Re: Anybody, PLEASE tell me why McAdams and Marsh can't see that this is the entry in F8...please, I'm serious. - F8_BIG Paul::s blow-up.jpg
Gerry Simone (O)
He was later convinced by the HSCA panel that he was wrong and that it was
at the cowlick.
Then, in an interview years later, he reverted back to his original
location.
Fink and Bosley stick with their original location regardless of the HSCA.
I'm not sure what you're describing.
In my humble opinion, that 'hole' looks like it's inside the cranium.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ffrik...@drn.newsguy.com...
> To all,
>
> The blow-ups of F8 (officially called autopsy color photos # 44 & 45) in
> my composite graphic show the entry pretty well, IMO. Many have called it
> "Canal's entry", but it's the same entry defect that Humes, the HSCA, J.
> Hunt, J. Stringer (he took the photo), Larry Sturdivan, Joe Durnavich,
> Chad Zimmerman (see his quote on my graphic), and just about everyone who
> has done their homework on this issue, and even J. Fiorentino have
> recognized as such.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why McAdams and Marsh say they don't agree that
> "Canal's entry" ***IS*** THE entry?
>
> I have a hunch that they can't see what they don't want to see, but I'm
> not sure. I could use some opinions on that...and I'm serious.
>
> BTW, the title of this autopsy photo is "missile wound in posterior
> skull".
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Canal
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> To all,
>
> The blow-ups of F8 (officially called autopsy color photos # 44 & 45) in
> my composite graphic show the entry pretty well, IMO. Many have called it
> "Canal's entry", but it's the same entry defect that Humes, the HSCA, J.
> Hunt, J. Stringer (he took the photo), Larry Sturdivan, Joe Durnavich,
> Chad Zimmerman (see his quote on my graphic), and just about everyone who
> has done their homework on this issue, and even J. Fiorentino have
> recognized as such.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why McAdams and Marsh say they don't agree that
> "Canal's entry" ***IS*** THE entry?
>
> I have a hunch that they can't see what they don't want to see, but I'm
> not sure. I could use some opinions on that...and I'm serious.
>
There is no hole there.
Show us the hole on the back of the head photo.
John Canal
>
>Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
Yes, and that was corroborated, by not only Finck and Boswell, but several
others present at the autopsy.
>He was later convinced by the HSCA panel that he was wrong and that it was
>at the cowlick.
Indeed. That's because, IMO, Humes was pressured into agreeing with the
HSCA on their already determined cowlick entry conclusion. The HSCA kept
showing Humes the BOH photo [F3] which is terribly misleading and does
"appear" to show the entry nearer the cowlick than the EOP. BTW, I just
spent almost an hour typing, on my webtv, a reply for you that listed the
evidence that supports the theory that the BOH photo is misleading....but
I accidentally hit the "Escape" button instead of the shift button
(they're stupidly next to each other) and erased the entire reply. I'm
using my PC now and, while I'm retyping this, the epoxy holding that
"Escape" button on my webtv keyboard (so it'll never move again) is
curing. But, I'm not going to retype all the ev. that shows why the BOH
photo is misleading....anyway, it's a hard to follow explanation...I'll
just give you the bottom line, for now.
The bottom line is that, if a photo of the BOH from the same view (BOH
photo)were taken before the scalp was reflected, it'd show the entry near
the EOP.
In any case, the misleading BOH photo is why Humes caved in and agreed
(temporarily) that the HSCA was correct and that the entry was in the
cowlick. In later years, I think he realized how misleading the BOH photo
was and reverted back to his original and correct finding---a near EOP
entry. Boswell actually testified to the ARRB that the scalp in the BOH
photo didn't "fit" right....and that was a gross understatement.
>Then, in an interview years later, he reverted back to his original
>location.
>
>Fink and Bosley stick with their original location regardless of the HSCA.
That's because they weren't grilled like Humes was with the misleading BOH
photo stuck in his face.
>I'm not sure what you're describing.
>In my humble opinion, that 'hole' looks like it's inside the cranium.
Yes, like the title of the photo indicates...it's the entry hole in the
rear skull with the camera looking towards JFK's face but over the top of
the frontal bone and at the inside of the rear skull (the brain had been
removed, of course, and the cranium was empty).
But you said the words I was looking for..."that 'hole'..." Indeed, you do
see the entry hole...and my point was that neither McAdams nor Marsh will
agree there's an entry hole there.....they deny it....and they are wrong.
Every other researcher that I know of that's done his or her homework
properly on this agrees that's THE entry.
Thank you.
