To be clear from the beginning: I am not a forensics or medical expert; never have been, never will be. I am a retired public schoolteacher, period, who has simply been very interested in this assassination since the time of the twenty-fifth anniversary of it in 1988. Since then I have studied a truly gigantic amount of material relating to many different aspects of the case, but I do not claim for a moment to be one of the world's foremost expert researchers on this subject. The only thing I can safely claim truthfully is that I know more about the assassination than does the average person.
However, it is a myth that a person absolutely *must* be an expert in a field to be correct about certain aspects of that field only. To say otherwise is tantamount to making the implausible claim that unless I am an expert astronomer, there is no possibility that I will correctly identify which objects in the sky are the moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Polaris, or correctly identify the constellations of the Big Dipper, Orion, and the Pleides. But in fact, without being anything even remotely close to an expert astronomer I have still correctly identified all of those many times, merely due to a healthy amateur interest in astronomy.
I don't have to be an expert in astronomy; all I have to do is know *enough* about how to identify those particular things.
It has also been seen many times throughout recorded history that the layman will catch things the experts miss, particularly when it relates to a more general, overall picture. The common saying that one "fails to see the forest because of the trees" relates to this. The expert is sometimes seeing the individual "trees" but not comprehending the overall "forest."
In other words the expert, being so intimately involved with the minutiae of the field of study, will sometimes fail to notice something more general that can leap out at the layman who is objectively standing outside of the field of expertise.
We already have a superb example of this very thing in connection with the very assassination which is the topic of this newsgroup, in the form of Steve Barber. Mr. Barber, listening to a very poor quality reproduction of the DPD dictabelt recording on a thin bendable plastic record that was included in a magazine, noticed something all, or nearly all, of the bonafide acoustics experts had missed up to that time, and his observations were made public, prompting the experts to re-examine the dictabelt.
Now, do not mistake me. I know perfectly well that being a true expert in a particular field is a superb advantage when discussing that field.
Of course it is. But that alone does not always guarantee that the expert is right 100% of the time and the layman is wrong 100% of the time, especially when the layman is discussing only one particular aspect of that field, or certain individual aspects only.
Again, I am not exactly an "expert" in forensics, pathology, medical evidence from autopsies, etc. However, I've been studying this particular autopsy extensively since 1988, and most especially since 2002, and that includes having viewed the photos and x-rays from it many times, reading what others have said about this evidence many times, including what many experts in these fields have said many times, reading the complete, unabridged statements from the original documents, of the autopsists and others present at the autopsy many times, and so forth. An absolute expert in these fields I may not be, but at this late date I'm not exactly a novice either. And it is not an absolute requirement for me to be an expert to write knowledgeably and plausibly about certain aspects only of this autopsy, and these photographs. All that is required is that I know *enough* about these aspects only.
Regarding the chronological ordering of the autopsy photographs, meaning the approximate order in which they are taken, I shall begin with what I consider to be plain common-sense notions from a person to some extent standing objectively outside these fields of expertise. In this first premise, I rather doubt that the majority of the foremost experts worldwide in any field that relates to the autopsy of a deceased human would especially disagree with what I'm about to say next:
Simply common sense would indicate that photographs of an autopsy would fall into two categories:
1. Photographs taken of the body in its initial state, as the body was upon arrival at the autopsy, prior to any work being done on the body by the autopsists.
2. Photographs taken of the body, perhaps in stages, after the autopsists have begun work on the body.
For reasons that are so obvious that it would be embarrassing to give them aloud, in writing, or in any other form of communication, it would be impossible for the photos in category 2 to be taken prior to the photos in category 1.
I mean, duh. ;-)
Rather obviously I don't need to be anything even remotely like an expert in any field related to autopsies to be correct without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken in my premise of those two categories of autopsy photographs. In fact, to come to that conclusion I literally do not have to know anything more than to simply know what a photograph is, and know what an autopsy is.
:P
I will now proceed to do what I have been "threatening" to do since at least August of last year, and that is to examine a further refinement of chronological ordering of the autopsy photos that would fall into category 2, the photos taken after the autopsists had begun to work on the body, along with an extensive discussion of crucial issues that are related. I shall use as my starting point an article posted by John Canal in my other "final photographs" thread, and incorporating his corrections made in another article in that thread. Here Mr. Canal is identifying these photographs by the numbering given in ARRB document MD 13, which is the "Signed Military Inventory of Autopsy Photos and X-Rays" dating from November, 1966. The first page of that document can be seen here,
and all subsequent pages can be viewed by clicking "Next."
> Part II-Photographic Materials begins with a list of the 4" X 5" Black and > White Negatives with Prints.
Mr. Canal here is referring to the list of photographs which begins on page 4 of the document, and is numbered 1 through 52.
> Nos. 1-10 were taken early
Correct. All of these clearly fall into what I have called above category 1, photos that were taken of the body after its arrival but before any work had yet been done on it by the autopsists. Photos 1 through 4 are of the left side of the head. Here is one of those photos:
Numbers 7 though 10 are of the superior view of the head, i.e. with the camera pointed at the top of the head as the body is laying on the autopsy table. Here is one of those:
All of these clearly show a great deal of congealed blood in the hair, and some of the damage that is visible to the head, including some protruding bone most obvious in the photos taken of the right side of the head. Clearly this is before the autopsists have peeled back hair and scalp to examine the full extent of the damage to the skull underneath. It should also be noted that these photos, none of which of course show the back of the head, are quite consistent with the statements of the majority of witnesses who saw the damage to the head at any time between the instant the fatal damage was inflicted, and the beginning of the autopsy when these very photos were taken. The majority of these witnesses did not describe any significant opening in the skull, through which one could see brain, on any part of the head which can be seen in these photos. In other words, almost no one described any such opening in the skull on the left, right, or top of his head. Often, when claims are made are made of a serious contradiction between the majority of the witness statements and the findings of the autopsy, this matter is overlooked. These 10 photographs, showing the head in the condition in which the body arrived, agree quite well with what these witnesses noticed, and didn't notice, about the *top* and *sides* of the head. It is only regarding the *back* of the head, which is not even shown in these 10 photos, that the apparent contradiction arises.
But there is one primary piece of photographic evidence which does, on the surface, seem to be seriously inconsistent with these 10 photos, and that is the Zapruder film. Immediately after the head shot, the right side of the face is suddenly and completely obscured by very large open flaps of scalp and bone, all of which is entirely forward of the right ear, quite obvious, horrifically obvious, for example, in frame 335:
Yet we do not see such wide open flaps nearly as large in these photos from the autopsy, this being most especially in photos 5 and 6 of the right side of the head. Why does this differ so dramatically from the frames following 313 in the film? Is it evidence of forgery of the film? Is it evidence of alteration to the damage to the head at some point between when the film was shot and when the body arrived at Bethesda and then these 10 photos were taken?
The explanation for the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw and the autopsy photos which show a relatively undamaged BOH is really quite simple. Your link btw, to frame 335 is useful, but this one of frame 337 is a bit better, because it is an extreme blowup taken by Robert Groden, from his very high quality second generation copy of the film.
A large piece of skullbone, sitting at the upper rear of the head was probably broken loose by the 313 explosion, and then blown to the rear by a second headshot, taking with it hair and scalp that was located forward of it, and leaving a visible indention where the skull piece had been located.
The skullbone remained attached to the scalp and could be easily flipped back into place, covering over most of the damage in that area. That is why there was a discrepancy between Humes' measurement of the large defect as 13 cm, front to back, and Boswell's of 17 cm. Of course, Boswell measured it with the head laid open, while Humes measured it with the skull piece flipped back into place.
Boswell described the damage in his testimony before the ARRB,
"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that."
and..
"Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually--scalp missing."
I made several video presentations on this, which go into more detail and looks at the relevant images.
> To be clear from the beginning: I am not a forensics or medical expert;
> never have been, never will be. I am a retired public schoolteacher,
> period, who has simply been very interested in this assassination since
> the time of the twenty-fifth anniversary of it in 1988. Since then I have
> studied a truly gigantic amount of material relating to many different
> aspects of the case, but I do not claim for a moment to be one of the
> world's foremost expert researchers on this subject. The only thing I can
> safely claim truthfully is that I know more about the assassination than
> does the average person.
> However, it is a myth that a person absolutely *must* be an expert in a
> field to be correct about certain aspects of that field only. To say
> otherwise is tantamount to making the implausible claim that unless I am
> an expert astronomer, there is no possibility that I will correctly
> identify which objects in the sky are the moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
> Polaris, or correctly identify the constellations of the Big Dipper,
> Orion, and the Pleides. But in fact, without being anything even remotely
> close to an expert astronomer I have still correctly identified all of
> those many times, merely due to a healthy amateur interest in astronomy.
> I don't have to be an expert in astronomy; all I have to do is know
> *enough* about how to identify those particular things.
> It has also been seen many times throughout recorded history that the
> layman will catch things the experts miss, particularly when it relates to
> a more general, overall picture. The common saying that one "fails to see
> the forest because of the trees" relates to this. The expert is sometimes
> seeing the individual "trees" but not comprehending the overall "forest."
