an entry. Neither did the other members of the FPP, with the possible
> exception of Davis. Neither did Seaman. The opacities are just that,
> little lucent specs. They could be any number of things. Dirt and debris
> on the film. Contamination in the developing machine. Bits of Lord Knows
> What in the former President's hair. Without correlating the opacities
> with others in the AP view, you can't even say they're within the skull.
>

I don't remember who proposed it, but there is a theory about the missed
shot hitting the pavement, breaking up the bullet and sending bullet
fragments into the back of JFK's head.

But the HSCA needed a perfectly straight line trajectory to frame
Oswald. That's why they lied about the wound locations.

John Canal

unread,

May 20, 2012, 6:59:52 PM5/20/12

In article <4fb8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/18/2012 11:06 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "John Canal"<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[...]

IMO, Marsh, when it comes to posts regarding the medical evidence, you're
like a bull in a china shop rampaging through the posts of others without
having an adequate knowledge of that aspect of the case.

For example, here's an excerpt from your post that demonstrates my point.

Todd wrote:

>> Again, Sturdivan in his own words:
>>
>> However, there is no unequivocal evidence of a crater at either proposed
>> entry point visible on either the original or the enhanced print. There is

Marsh responded:

"Finally we get a WC defender that there was no entrance wound on the back
of the head, so Canal has to throw him under the bus now."

?????????????????

So, because Sturdivan didn't see an entry on the X-rays either in the
cowlick or near the EOP, you take a leap worthy of jumping over the Grand
Canyon and conclude that I'm going to throw Sturdivan under the bus
because you think what he said rules out an entry in the BOH....which
would fit with "one" of your off-the-charts-wacky theories that JFK was
not hit anywhere in the BOH.

Now, please take your fingers off the keyboard and read for comprehension:

In Finck's words, X-rays are really not very usefull for identifying entry
wounds...they are best used for identifying fractures and bullet
fragments, etc.

Note, however, sometimes indications of an entry can be seen on x-rays. In
fact Zimmerman observed just that near the EOP on the lateral.

In any case, Sturdivan's above remark comes as no surprise to anyone who
has an adequate knowledge of the medical evidence in this case (which,
IMHO, leaves you out).

Now, this ridiculous comment/conclusion of yours is precisely why I'm
going to ignore the rest of this post of yours (even though it was a reply
to Todd's post) and probably your future posts.

0 new messages