I wish, though, that someone will take a stab at figuring out why McAdams
and Marsh say they can't see it...although, I have a hunch why.
John Canal
John Canal
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> To all,
>>
>> The blow-ups of F8 (officially called autopsy color photos # 44 & 45) in
>> my composite graphic show the entry pretty well, IMO. Many have called it
>> "Canal's entry", but it's the same entry defect that Humes, the HSCA, J.
>> Hunt, J. Stringer (he took the photo), Larry Sturdivan, Joe Durnavich,
>> Chad Zimmerman (see his quote on my graphic), and just about everyone who
>> has done their homework on this issue, and even J. Fiorentino have
>> recognized as such.
>>
>> Does anyone have any idea why McAdams and Marsh say they don't agree that
>> "Canal's entry" ***IS*** THE entry?
>>
>> I have a hunch that they can't see what they don't want to see, but I'm
>> not sure. I could use some opinions on that...and I'm serious.
>>
>
>There is no hole there.
I can't force either you or McAdams to see something you don't want to
see...if you agreed the entry was where I showed it to you, both of your
silly theories would be debunked....and God forbid.
>Show us the hole on the back of the head photo.
I don't know how I can do a better job of doing that than I have already.
Many others see it..what's yours and McAdams' problem?...as if I didn't
know.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <i5mdndWwL7RHFL_a...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> John Canal wrote:
>>> To all,
>>>
>>> The blow-ups of F8 (officially called autopsy color photos # 44 & 45) in
>>> my composite graphic show the entry pretty well, IMO. Many have called it
>>> "Canal's entry", but it's the same entry defect that Humes, the HSCA, J.
>>> Hunt, J. Stringer (he took the photo), Larry Sturdivan, Joe Durnavich,
>>> Chad Zimmerman (see his quote on my graphic), and just about everyone who
>>> has done their homework on this issue, and even J. Fiorentino have
>>> recognized as such.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any idea why McAdams and Marsh say they don't agree that
>>> "Canal's entry" ***IS*** THE entry?
>>>
>>> I have a hunch that they can't see what they don't want to see, but I'm
>>> not sure. I could use some opinions on that...and I'm serious.
>>>
>> There is no hole there.
>
> I can't force either you or McAdams to see something you don't want to
> see...if you agreed the entry was where I showed it to you, both of your
> silly theories would be debunked....and God forbid.
>
The problem is that you can't show us what you claim.
And yet you deny that there is any semi-circular defect in the frontal
bone, even though Dr. Angel called it THE exit wound. Apparently you
know more than Dr. Angel, but you can't even see that wound.
>> Show us the hole on the back of the head photo.
>
> I don't know how I can do a better job of doing that than I have already.
> Many others see it..what's yours and McAdams' problem?...as if I didn't
> know.
>
OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head.
You never have and you never will because there was none.
> John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Humes said their hole was a blood clot. You won't even tell us what YOU
think it is.
John Canal
>
>Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
Yes, and that was corroborated, by not only Finck and Boswell, but several
others present at the autopsy.
>He was later convinced by the HSCA panel that he was wrong and that it was
>at the cowlick.
Indeed. That's because, IMO, Humes was pressured into agreeing with the
HSCA on their already determined cowlick entry conclusion. The HSCA kept
showing Humes the BOH photo [F3] which is terribly misleading and does
"appear" to show the entry nearer the cowlick than the EOP. BTW, I just
spent almost an hour typing, on my webtv, a reply for you that listed the
evidence that supports the theory that the BOH photo is misleading....but
I accidentally hit the "Escape" button instead of the shift button
(they're stupidly next to each other) and erased the entire reply. I'm
using my PC now and, while I'm retyping this, the epoxy holding that
"Escape" button on my webtv keyboard (so it'll never move again) is
curing. But, I'm not going to retype all the ev. that shows why the BOH
photo is misleading....anyway, it's a hard to follow explanation...I'll
just give you the bottom line, for now.
The bottom line is that, if a photo of the BOH from the same view (BOH
photo)were taken before the scalp was reflected, it'd show the entry near
the EOP.
In any case, the misleading BOH photo is why Humes caved in and agreed
(temporarily) that the HSCA was correct and that the entry was in the
cowlick. In later years, I think he realized how misleading the BOH photo
was and reverted back to his original and correct finding---a near EOP
entry. Boswell actually testified to the ARRB that the scalp in the BOH
photo didn't "fit" right....and that was a gross understatement.
>Then, in an interview years later, he reverted back to his original
>location.
>
>Fink and Bosley stick with their original location regardless of the HSCA.