> In other words the expert, being so intimately involved with the minutiae
> of the field of study, will sometimes fail to notice something more
> general that can leap out at the layman who is objectively standing
> outside of the field of expertise.
> We already have a superb example of this very thing in connection with the
> very assassination which is the topic of this newsgroup, in the form of
> Steve Barber. Mr. Barber, listening to a very poor quality reproduction
> of the DPD dictabelt recording on a thin bendable plastic record that was
> included in a magazine, noticed something all, or nearly all, of the
> bonafide acoustics experts had missed up to that time, and his
> observations were made public, prompting the experts to re-examine the
> dictabelt.
Steve's identification of that message does not in and of itself invalidate the BBN study. That message could still fall after the shots.
> Now, do not mistake me. I know perfectly well that being a true expert
> in a particular field is a superb advantage when discussing that field.
> Of course it is. But that alone does not always guarantee that the
> expert is right 100% of the time and the layman is wrong 100% of the
> time, especially when the layman is discussing only one particular
> aspect of that field, or certain individual aspects only.
> Again, I am not exactly an "expert" in forensics, pathology, medical
> evidence from autopsies, etc. However, I've been studying this
> particular autopsy extensively since 1988, and most especially since
> 2002, and that includes having viewed the photos and x-rays from it many
> times, reading what others have said about this evidence many times,
No, you've never seen the complete original Fox set of black and whites or the Groden set of color photos.
> including what many experts in these fields have said many times,
> reading the complete, unabridged statements from the original documents,
> of the autopsists and others present at the autopsy many times, and so
> forth. An absolute expert in these fields I may not be, but at this
And yet you refuse to read the JAMA articles. You don't even have copies.
> late date I'm not exactly a novice either. And it is not an absolute
> requirement for me to be an expert to write knowledgeably and plausibly
> about certain aspects only of this autopsy, and these photographs. All
> that is required is that I know *enough* about these aspects only.
> Regarding the chronological ordering of the autopsy photographs, meaning
> the approximate order in which they are taken, I shall begin with what I
> consider to be plain common-sense notions from a person to some extent
> standing objectively outside these fields of expertise. In this first
> premise, I rather doubt that the majority of the foremost experts
> worldwide in any field that relates to the autopsy of a deceased human
> would especially disagree with what I'm about to say next:
> Simply common sense would indicate that photographs of an autopsy would
> fall into two categories:
> 1. Photographs taken of the body in its initial state, as the body was
> upon arrival at the autopsy, prior to any work being done on the body by
> the autopsists.
> 2. Photographs taken of the body, perhaps in stages, after the
> autopsists have begun work on the body.
> For reasons that are so obvious that it would be embarrassing to give
> them aloud, in writing, or in any other form of communication, it would
> be impossible for the photos in category 2 to be taken prior to the
> photos in category 1.
> I mean, duh. ;-)
> Rather obviously I don't need to be anything even remotely like an
> expert in any field related to autopsies to be correct without the
> slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken in my premise of
> those two categories of autopsy photographs. In fact, to come to that
> conclusion I literally do not have to know anything more than to simply
> know what a photograph is, and know what an autopsy is.
> :P
> I will now proceed to do what I have been "threatening" to do since at
> least August of last year, and that is to examine a further refinement
> of chronological ordering of the autopsy photos that would fall into
> category 2, the photos taken after the autopsists had begun to work on
> the body, along with an extensive discussion of crucial issues that are
> related. I shall use as my starting point an article posted by John
> Canal in my other "final photographs" thread, and incorporating his
> corrections made in another article in that thread. Here Mr. Canal is
> identifying these photographs by the numbering given in ARRB document MD
> 13, which is the "Signed Military Inventory of Autopsy Photos and
> X-Rays" dating from November, 1966. The first page of that document can
> be seen here,
> and all subsequent pages can be viewed by clicking "Next."
>> Part II-Photographic Materials begins with a list of the 4" X 5" Black and
>> White Negatives with Prints.
> Mr. Canal here is referring to the list of photographs which begins on
> page 4 of the document, and is numbered 1 through 52.
>> Nos. 1-10 were taken early
> Correct. All of these clearly fall into what I have called above
> category 1, photos that were taken of the body after its arrival but
> before any work had yet been done on it by the autopsists. Photos 1
> through 4 are of the left side of the head. Here is one of those photos:
> Numbers 7 though 10 are of the superior view of the head, i.e. with the
> camera pointed at the top of the head as the body is laying on the
> autopsy table. Here is one of those:
> All of these clearly show a great deal of congealed blood in the hair,
> and some of the damage that is visible to the head, including some
> protruding bone most obvious in the photos taken of the right side of
> the head. Clearly this is before the autopsists have peeled back hair
> and scalp to examine the full extent of the damage to the skull
> underneath. It should also be noted that these photos, none of which of
> course show the back of the head, are quite consistent with the
> statements of the majority of witnesses who saw the damage to the head
> at any time between the instant the fatal damage was inflicted, and the
> beginning of the autopsy when these very photos were taken. The
> majority of these witnesses did not describe any significant opening in
> the skull, through which one could see brain, on any part of the head
> which can be seen in these photos. In other words, almost no one
> described any such opening in the skull on the left, right, or top of
> his head. Often, when claims are made are made of a serious
> contradiction between the majority of the witness statements and the
> findings of the autopsy, this matter is overlooked. These 10
> photographs, showing the head in the condition in which the body
> arrived, agree quite well with what these witnesses noticed, and didn't
> notice, about the *top* and *sides* of the head. It is only regarding
> the *back* of the head, which is not even shown in these 10 photos, that
> the apparent contradiction arises.
> But there is one primary piece of photographic evidence which does, on
> the surface, seem to be seriously inconsistent with these 10 photos, and
> that is the Zapruder film. Immediately after the head shot, the right
> side of the face is suddenly and completely obscured by very large open
> flaps of scalp and bone, all of which is entirely forward of the right
> ear,
I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't have.
John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further and say, he is simply wrong about this.
Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain matter also visible in the Z-film.
> To be clear from the beginning: I am not a forensics or medical expert;
> never have been, never will be. I am a retired public schoolteacher,
> period, who has simply been very interested in this assassination since
> the time of the twenty-fifth anniversary of it in 1988. Since then I have
> studied a truly gigantic amount of material relating to many different
> aspects of the case, but I do not claim for a moment to be one of the
> world's foremost expert researchers on this subject. The only thing I can
> safely claim truthfully is that I know more about the assassination than
> does the average person.
> However, it is a myth that a person absolutely *must* be an expert in a
> field to be correct about certain aspects of that field only. To say
> otherwise is tantamount to making the implausible claim that unless I am
> an expert astronomer, there is no possibility that I will correctly
> identify which objects in the sky are the moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
> Polaris, or correctly identify the constellations of the Big Dipper,
> Orion, and the Pleides. But in fact, without being anything even remotely
> close to an expert astronomer I have still correctly identified all of
> those many times, merely due to a healthy amateur interest in astronomy.
> I don't have to be an expert in astronomy; all I have to do is know
> *enough* about how to identify those particular things.
> It has also been seen many times throughout recorded history that the
> layman will catch things the experts miss, particularly when it relates to
> a more general, overall picture. The common saying that one "fails to see
> the forest because of the trees" relates to this. The expert is sometimes
> seeing the individual "trees" but not comprehending the overall "forest."
> In other words the expert, being so intimately involved with the minutiae
> of the field of study, will sometimes fail to notice something more
> general that can leap out at the layman who is objectively standing
> outside of the field of expertise.
> We already have a superb example of this very thing in connection with the
> very assassination which is the topic of this newsgroup, in the form of
> Steve Barber. Mr. Barber, listening to a very poor quality reproduction
> of the DPD dictabelt recording on a thin bendable plastic record that was
> included in a magazine, noticed something all, or nearly all, of the
> bonafide acoustics experts had missed up to that time, and his
> observations were made public, prompting the experts to re-examine the
> dictabelt.
> Now, do not mistake me. I know perfectly well that being a true expert
> in a particular field is a superb advantage when discussing that field.
> Of course it is. But that alone does not always guarantee that the
> expert is right 100% of the time and the layman is wrong 100% of the
> time, especially when the layman is discussing only one particular
> aspect of that field, or certain individual aspects only.
> Again, I am not exactly an "expert" in forensics, pathology, medical
> evidence from autopsies, etc. However, I've been studying this
> particular autopsy extensively since 1988, and most especially since
> 2002, and that includes having viewed the photos and x-rays from it many
> times, reading what others have said about this evidence many times,
> including what many experts in these fields have said many times,
> reading the complete, unabridged statements from the original documents,
> of the autopsists and others present at the autopsy many times, and so
> forth. An absolute expert in these fields I may not be, but at this
> late date I'm not exactly a novice either. And it is not an absolute
> requirement for me to be an expert to write knowledgeably and plausibly
> about certain aspects only of this autopsy, and these photographs. All
> that is required is that I know *enough* about these aspects only.
> Regarding the chronological ordering of the autopsy photographs, meaning
> the approximate order in which they are taken, I shall begin with what I
> consider to be plain common-sense notions from a person to some extent
> standing objectively outside these fields of expertise. In this first
> premise, I rather doubt that the majority of the foremost experts
> worldwide in any field that relates to the autopsy of a deceased human
> would especially disagree with what I'm about to say next:
> Simply common sense would indicate that photographs of an autopsy would
> fall into two categories:
> 1. Photographs taken of the body in its initial state, as the body was
> upon arrival at the autopsy, prior to any work being done on the body by
> the autopsists.
> 2. Photographs taken of the body, perhaps in stages, after the
> autopsists have begun work on the body.
> For reasons that are so obvious that it would be embarrassing to give
> them aloud, in writing, or in any other form of communication, it would
> be impossible for the photos in category 2 to be taken prior to the
> photos in category 1.
> I mean, duh. ;-)
> Rather obviously I don't need to be anything even remotely like an
> expert in any field related to autopsies to be correct without the
> slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken in my premise of
> those two categories of autopsy photographs. In fact, to come to that
> conclusion I literally do not have to know anything more than to simply
> know what a photograph is, and know what an autopsy is.
> :P
> I will now proceed to do what I have been "threatening" to do since at
> least August of last year, and that is to examine a further refinement
> of chronological ordering of the autopsy photos that would fall into
> category 2, the photos taken after the autopsists had begun to work on
> the body, along with an extensive discussion of crucial issues that are
> related. I shall use as my starting point an article posted by John
> Canal in my other "final photographs" thread, and incorporating his
> corrections made in another article in that thread. Here Mr. Canal is
> identifying these photographs by the numbering given in ARRB document MD
> 13, which is the "Signed Military Inventory of Autopsy Photos and
> X-Rays" dating from November, 1966. The first page of that document can
> be seen here,
> and all subsequent pages can be viewed by clicking "Next."
>> Part II-Photographic Materials begins with a list of the 4" X 5" Black >> and
>> White Negatives with Prints.
> Mr. Canal here is referring to the list of photographs which begins on
> page 4 of the document, and is numbered 1 through 52.
>> Nos. 1-10 were taken early
> Correct. All of these clearly fall into what I have called above
> category 1, photos that were taken of the body after its arrival but
> before any work had yet been done on it by the autopsists. Photos 1
> through 4 are of the left side of the head. Here is one of those photos:
> Numbers 7 though 10 are of the superior view of the head, i.e. with the
> camera pointed at the top of the head as the body is laying on the
> autopsy table. Here is one of those:
> All of these clearly show a great deal of congealed blood in the hair,
> and some of the damage that is visible to the head, including some
> protruding bone most obvious in the photos taken of the right side of
> the head. Clearly this is before the autopsists have peeled back hair
> and scalp to examine the full extent of the damage to the skull
> underneath. It should also be noted that these photos, none of which of
> course show the back of the head, are quite consistent with the
> statements of the majority of witnesses who saw the damage to the head
> at any time between the instant the fatal damage was inflicted, and the
> beginning of the autopsy when these very photos were taken. The
> majority of these witnesses did not describe any significant opening in
> the skull, through which one could see brain, on any part of the head
> which can be seen in these photos. In other words, almost no one
> described any such opening in the skull on the left, right, or top of
> his head. Often, when claims are made are made of a serious
> contradiction between the majority of the witness statements and the
> findings of the autopsy, this matter is overlooked. These 10
> photographs, showing the head in the condition in which the body
> arrived, agree
You seem to be saying what I have said for years. Jackie closed the skull flaps so the wound appeared different to the personnel at Parkland than it does in the Z-film and the way it was described at autopsy. The blowout was much more massive than anyone at Parkland knew because they never got around to examining the head wound closesly. There was no point. It was obvious there was nothing they could do. The guy lying on the guerney was going to be dead in a very short time despite their best efforts. The staff at Parkland saw the massive bleeding from the head and a few of them actually took a closer look but nobody actually treated that head wound which is why they believed the blowout was confined to the rear portion of the head when in fact it extended all along the upper right side of the head from back to front or as the autopsy team described it, "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". This isn't rocket science. Large pieces of skull were blown out but remained attached to the scalp. Flaps opened up. Flaps were closed. This dramatically altered the appearance of the wound to those who saw the head wound with the flaps closed and never got around to examining that head wound close enough to appreciate the full extent of the blowout.
> You seem to be saying what I have said for years. Jackie closed the skull
> flaps so the wound appeared different to the personnel at Parkland than it
> does in the Z-film and the way it was described at autopsy. The blowout
> was much more massive than anyone at Parkland knew because they never got
> around to examining the head wound closesly. There was no point. It was
> obvious there was nothing they could do. The guy lying on the guerney was
> going to be dead in a very short time despite their best efforts. The
> staff at Parkland saw the massive bleeding from the head and a few of them
> actually took a closer look but nobody actually treated that head wound
> which is why they believed the blowout was confined to the rear portion of
> the head when in fact it extended all along the upper right side of the
> head from back to front or as the autopsy team described it, "chiefly the
> parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
> regions". This isn't rocket science. Large pieces of skull were blown out
> but remained attached to the scalp. Flaps opened up. Flaps were closed.
> This dramatically altered the appearance of the wound to those who saw the
> head wound with the flaps closed and never got around to examining that
> head wound close enough to appreciate the full extent of the blowout.
Close, but the head was also covered by extruded brain matter and clotted blood by the time Parkland saw it.
In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read >all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't >have.
>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll >try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in >the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further >and say, he is simply wrong about this.
I don't expect Fiorentino to read this...he only has time to offer his 2 cents and then gets out of Dodge.
Sure I'm wrong about 25+ PH eyewitnesses were wrong, Humes was wrong, Boswell, was wrong, Finck was wrong, several Bethesda eyewitnesses (including Ebersole and the morticians were wrong), Sturdvan was wrong, Zimmerman was wrong, the ARRB forensic experts were wrong, and McAdams was wrong too....ya right John.
Just go John, don't read on...your time is too valuable to defend your "position".
Yes, that's right I said you think McAdams must be wrong too.....after all, he recognized (as I think you do) that the circular defect in F8 was deep inside JFK's cranial cavity.........sure, he then tried to say that wasn't the entry...sure, what else was he going to say?
Get real, John....heck even you "cautiously" said it might be the entry.
Of course it's the entry and McAdams was right...as seen in F8, that defect (whatever McAdams wants to call it) is deep inside the cranial cavity.....WHICH MEANS, for anyone...who ________censored, THAT THE ENTRY IN THE BOH PHOTOS, WHICH IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE COWLICK, IS PROOF THAT THE SCALP WAS WORKED ON PRIOR TO THOSE PICTURES BEING TAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heck, both Mitch Todd and Joe Durnavish, who have forgotten more about the medical eidence than you'll ever know--or want to know (because you rely on the B/S of Baden, just like Posner, and VB did), agree that's the entry....
...and gee whiz just because Sturdivan (who you commended for his arguments on the NAA), after examining the originals stereocopically, agreed that Humes was correct, you guys throw him under the bus.....relying on Baden.
Same with Zimmerman......just like with Sturdivan, all of a sudden he's wrong too.....he reads X-rays every bloody day as part of his profession and, besides saying F8 shows Humes was right about the entry, saw a cluster of tiny opacities on the X-ray (which he and Sturdivan agree represented bone fragments) near the EOP.
Of course you can't see them on the published copies of the lateral...because, interestingly, the damn EOP area is cropped off.
Golly, what a coincidence. Why don't ou ask Baden why that happened?
Don't be so gullible, John...both Johns. Baden took you for a ride down the yellow-brick road...you ought to open your eyes and get off that train.
>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
Why do you think 12 photos were added to the receipt? Do you think it's a coincidence that there are 12 photos in the invenory that show the BOH scalp?
John Canal
>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment >of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH >photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain >matter also visible in the Z-film.
bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You seem to be saying what I have said for years. Jackie closed the skull > flaps so the wound appeared different to the personnel at Parkland than it > does in the Z-film and the way it was described at autopsy. The blowout > was much more massive than anyone at Parkland knew because they never got > around to examining the head wound closesly. There was no point. It was > obvious there was nothing they could do. The guy lying on the guerney was > going to be dead in a very short time despite their best efforts. The > staff at Parkland saw the massive bleeding from the head and a few of them > actually took a closer look but nobody actually treated that head wound > which is why they believed the blowout was confined to the rear portion of > the head when in fact it extended all along the upper right side of the > head from back to front or as the autopsy team described it, "chiefly the > parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital > regions". This isn't rocket science. Large pieces of skull were blown out > but remained attached to the scalp. Flaps opened up. Flaps were closed. > This dramatically altered the appearance of the wound to those who saw the > head wound with the flaps closed and never got around to examining that > head wound close enough to appreciate the full extent of the blowout.