That's because they weren't grilled like Humes was with the misleading BOH
photo stuck in his face.
>I'm not sure what you're describing.
>In my humble opinion, that 'hole' looks like it's inside the cranium.
Yes, like the title of the photo indicates...it's the entry hole in the
rear skull with the camera looking towards JFK's face but over the top of
the frontal bone and at the inside of the rear skull (the brain had been
removed, of course, and the cranium was empty).
But you said the words I was looking for..."that 'hole'..." Indeed, you do
see the entry hole...and my point was that neither McAdams or Marsh will
agree there's an entry hole there..they deny it....and they are wrong.
every other researcher that I know of that's done his or her homework on
Anthony Marsh
> Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
>
No. Humes said SLIGHTLY above, not 2.5 cm above.
> He was later convinced by the HSCA panel that he was wrong and that it was
> at the cowlick.
>
He caved in to pressure, but he really was no convinced.
> Then, in an interview years later, he reverted back to his original
> location.
>
> Fink and Bosley stick with their original location regardless of the HSCA.
>
> I'm not sure what you're describing.
>
> In my humble opinion, that 'hole' looks like it's inside the cranium.
>
What hole?
Anthony Marsh
> In article <47221a5b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, O\ says...
>> Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> Yes, and that was corroborated, by not only Finck and Boswell, but several
> others present at the autopsy.
>
No, it wasn't. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. Humes said SLIGHTLY
above the EOP, not 2.5 cm.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
SLIGHTLY. We are onto your tricks. You thought that you'd get away with it
this time, but you got caught. You thought you could sneak through the
idea that the wound was 2.5 cm ABOVE the EOP and then later use that to
reconcile with the wound high on the head that the HSCA pointed out. Nice
try. Try a different trick next time.
Anthony Marsh
> Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
>
No, he did not. You are misrepresenting the evidence. Humes said SLIGHTLY
above the EOP, not 2.5 cm.
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
> He was later convinced by the HSCA panel that he was wrong and that it was
John Canal
>OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
>President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head.
>You never have and you never will because there was none.
Too wacky a theory for me to dignify by arguing any more with you about
it.
Bye.
John Canal
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Promise? <g>
Moi :-)
>
>John Canal
>
John Canal
>>> Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
Canal wrote:
>> Yes, and that was corroborated, by not only Finck and Boswell, but several
>> others present at the autopsy.
>>
Marsh wrote:
>No, it wasn't. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. Humes said SLIGHTLY
>above the EOP, not 2.5 cm.
Good grief, Marsh....I obviously misread what he wrote assuming he was
repeating what the autopsy report said about the entry location: "slightly
above and 2.5 m to the right of the EOP."
If you really think I believe the entry was 2.5 cm above the EOP then you
must wonder why I've stated, over and over on this NG, that my
replications of F8 show that the entry was 2-3 mm above the EOP.
Let it go.
BTW, how many posts today, Marsh? 40? 50? What's your record anyway?
John Canal
John Canal
says...
Hiya Barb,
I hate to make promises that I'm not sure I can keep....but I will say I'm
really, really going to try hard this time.
:-)
Bests,
John
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <0538i3pvo9adaiooq...@4ax.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
>says...
>>
>>On 27 Oct 2007 22:43:34 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Marsh writes:
>>>
>>>>OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
>>>>President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head.
>>>>You never have and you never will because there was none.
>>>
>>>Too wacky a theory for me to dignify by arguing any more with you about
>>>it.
>>>
>>>Bye.
>>
>>Promise? <g>
>
>Hiya Barb,
>
>I hate to make promises that I'm not sure I can keep....but I will say I'm
>really, really going to try hard this time.
>
>:-)
>
>Bests,
>
>John
Okay. :-)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/58143915cb8f9d7c
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head. You
never have and you never will, because there was none." <<<
JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>> "Too wacky a theory for me to dignify by arguing any more with you
about it. Bye." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
Like many CTers, Mr. Marsh refuses to believe what this photo below is
telling everyone who gazes an eye upon it (i.e., there's an obvious bullet
entry hole in the upper portion of JFK's head, near the cowlick area, plus
NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER to any other REAR/OCCIPITAL portion of JFK's cranium;
not even a hint of scalp damage, other than that small bullet hole of
entrance near the cowlick) ....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
Tony, therefore, must think that JFK was hit in the head from the
front....and yet there's not a hint of damage to the back of JFK's head in
any of the photos or X-rays. (Except that small bullet hole of entry.)