Good for you, as long as you're not still thinking what they saw was a hole caused by the missing Harper Fragment, on which I have corrected you many times. You've already admitted above that the hole was partially caused by bone being blown out (although I'd use the term displaced) but still attached to the scalp. The Harper Fragment was obviously not still attached to the scalp at the autopsy, since it wasn't even found in Dallas until the afternoon of the following day.
In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read > all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't > have.
> John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll > try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
> Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in > the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
I don't see how that is especially significant. The suturing might be hidden by the hair, depending on how it was done.
> Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further > and say, he is simply wrong about this.
Ah, but on what basis? We simply have too many witnesses, in the limo, outside Parkland, inside Parkland, in Dallas and Bethesda, and at Bethesda only, saying there was a hole in the back of JFK's head for it to be at all plausible that it wasn't there. And there can't be a hole unless there is also a rip or tear in the scalp in that area. If the scalp is intact, and not torn, there won't be a hole visible from the outside, even if there is an underlying hole in the skull. So unless you're prepared to dismiss a much larger amount of the evidence than I am, and claim that this many witnesses, including quite a few medical professionals, were mistaken about something so incredibly obvious, or to claim that these autopsy photos were doctored after they were taken (a claim that I don't think you or I make), then by far the most plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction is simply that the witnesses were correct, and that hole was closed when the photos were taken. And what is just about the only way it would be closed, so that there is no hole in the scalp even? Suturing. Do you know of any other method?
> Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
I strongly disagree. It is of crucial importance to resolve this, one of the most serious controversies ever to arise regarding this assassination, in a way that involves dismissing the smallest amount of evidence, because only then will the most plausible explanation be reached. It would obviously then be of crucial importance to determine, as well as we possibly can, when during the autopsy these photos were taken. To say they were taken late, perhaps latest, does indeed involve dismissing the smallest amount of available evidence, since if suturing was done, it would obviously have been done late.
> It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment > of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
Exactly.
> The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH > photo.
Yes and no. It is obviously much larger in the film. I might agree that part of it is open in the autopsy photos, but not nearly as much of it as in the film. In the film it is quite obvious that some of the flap extends lower than the level of his right ear. That is not the case in the autopsy photos.
> I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain > matter also visible in the Z-film.
Well, that may be, and perhaps I should not be referring to all of that in the film as "flaps" of scalp and bone only. Whatever it is, possibly a combination of flaps and brain matter hanging out, I was still correct in stating that not only is the film the only photographic evidence of the damage in front of his right ear being that huge and obvious at any time before the autopsists worked on exposing the full damage to the skull, I have also given a quite plausible explanation as to why the appearance of the size of that damage changed so quickly, so that nearly all subsequent observers in the limo, outside Parkland, inside Parkland, in Dallas and Bethesda, and at Bethesda only (prior to the full exposure of the damage to the skull) were not of the initial impression that the damage forward of the right ear was as serious as the damage well behind the right ear.
In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read >all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't >have.
>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll >try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in >the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
This was the deceased President of the United States...they were preparing him
for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over the
globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could notice
in the copies of the autopsy photos?
Geesh!
Because you've studied the medical evidence so thoroughly you probably knew
this:
Joe Hagan, who supervised Gawler's team of morticians and was interviewed by the
ARRB's David Marwell, Douglas Horne, Tom Samoluk, Jeremy Gunn, and Tim Wray (at
least they were in attendance) stated, according to Horne, that "....the scalp
was pulled together and sutured into place."
And this:
Tom Robinson, another member of Gawler's team interviewed by the ARRB stated:
"The scalp was sutured together...and "the damage in the back of the head was
obscured by a pillow." I did find that last part interesting...I wondered why if
the BOH looked as undamaged as it did in the BOH photos would they need to
obscure it?
>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further >and say, he is simply wrong about this.
Ouch, see below.
>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
Sure. :-(
>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment >of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH >photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain >matter also visible in the Z-film.
It's one thing to be told I'm wrong by someone who knows the medical evidence,
but being told I'm wrong by you is a horse of a different color.
For example, FYI the flap seen blown open above his right ear in the Z-film is
hardly the same flap seen hanging off the front right of his head in the BOH
photos and F8.
The graphic (link to below) will probably confuse you but if you can somehow
decipher it I think you'll be able to figure out that the Z-film flap is
entirely diffent from the BOH photo flap.
Now, this is just some more "conjecture" of mine, but IMO the Z-film flap was
closed when the BOH photos were taken...on the other hand the right front flap
prominently seen in the BOH photos [and F8] probably hinged down while they were
removing the brain...when it did come down if offered them a little better
access to the brain---that is to remove it.
And speaking of you being confused about the medical evidence would you please
post a graphic for us showing the path that the bullet took that created the
laceration Humes described in the Supplementry Autopsy Report?
To refresh your memory he said it began, 2.5 cm right of midline at the tip of
the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe......AND YOU SAID
THAT A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LACERATION
HUMES DESCRIBED.
I asked you to draw that path several years ago, but you never did...or at least
if you did, I missed it. In any case would you post that graphic for us...again
if you already did?
I am particulary interested in how a bullet could enter the right parietal bone
and still enter the brain at the tip of the occipital lobe.
Maybe it's me that's confused on this specific issue...if so, your graphic might
help me out...so how about it?
Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>>all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>>have.
>>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll
>>try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>>the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
>>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>>and say, he is simply wrong about this.
> I don't expect Fiorentino to read this...he only has time to offer his 2
> cents and then gets out of Dodge.
> Sure I'm wrong about 25+ PH eyewitnesses were wrong, Humes was wrong,
> Boswell, was wrong, Finck was wrong, several Bethesda eyewitnesses
> (including Ebersole and the morticians were wrong), Sturdvan was wrong,
> Zimmerman was wrong, the ARRB forensic experts were wrong, and McAdams was
> wrong too....ya right John.
> Just go John, don't read on...your time is too valuable to defend your
> "position".
> Yes, that's right I said you think McAdams must be wrong too.....after
> all, he recognized (as I think you do) that the circular defect in F8 was
> deep inside JFK's cranial cavity.........sure, he then tried to say that
> wasn't the entry...sure, what else was he going to say?
> Get real, John....heck even you "cautiously" said it might be the entry.
> Of course it's the entry and McAdams was right...as seen in F8, that
> defect (whatever McAdams wants to call it) is deep inside the cranial
> cavity.....WHICH MEANS, for anyone...who ________censored, THAT THE ENTRY
> IN THE BOH PHOTOS, WHICH IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE COWLICK, IS PROOF THAT THE
> SCALP WAS WORKED ON PRIOR TO THOSE PICTURES BEING TAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Heck, both Mitch Todd and Joe Durnavish, who have forgotten more about the
> medical eidence than you'll ever know--or want to know (because you rely
> on the B/S of Baden, just like Posner, and VB did), agree that's the
> entry....
> ...and gee whiz just because Sturdivan (who you commended for his
> arguments on the NAA), after examining the originals stereocopically,
> agreed that Humes was correct, you guys throw him under the
> bus.....relying on Baden.
> Same with Zimmerman......just like with Sturdivan, all of a sudden he's
> wrong too.....he reads X-rays every bloody day as part of his profession
> and, besides saying F8 shows Humes was right about the entry, saw a
> cluster of tiny opacities on the X-ray (which he and Sturdivan agree
> represented bone fragments) near the EOP.
> Of course you can't see them on the published copies of the
> lateral...because, interestingly, the damn EOP area is cropped off.
> Golly, what a coincidence. Why don't ou ask Baden why that happened?
> Don't be so gullible, John...both Johns. Baden took you for a ride down
> the yellow-brick road...you ought to open your eyes and get off that
> train.
>>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
> Why do you think 12 photos were added to the receipt? Do you think it's a
> coincidence that there are 12 photos in the invenory that show the BOH
> scalp?
> John Canal
>>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>>of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>>photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>>matter also visible in the Z-film.
In article <504debc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>John C
>Please John, say what you want about me, but make it accurate ok?
>Re: F8. Yes, I said Proposed entry. In any event, whatever it is, it IS NOT >deep inside the cranial vault.
You sound like Harris when he states as fact the startle reactions absolutely prove there was a 285 shot.
Go see the originals and you might realize the truth....McAdams was correct...the replications were accurate and Zimmerman and Sturdivan were correct too.
>.John thinks so, I do not. I believe it is where I have always said it is >and that is approx. 2 inches down from the vertex.
Well your eyeballs and Harris' are the cream de la cream re. the value of evidence.
Unbelievable!
>(Which makes me believe you are correct and it is *the* entry)
You've alread said that a long time ago.
Tell me something I didn't know.
>And please don't misrepresent my opinion of Baden. You know better than that
All that I do know is that you agree with him on the entry location and BOH wound issues...which are two of the most argued about matters in this entire case.
>"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:k2h35901mee@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>>>all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>>>have.
>>>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll
>>>try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>>>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>>>the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
>>>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>>>and say, he is simply wrong about this.
>> I don't expect Fiorentino to read this...he only has time to offer his 2
>> cents and then gets out of Dodge.
>> Sure I'm wrong about 25+ PH eyewitnesses were wrong, Humes was wrong,
>> Boswell, was wrong, Finck was wrong, several Bethesda eyewitnesses
>> (including Ebersole and the morticians were wrong), Sturdvan was wrong,
>> Zimmerman was wrong, the ARRB forensic experts were wrong, and McAdams was
>> wrong too....ya right John.
>> Just go John, don't read on...your time is too valuable to defend your
>> "position".
>> Yes, that's right I said you think McAdams must be wrong too.....after
>> all, he recognized (as I think you do) that the circular defect in F8 was
>> deep inside JFK's cranial cavity.........sure, he then tried to say that
>> wasn't the entry...sure, what else was he going to say?
>> Get real, John....heck even you "cautiously" said it might be the entry.
>> Of course it's the entry and McAdams was right...as seen in F8, that
>> defect (whatever McAdams wants to call it) is deep inside the cranial
>> cavity.....WHICH MEANS, for anyone...who ________censored, THAT THE ENTRY
>> IN THE BOH PHOTOS, WHICH IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE COWLICK, IS PROOF THAT THE
>> SCALP WAS WORKED ON PRIOR TO THOSE PICTURES BEING TAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Heck, both Mitch Todd and Joe Durnavish, who have forgotten more about the
>> medical eidence than you'll ever know--or want to know (because you rely
>> on the B/S of Baden, just like Posner, and VB did), agree that's the
>> entry....
>> ...and gee whiz just because Sturdivan (who you commended for his
>> arguments on the NAA), after examining the originals stereocopically,
>> agreed that Humes was correct, you guys throw him under the
>> bus.....relying on Baden.
>> Same with Zimmerman......just like with Sturdivan, all of a sudden he's
>> wrong too.....he reads X-rays every bloody day as part of his profession
>> and, besides saying F8 shows Humes was right about the entry, saw a
>> cluster of tiny opacities on the X-ray (which he and Sturdivan agree
>> represented bone fragments) near the EOP.
>> Of course you can't see them on the published copies of the
>> lateral...because, interestingly, the damn EOP area is cropped off.
>> Golly, what a coincidence. Why don't ou ask Baden why that happened?
>> Don't be so gullible, John...both Johns. Baden took you for a ride down
>> the yellow-brick road...you ought to open your eyes and get off that
>> train.
>>>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
>> Why do you think 12 photos were added to the receipt? Do you think it's a
>> coincidence that there are 12 photos in the invenory that show the BOH
>> scalp?
>> John Canal
>>>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>>>of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>>>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>>>photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>>>matter also visible in the Z-film.
> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
> >I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read > >all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't > >have.
> >John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll > >try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
> >Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in > >the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
> >Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further > >and say, he is simply wrong about this.
> I don't expect Fiorentino to read this...he only has time to offer his 2 > cents and then gets out of Dodge.
> Sure I'm wrong about 25+ PH eyewitnesses were wrong, Humes was wrong, > Boswell, was wrong, Finck was wrong, several Bethesda eyewitnesses > (including Ebersole and the morticians were wrong), Sturdvan was wrong, > Zimmerman was wrong, the ARRB forensic experts were wrong, and McAdams was > wrong too....ya right John.
> Just go John, don't read on...your time is too valuable to defend your > "position".
Well, I can certainly understand not having time to address things properly, as I've experienced that myself. We all have other things going on in our lives besides posting in this newsgroup. Nevertheless, I am tempted to suggest to Mr. Fiorentino that if he doesn't have time to address the points in substantive detail, he should perhaps consider posting no reply at all until he does have time to do so.
> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>>all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>>have.
>>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll
>>try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>>the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
> This was the deceased President of the United States...they were preparing > him
> for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over > the
> globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could > notice
> in the copies of the autopsy photos?
> Geesh!
> Because you've studied the medical evidence so thoroughly you probably > knew
> this:
> Joe Hagan, who supervised Gawler's team of morticians and was interviewed > by the
> ARRB's David Marwell, Douglas Horne, Tom Samoluk, Jeremy Gunn, and Tim > Wray (at
> least they were in attendance) stated, according to Horne, that "....the > scalp
> was pulled together and sutured into place."
> And this:
> Tom Robinson, another member of Gawler's team interviewed by the ARRB > stated:
> "The scalp was sutured together...and "the damage in the back of the head > was
> obscured by a pillow." I did find that last part interesting...I wondered > why if
> the BOH looked as undamaged as it did in the BOH photos would they need to
> obscure it?
>>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>>and say, he is simply wrong about this.
> Ouch, see below.
>>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
> Sure. :-(
>>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>>of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>>photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>>matter also visible in the Z-film.
> It's one thing to be told I'm wrong by someone who knows the medical > evidence,
> but being told I'm wrong by you is a horse of a different color.
> For example, FYI the flap seen blown open above his right ear in the > Z-film is
> hardly the same flap seen hanging off the front right of his head in the > BOH
> photos and F8.
> The graphic (link to below) will probably confuse you but if you can > somehow
> decipher it I think you'll be able to figure out that the Z-film flap is
> entirely diffent from the BOH photo flap.
> Now, this is just some more "conjecture" of mine, but IMO the Z-film flap > was
> closed when the BOH photos were taken...on the other hand the right front > flap
> prominently seen in the BOH photos [and F8] probably hinged down while > they were
> removing the brain...when it did come down if offered them a little better
> access to the brain---that is to remove it.
> And speaking of you being confused about the medical evidence would you > please
> post a graphic for us showing the path that the bullet took that created > the
> laceration Humes described in the Supplementry Autopsy Report?
> To refresh your memory he said it began, 2.5 cm right of midline at the > tip of
> the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe......AND > YOU SAID
> THAT A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE > LACERATION
> HUMES DESCRIBED.
> I asked you to draw that path several years ago, but you never did...or at > least
> if you did, I missed it. In any case would you post that graphic for > us...again
> if you already did?
> I am particulary interested in how a bullet could enter the right parietal > bone
> and still enter the brain at the tip of the occipital lobe.
> Maybe it's me that's confused on this specific issue...if so, your graphic > might
> help me out...so how about it?
> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was > leaning
> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>> I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>> all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>> have.
>> John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll
>> try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>> Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>> the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
> This was the deceased President of the United States...they were preparing him
> for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over the
> globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could notice
> in the copies of the autopsy photos?
At the time the back of the head photos were taken they were still in the middle of the autopsy, not preparing the body for burial. The body is not released to the morticians until after the autopsy is over. Some of us believe that Knudsen took photos of the President for the family AFTER the morticians finished their work and the government will never release them.
> Because you've studied the medical evidence so thoroughly you probably knew
> this:
> Joe Hagan, who supervised Gawler's team of morticians and was interviewed by the
> ARRB's David Marwell, Douglas Horne, Tom Samoluk, Jeremy Gunn, and Tim Wray (at
> least they were in attendance) stated, according to Horne, that "....the scalp
> was pulled together and sutured into place."
> And this:
> Tom Robinson, another member of Gawler's team interviewed by the ARRB stated:
> "The scalp was sutured together...and "the damage in the back of the head was
> obscured by a pillow." I did find that last part interesting...I wondered why if
> the BOH looked as undamaged as it did in the BOH photos would they need to
> obscure it?
>> Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>> and say, he is simply wrong about this.
> Ouch, see below.
>> Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
> Sure. :-(
>> It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>> of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>> The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>> photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>> matter also visible in the Z-film.
> It's one thing to be told I'm wrong by someone who knows the medical evidence,
> but being told I'm wrong by you is a horse of a different color.
> For example, FYI the flap seen blown open above his right ear in the Z-film is
> hardly the same flap seen hanging off the front right of his head in the BOH
> photos and F8.
> The graphic (link to below) will probably confuse you but if you can somehow
> decipher it I think you'll be able to figure out that the Z-film flap is
> entirely diffent from the BOH photo flap.
> Now, this is just some more "conjecture" of mine, but IMO the Z-film flap was
> closed when the BOH photos were taken...on the other hand the right front flap
> prominently seen in the BOH photos [and F8] probably hinged down while they were
> removing the brain...when it did come down if offered them a little better
> access to the brain---that is to remove it.
> And speaking of you being confused about the medical evidence would you please
> post a graphic for us showing the path that the bullet took that created the
> laceration Humes described in the Supplementry Autopsy Report?
> To refresh your memory he said it began, 2.5 cm right of midline at the tip of
> the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe......AND YOU SAID
> THAT A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LACERATION
> HUMES DESCRIBED.
> I asked you to draw that path several years ago, but you never did...or at least
> if you did, I missed it. In any case would you post that graphic for us...again
> if you already did?
> I am particulary interested in how a bullet could enter the right parietal bone
> and still enter the brain at the tip of the occipital lobe.
Is that one of them thar divided core bullets them Italians used for riot control?
> > You seem to be saying what I have said for years. Jackie closed the skull
> > flaps so the wound appeared different to the personnel at Parkland than it
> > does in the Z-film and the way it was described at autopsy. The blowout
> > was much more massive than anyone at Parkland knew because they never got
> > around to examining the head wound closesly. There was no point. It was
> > obvious there was nothing they could do. The guy lying on the guerney was
> > going to be dead in a very short time despite their best efforts. The
> > staff at Parkland saw the massive bleeding from the head and a few of them
> > actually took a closer look but nobody actually treated that head wound
> > which is why they believed the blowout was confined to the rear portion of
> > the head when in fact it extended all along the upper right side of the
> > head from back to front or as the autopsy team described it, "chiefly the
> > parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
> > regions". This isn't rocket science. Large pieces of skull were blown out
> > but remained attached to the scalp. Flaps opened up. Flaps were closed.
> > This dramatically altered the appearance of the wound to those who saw the
> > head wound with the flaps closed and never got around to examining that
> > head wound close enough to appreciate the full extent of the blowout.
> Good for you, as long as you're not still thinking what they saw was a
> hole caused by the missing Harper Fragment, on which I have corrected
> you many times. You've already admitted above that the hole was
> partially caused by bone being blown out (although I'd use the term
> displaced) but still attached to the scalp. The Harper Fragment was
> obviously not still attached to the scalp at the autopsy, since it
> wasn't even found in Dallas until the afternoon of the following day.
> JRK
You've corrected me. Really? It has long been my position that the hole observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment. Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head. Do you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you think there was another hole that they didn't observe?
In article <504e0cf...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>John C:
>Apparently, I only know something about the medical evidence when I agree >with you, i.e., you want to discuss the NA or the 6.5mm artifact.
>Frankly, I resent your assertions and have no wish nor desire to argue >with you John.
You yourself said you wanted to add your 2 cents worth to the debate on these issues....well, "frankly", IMHO, you overestimated the value of your "arguments".
For instance, has there ever been a more ridiculous point made here than the one you tried to make when you said you were sure McAdams was wrong about "the defect" in F8 (that I've been saying for a decade is the entry) being deep inside the cranial cavity.... when.......
.....you've only "eyeballed" F8 (are you saying your eyeballs are better than McAdams')?
Cripes, then to say your eyeballs tell you that defect [the entry] in F8 is only 2 cm down from the vertex takes the cake.....as if your eyeballs are some sort of sophisticated measuring instrument!
Moreover, you have the unbelievable gall to say Larry Sturdivan, who you yourself commended re. his arguments on the NA debate, is wrong when he says that defect [the entry] is where Humes said it was, especially since......
...he examined the originals stereoscopically and you haven't even seen the originals, much less stereoscopically?
Are you suggesting we should trust your eyeballs over Larry's analysis based on his examination of the originals stereoscopically?
Really?
Ooops, maybe I was wrong.....you may have made an even more ridiculous point than that.....Indeed, when you implied Humes was wrong about there being any lower brain damage based on what Dr. Rose said, considering that.....
...Dr. Rose only saw the pictures of the brain and Humes examined the actual brain during the supplementary autopsy.
>BTW, I'm not "getting out of Dodge" I just don't wish to continue >entertaining your obsession and being subjected to your innuendos and >insults.
JF, your 2 cents will be missed re. these issues.....IMO, not really.
>"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:k2jokr0dmq@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>>>all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>>>have.
>>>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll
>>>try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>>>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>>>the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
>> This was the deceased President of the United States...they were preparing >> him
>> for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over >> the
>> globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could >> notice
>> in the copies of the autopsy photos?
>> Geesh!
>> Because you've studied the medical evidence so thoroughly you probably >> knew
>> this:
>> Joe Hagan, who supervised Gawler's team of morticians and was interviewed >> by the
>> ARRB's David Marwell, Douglas Horne, Tom Samoluk, Jeremy Gunn, and Tim >> Wray (at
>> least they were in attendance) stated, according to Horne, that "....the >> scalp
>> was pulled together and sutured into place."
>> And this:
>> Tom Robinson, another member of Gawler's team interviewed by the ARRB >> stated:
>> "The scalp was sutured together...and "the damage in the back of the head >> was
>> obscured by a pillow." I did find that last part interesting...I wondered >> why if
>> the BOH looked as undamaged as it did in the BOH photos would they need to
>> obscure it?
>>>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>>>and say, he is simply wrong about this.
>> Ouch, see below.
>>>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
>> Sure. :-(
>>>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>>>of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>>>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>>>photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>>>matter also visible in the Z-film.
>> It's one thing to be told I'm wrong by someone who knows the medical >> evidence,
>> but being told I'm wrong by you is a horse of a different color.
>> For example, FYI the flap seen blown open above his right ear in the >> Z-film is
>> hardly the same flap seen hanging off the front right of his head in the >> BOH
>> photos and F8.
>> The graphic (link to below) will probably confuse you but if you can >> somehow
>> decipher it I think you'll be able to figure out that the Z-film flap is
>> entirely diffent from the BOH photo flap.
>> Now, this is just some more "conjecture" of mine, but IMO the Z-film flap >> was
>> closed when the BOH photos were taken...on the other hand the right front >> flap
>> prominently seen in the BOH photos [and F8] probably hinged down while >> they were
>> removing the brain...when it did come down if offered them a little better
>> access to the brain---that is to remove it.
>> And speaking of you being confused about the medical evidence would you >> please
>> post a graphic for us showing the path that the bullet took that created >> the
>> laceration Humes described in the Supplementry Autopsy Report?
>> To refresh your memory he said it began, 2.5 cm right of midline at the >> tip of
>> the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe......AND >> YOU SAID
>> THAT A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE >> LACERATION
>> HUMES DESCRIBED.
>> I asked you to draw that path several years ago, but you never did...or at >> least
>> if you did, I missed it. In any case would you post that graphic for >> us...again
>> if you already did?
>> I am particulary interested in how a bullet could enter the right parietal >> bone
>> and still enter the brain at the tip of the occipital lobe.
>> Maybe it's me that's confused on this specific issue...if so, your graphic >> might
>> help me out...so how about it?
>> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was >> leaning
>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
In article <1ee67c53-b36a-4620-a6a4-cb19f5f9ad08@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
[...]
>You've corrected me. Really? It has long been my position that the hole >observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment. >Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached >Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would >have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head. Do >you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you >think there was another hole that they didn't observe?
Excuse me for butting in.
Many of the PH docs said the wound was occipital-parietal.
When you challenged me to name just one of the PH docs who said they saw a wound in the temporal area, I named three (there were at least four, BTW). I noticed you didn't respond to that....not even the notion you might have been wrong?
I also told you that one PH doc said they shined a flashlight down into his head to get a better look at the wounds, and that two neurosurgeons lifted his head to get a better look at them....which says that all of them weren't so preoccupied with saving his life that they didn't take a few seconds or minues to get a good look at the wounds.
Anyway, setting all that aside, just what compells you the most to insist the PH docs as well as several Bethesda witnesses didn't see a wound in the right rear of JFK's head?
Is it the BOH photographs? Is it the lateral X-ray?
As far as the X-rays go Boswell admitted replacing pieces of bone before the x-rays or photographs were taken and that he thought the pieces he replaced were in the right rear of the head....sound familiar?
Now this is going to seem like I'm getting off the subject but bear with me.
I'd like you to answer a question for me as best as you can..I'm not asking you to be sure about your answer...your best guess is what I want.
Please look at F8 (link below) and tell me if you agree with Dr. McAdams that the circular looking defect below the ruler and centered in the photo is deep inside the cranial cavity or agree with Fiorentino that the defect is in the cowlick or as he has estimated, 2 cm below the vertex.
If you say that McAdams might be (or is probably) correct then you'd be supporting (albeit somewhat) the autopsists, Dr. Grossman (a PH doc), several Bethesda eyewitnesses as well as Sturdivan & Zimmerman who examined the originals stereoscopically.
You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH photographs were taken.
I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to the BOH photos being taken.
Now, if those BOH photos were the main reason why you think literally dozens of individuals who said they saw a right rear wound and/or cerebellum (no, one can't see the cerebellum through a hole where the Harper fragment was) then please reconsider.
It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone, evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
Why would he do that? Is it not feasible that four months after the assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you, then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:35:32 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> In article <1ee67c53-b36a-4620-a6a4-cb19f5f9ad08@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
> [...]
> >You've corrected me. Really? It has long been my position that the hole
> >observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment.
> >Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached
> >Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would
> >have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head. Do
> >you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you
> >think there was another hole that they didn't observe?
> Excuse me for butting in.
> Many of the PH docs said the wound was occipital-parietal.
> When you challenged me to name just one of the PH docs who said they saw a
> wound in the temporal area, I named three (there were at least four, BTW).
> I noticed you didn't respond to that....not even the notion you might have
> been wrong?
> I also told you that one PH doc said they shined a flashlight down into
> his head to get a better look at the wounds, and that two neurosurgeons
> lifted his head to get a better look at them....which says that all of
> them weren't so preoccupied with saving his life that they didn't take a
> few seconds or minues to get a good look at the wounds.
> Anyway, setting all that aside, just what compells you the most to insist
> the PH docs as well as several Bethesda witnesses didn't see a wound in
> the right rear of JFK's head?
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you can find a single statement by me in which I said no one saw a wound in the back of JFK's head. What I have said repeatedly is the wound they observed was only part of a much larger wound that had largely been closed by Jackie on the way to Parkland in an effort to hold his head together.
> Is it the BOH photographs? Is it the lateral X-ray?
> As far as the X-rays go Boswell admitted replacing pieces of bone before
> the x-rays or photographs were taken and that he thought the pieces he
> replaced were in the right rear of the head....sound familiar?
Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were blown out all along the right side of JFK's head. Many of these pieces remained attached to the scalp.
I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I don't play doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking about to make judgements about the medical evidence.
> I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
> say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity
> then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can
> only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to
> the BOH photos being taken.
So?
> Now, if those BOH photos were the main reason why you think literally
> dozens of individuals who said they saw a right rear wound and/or
> cerebellum (no, one can't see the cerebellum through a hole where the
> Harper fragment was) then please reconsider.
One probably couldn't see cerebellum if the cerebellum is where cerebellum normally is. When there is a massive hole in one's head and brains are oozing out, there's no telling where the cerebellum might end up. Much of JFK's brain end up in places it normally wouldn't be.
> It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who
> was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of
> early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.
> And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone,
> evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
Again, you wonder about such things.
> Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
> rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
> over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
> announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
> Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
> cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
Ya, a real knee slapper.
> Why would he do that?
Maybe because he saw cerebellum.
> Is it not feasible that four months after the
> assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter
> (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum
> was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.
> Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
> then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.
In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b-8733-393f8cfb0553@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...
>On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:35:32 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <1ee67c53-b36a-4620-a6a4-cb19f5f9ad08@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
[...]
>>the PH docs as well as several Bethesda witnesses didn't see a wound in the
>>right rear of JFK's head?
>There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you can find a single statement by
>me in which I said no one saw a wound in the back of JFK's head. What I have
>said repeatedly is the wound they observed was only part of a much larger wound
>that had largely been closed by > Jackie on the way to Parkland in an effort to
>hold his head together.
Bingo! And all along I thought you were a memberof the dozens f individuals who
said they saw a BOH wound were hallucinating.
Pardon me....but I'm glad we've got that cleared up.
>>As far as the X-rays go Boswell admitted replacing pieces of bone >> before the
>>x-rays or photographs were taken and that he thought >> the pieces he replaced
>>were in the right rear of the head. Sound >> familiar?
>Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were
>blown out all along the right side of JFK's head. Many of > these pieces
>remained attached to the scalp.
Including the right rear....WONDERFUL. Bravo. Good enough.
As my French teaher would say when I got something right..."Praise the Lord and
pass the ammuntion".
>I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I >don't play
>doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking >about to make
>judgements about the medical evidence.
I try to figure out things like that when the experts you rely on completely
disagree with each other, causing debates like this to perpetuate.
And I try to figure out why they disagree too. Sometimes I have to interview
experts or eyewitnesses...and I've done that many many times.
I realize you could care less, but once I drove over 450 miles to interview one
of this country's leading forensic anthropologists, Dr. Anthony Falsetti
(ironically, a friend of Baden's) to get his take on F8.
I've interviewed Stringer twice in his home.
I could go on and on, but I hate to bore you.
>If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.
That would have been good enough...but it's not necessary anymore.
>>was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of early
>>when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
>It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.
You don't...others don't, but because seemingly a gazillion posts have addressed
this matter, I'd say some do, including me.
>Again, you wonder about such things.
Oh yes.
>Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the right
rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told, besides
Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest there had been a
frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Okay, to each his own.
>> Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
>> cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
>Ya, a real knee slapper.
Maybe I should have used the word, "telling" instead of "funny".
>Maybe because he saw cerebellum.
Yes.
>Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.
Check.
>Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.
I'm glad I didn't...I hardly think this was a waste of time.
All of this name dropping is just an attempt to agitate.
Simply put, .John apparently sees it one way, and I another re: F8. Now if you want to inflame the issues go right ahead. People disagree on this forum everyday.
BTW, I never defended Sturdivan on the NAA. My issues were with Spiegelman, et al.
And, frankly John, I never specifically said for instance Larry was wrong, I simply gave my observations. Your logic is simply amiss. I mean would you like me to list all of the doctors on the FPP for instance and say that YOU have some gall in saying they are wrong? Just a silly exercise really.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> In article <504e0cf...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>John C:
>>Apparently, I only know something about the medical evidence when I agree
>>with you, i.e., you want to discuss the NA or the 6.5mm artifact.
>>Frankly, I resent your assertions and have no wish nor desire to argue
>>with you John.
> You yourself said you wanted to add your 2 cents worth to the debate on
> these issues....well, "frankly", IMHO, you overestimated the value of your
> "arguments".
> For instance, has there ever been a more ridiculous point made here than
> the one you tried to make when you said you were sure McAdams was wrong
> about "the defect" in F8 (that I've been saying for a decade is the entry)
> being deep inside the cranial cavity.... when.......
> .....you've only "eyeballed" F8 (are you saying your eyeballs are better
> than McAdams')?
> Cripes, then to say your eyeballs tell you that defect [the entry] in F8
> is only 2 cm down from the vertex takes the cake.....as if your eyeballs
> are some sort of sophisticated measuring instrument!
> Moreover, you have the unbelievable gall to say Larry Sturdivan, who you
> yourself commended re. his arguments on the NA debate, is wrong when he
> says that defect [the entry] is where Humes said it was, especially
> since......
> ...he examined the originals stereoscopically and you haven't even seen
> the originals, much less stereoscopically?
> Are you suggesting we should trust your eyeballs over Larry's analysis
> based on his examination of the originals stereoscopically?
> Really?
> Ooops, maybe I was wrong.....you may have made an even more ridiculous
> point than that.....Indeed, when you implied Humes was wrong about there
> being any lower brain damage based on what Dr. Rose said, considering
> that.....
> ...Dr. Rose only saw the pictures of the brain and Humes examined the
> actual brain during the supplementary autopsy.
>>BTW, I'm not "getting out of Dodge" I just don't wish to continue
>>entertaining your obsession and being subjected to your innuendos and
>>insults.
> JF, your 2 cents will be missed re. these issues.....IMO, not really.
> Bye.
> John Canal
>>John F.
>>"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:k2jokr0dmq@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>>>>all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>>>>have.
>>>>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and >>>>I'll
>>>>try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>>>>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>>>>the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
>>> This was the deceased President of the United States...they were >>> preparing
>>> him
>>> for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over
>>> the
>>> globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could
>>> notice
>>> in the copies of the autopsy photos?
>>> Geesh!
>>> Because you've studied the medical evidence so thoroughly you probably
>>> knew
>>> this:
>>> Joe Hagan, who supervised Gawler's team of morticians and was >>> interviewed
>>> by the
>>> ARRB's David Marwell, Douglas Horne, Tom Samoluk, Jeremy Gunn, and Tim
>>> Wray (at
>>> least they were in attendance) stated, according to Horne, that "....the
>>> scalp
>>> was pulled together and sutured into place."
>>> And this:
>>> Tom Robinson, another member of Gawler's team interviewed by the ARRB
>>> stated:
>>> "The scalp was sutured together...and "the damage in the back of the >>> head
>>> was
>>> obscured by a pillow." I did find that last part interesting...I >>> wondered
>>> why if
>>> the BOH looked as undamaged as it did in the BOH photos would they need >>> to
>>> obscure it?
>>>>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>>>>and say, he is simply wrong about this.
>>> Ouch, see below.
>>>>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious >>>>importance.
>>> Sure. :-(
>>>>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>>>>of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>>>>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>>>>photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>>>>matter also visible in the Z-film.
>>> It's one thing to be told I'm wrong by someone who knows the medical
>>> evidence,
>>> but being told I'm wrong by you is a horse of a different color.
>>> For example, FYI the flap seen blown open above his right ear in the
>>> Z-film is
>>> hardly the same flap seen hanging off the front right of his head in the
>>> BOH
>>> photos and F8.
>>> The graphic (link to below) will probably confuse you but if you can
>>> somehow
>>> decipher it I think you'll be able to figure out that the Z-film flap is
>>> entirely diffent from the BOH photo flap.
>>> Now, this is just some more "conjecture" of mine, but IMO the Z-film >>> flap
>>> was
>>> closed when the BOH photos were taken...on the other hand the right >>> front
>>> flap
>>> prominently seen in the BOH photos [and F8] probably hinged down while
>>> they were
>>> removing the brain...when it did come down if offered them a little >>> better
>>> access to the brain---that is to remove it.
>>> And speaking of you being confused about the medical evidence would you
>>> please
>>> post a graphic for us showing the path that the bullet took that created
>>> the
>>> laceration Humes described in the Supplementry Autopsy Report?
>>> To refresh your memory he said it began, 2.5 cm right of midline at the
>>> tip of
>>> the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe......AND
>>> YOU SAID
>>> THAT A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
>>> LACERATION
>>> HUMES DESCRIBED.
>>> I asked you to draw that path several years ago, but you never did...or >>> at
>>> least
>>> if you did, I missed it. In any case would you post that graphic for
>>> us...again
>>> if you already did?
>>> I am particulary interested in how a bullet could enter the right >>> parietal
>>> bone
>>> and still enter the brain at the tip of the occipital lobe.
>>> Maybe it's me that's confused on this specific issue...if so, your >>> graphic
>>> might
>>> help me out...so how about it?
>>> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was
>>> leaning
>>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
Yes, several times, and you've almost never responded.
> It has long been my position that the hole > observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment.
Yes, I know. The problem is that the autopsy lateral x-ray proves that the Harper Fragment did not come from anywhere near the rear of the head. The Harper Fragment was not found until the afternoon of the following day. The area of the skull shown in the x-ray with bone completely missing is too far forward to account for what these witnesses saw. You already admitted this past Saturday that "Large pieces of skull were blown out but remained attached to the scalp."
Rather obviously the Harper Fragment cannot be one of the pieces that remained attached to the scalp.
> Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached > Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would > have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head.
In a completely different part of the head, not even remotely close to the rear of the head.
> Do > you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you > think there was another hole that they didn't observe?
I do not think for a moment that the hole they saw in the rear of his head was caused by the missing Harper Fragment. The hole in the skull that of course they didn't observe was the larger more forward hole in the front half of his head, because of course Jackie closed all of that up. The hole in the rear of his head was not caused by any bone being completely missing. It was instead caused, just as you said, by "Large pieces of skull [that] were blown out but remained attached to the scalp." I would say "displaced," rather than "blown out," but that's pretty much the idea. Some of that happened in the rear of his head too. But not by a bullet exiting the rear from a frontal shot.
And please don't reply to me asking anything like, "Well why don't the autopsy photos of the back of his head show any hole there, and why doesn't the lateral x-ray seem to show one either?" I've already explained that in the first article in this thread. You replied to that article this past Saturday, proving beyond all possible doubt that you read at least some of it. If you failed to read more than ten percent of it, which your present reply seems to suggest, that is hardly my fault. And I am not the only poster here who has explained this.
In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b-8733-393f8cfb0553@googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you can find a single statement > by me in which I said no one saw a wound in the back of JFK's head. What I > have said repeatedly is the wound they observed was only part of a much > larger wound that had largely been closed by Jackie on the way to Parkland in > an effort to hold his head together.
Again, that is incorrect. The lateral x-ray shows that the area of skull in which bone was completely absent did not extend nearly far enough back for most people who speak English to call it the "back," or "posterior," or "rear." In fact, bone was missing only to about the back of the right ear, and no further. As I have told you quite a few times by now, the hole in the rear of the head that was seen by many witnesses in Dallas and at Bethesda was not caused by any bone being entirely missing from the head. It was instead caused by pieces of severely fractured bone which were no longer attached to each other or to the rest of the skull, but were still attached to the scalp. This, combined with a rip or tear in the scalp caused a hole to open up in the rear of the head, because these pieces of bone were displaced laterally.
This was not something Jackie could close up, since it did not involve open flaps of scalp and bone that could be closed, unlike those on the right side of his head, as I explained in my first article in this thread, which you replied to, but apparently read only about ten percent of, or you would have already mentioned my explanation by now, even to say it's wrong.
> Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were > blown out all along the right side of JFK's head.
Yes, on the right side. Not in the rear. On the right side.
> Many of these pieces > remained attached to the scalp.
And all of the fractured pieces in the back of the head remained attached to the scalp too.
> I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I don't > play doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking about to make > judgements about the medical evidence.
Oh, you've done it now. Mr. Canal is one of the most knowledgeable posters in this newsgroup about the medical evidence, and I'm hardly the only one who says so. Barb Junkkarinen says so too. She hasn't said it here recently, merely because she hasn't posted here recently, but she used to post here quite regularly for years. And I still recall you saying a few weeks ago that you had never seen most of the autopsy photos. And you, of all people, presume to argue with Mr. Canal, of all people? He's seen all the ones that have ever been made public, which is quite a few of them. So have I. And you say you have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it's from, when it's one of the most well-known photos from the autopsy, has been public for decades, and has been discussed in this newsgroup many times?
You make it blatantly plain that you have little knowledge of what that photo represents, and you claim to have come to an informed conclusion about the hole in the back of JFK's head?
My advice to you is to become far more familiar than you are today with all of the autopsy photos and x-rays that have been made public before you presume to disagree with Mr. Canal, or for that matter, me, about what the cause of that rear hole was. And don't you dare claim you can't find them. I posted links to at least a fair representation of them in my first article in this thread.
The one you seem to have read only ten percent of.
> > You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH
> > photographs were taken.
> If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.
Yet you continue to make a not very educated guess about the Harper Fragment, and about the hole in the back of his head. Why are you not just as reluctant to express any conclusion about those matters as well, as you appear to know no more about them than you do about the autopsy in general?
> > I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
> > say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity
> > then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can
> > only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to
> > the BOH photos being taken.
> So?
What do you mean, "so?" Mr. Corbett? He's just told you why no hole in the back of JFK's head appears in those photographs, except for the very small entrance in the scalp.
> One probably couldn't see cerebellum if the cerebellum is where cerebellum > normally is.
Where are you getting that from? The lateral x-ray clearly shows severe fractures in the back of the skull running right down to the level where the cerebellum would be, or very close.
> When there is a massive hole in one's head and brains are oozing > out, there's no telling where the cerebellum might end up. Much of JFK's > brain end up in places it normally wouldn't be.
The brain was examined, and the cerebellum was more or less intact, so that explanation doesn't hold water. Are you ever going to actually study the autopsy far more carefully, or are you just going to continue to make these wild, speculative, uneducated guesses?
> > It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who
> > was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of
> > early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
> It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't care why there is an apparent, and very serious, contradiction between the witness statements and what is shown in those photos, when that is one of the most serious controversies that has ever arisen in this case? You are way out there on that one.
> > And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone,
> > evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
> Again, you wonder about such things.
And you should be too, unless you're not all that interested in the JFK assassination.
> > Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
> > rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
> > over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
> > announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
> Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
Just saying it is far-fetched, without explaining why, Mr. Corbett, is not at all convincing. Even most LNs agree that certain agencies, such as the DPD and FBI obfuscated some of the evidence. Not to cover up their *own* involvement in the assassination. But to emphasize evidence of Oswald's sole guilt and downplay what might appear to be evidence to the contrary, even if it actually wasn't true evidence to the contrary.
Do you deny that the FBI downplayed their contacts with Oswald prior to the assassination, for example?
So how would it be far-fetched for the autopsists to downplay evidence that might be interpreted, as it indeed has been ever since by millions of people worldwide, of a frontal shot? They knew it was not *true* evidence of a frontal shot. But they knew that many people would incorrectly assume it to be evidence of the exit of a frontal shot.
> > Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
> > cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
> Ya, a real knee slapper.
Only if one is not serious about resolving this apparent contradiction, which I call The Contradiction That Wasn't.
> > Why would he do that?
> Maybe because he saw cerebellum.
Ya got it. And that's way too low in the head to have anything to do with any part of the head in which bone was completely missing.
> > Is it not feasible that four months after the
> > assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter
> > (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum
> > was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
> Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.
That he did. A bit slyly though. And it appears that not a single Commissioner caught on. Neither has the general public to this day.
And you certainly haven't.
> > Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
> > then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
> Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.
Probably because we're wondering why you even needed to be told not to respond, since you have freely admitted that you have not studied the autopsy very well at all, and we're wondering, since you've already admitted it, why you're even posting at all about any aspect of it, and presuming to come to any conclusion about it yet.
In article <504e0cf...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> John C:
> Apparently, I only know something about the medical evidence when I agree > with you, i.e., you want to discuss the NA or the 6.5mm artifact.
> Frankly, I resent your assertions and have no wish nor desire to argue > with you John.
> BTW, I'm not "getting out of Dodge" I just don't wish to continue > entertaining your obsession and being subjected to your innuendos and > insults.
Well, maybe you can try me then. I'm a little bit nicer, but not by much. ;-)
I would be particularly fascinated to learn more about why you think the rear scalp was not sutured when photos 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43 in the inventory were taken. I have already replied to you earlier in this thread to the effect that a suture would not necessarily be visible in those photos, most especially if covered by hair. I would also love for you to address my notion that this more than plausibly wraps up the supposed "contradiction" between all those witnesses and what is seen in these photos, doesn't involve dismissing those witnesses, doesn't involve dismissing the Zapruder film, and doesn't involve dismissing a single autopsy photo or x-ray, not at least as being genuine images taken of the head as it appeared at the moment each was taken, rather than subsequent doctoring of the images after they were taken.