Therefore, per CTers like Tony M., the bullet that was used by the
imaginary frontal gunman to kill John Kennedy in the head somehow managed
to NOT rip a hole THROUGH THE REAR OR LEFT-REAR SCALP OF JFK'S HEAD...and
also (somehow, some incredible zig-zagging way) managed to NOT rip a hole
in ANY PART of the left side of JFK's head either....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE1_HI.jpg
Incredibly and unbelievably (per many conspiracy theorists), that bullet
from the alleged frontal (Knoll?) shooter didn't cause any damage of any
kind AT ALL to the left side of Kennedy's head.
Nor did that bullet leave a single solitary metal fragment in the left
hemisphere of John Kennedy's head, even though (per most CTers) the bullet
was fired from the Grassy Knoll and was on a definite "RIGHT SIDE OF THE
HEAD THROUGH THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HEAD" trajectory when it hit President
Kennedy's cranium at or very near Zapruder Frame #313.
Talk about a Magic Bullet. It seems to me that Tony (and many, many other
CTers who believe such conspiracy-flavored tripe) have had the real
"Magic" bullet all along.
Funny that nobody seems to have noticed. Or maybe the CTers just don't
care about that seemingly-very-odd lack of damage to both the left side of
Kennedy's head AND the back of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photographs
and X-rays.
Or: maybe all of the photos and X-rays are total frauds/fakes (despite
what those dozen or so HSCA "experts" said about the pictures and X- rays
being unaltered in any manner whatsoever).
But that's what is so terribly nice about being a conspiracy theorist,
isn't it? You can just start spitting out theories and fall back on CTer
Rule #4A: "If All Else Fails, Just Say That Something Is Fake".
LNers, thankfully, don't have such freedom with the evidence.
And therein lies one of the major differences between a "CT" mindset and
the "LN" mindset.....not every single thing has to be "suspicious" or
"phony" to an "LNer" in order to arrive at the truth.
Anthony Marsh
>>> In article <47221a5b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, O\ says...
>>>> Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> Canal wrote:
>
>>> Yes, and that was corroborated, by not only Finck and Boswell, but several
>>> others present at the autopsy.
>>>
>
> Marsh wrote:
>
>> No, it wasn't. Stop misrepresenting the evidence. Humes said SLIGHTLY
>> above the EOP, not 2.5 cm.
>
> Good grief, Marsh....I obviously misread what he wrote assuming he was
> repeating what the autopsy report said about the entry location: "slightly
> above and 2.5 m to the right of the EOP."
>
> If you really think I believe the entry was 2.5 cm above the EOP then you
> must wonder why I've stated, over and over on this NG, that my
> replications of F8 show that the entry was 2-3 mm above the EOP.
>
SLIGHTLY could be 2-3 mm. You have not documented that by showing us the
wound, but it is a fun guess.
> Let it go.
>
Well, you got caught. Nice try, though.
Anthony Marsh
I've proved my point. You can't back up your claims.
QED
> Bye.
>
> John Canal
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> In article <47221a5b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, O\ says...
>
>> Humes originally said 2.5 cm above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> Yes, and that was corroborated, by not only Finck and Boswell, but several
> others present at the autopsy.
>
No, you are misrepresenting the evidence. Humes never said the entrance
wound was 2.5 cm above the EOP. He said SLIGHTLY above the EOP.
>> He was later convinced by the HSCA panel that he was wrong and that it was
>> at the cowlick.
>
> Indeed. That's because, IMO, Humes was pressured into agreeing with the
> HSCA on their already determined cowlick entry conclusion. The HSCA kept
> showing Humes the BOH photo [F3] which is terribly misleading and does
Now, just for the sake of argument, what if Baden was not showing Humes
the original autopsy photo, but instead was showing him the Dox drawing
which Baden had Dox draw in the wound?
Herbert Blenner
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/58143...
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >>> "OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
>
> President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head. You
> never have and you never will, because there was none." <<<
>
> JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "Too wacky a theory for me to dignify by arguing any more with you
>
> about it. Bye." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>
> Like many CTers, Mr. Marsh refuses to believe what this photo below is
> telling everyone who gazes an eye upon it (i.e., there's an obvious bullet
> entry hole in the upper portion of JFK's head, near the cowlick area, plus
> NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER to any other REAR/OCCIPITAL portion of JFK's cranium;
> not even a hint of scalp damage, other than that small bullet hole of
> entrance near the cowlick) ....
>
> www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
If a bullet made the 9 mm by 15-20 mm elliptical abrasion shown on the
BOH photo then it could not have exited anywhere near the identified
location. The reason being that the trajectory of the incoming bullet
differed by about sixty degrees from the direction of the straight
line connecting the alleged exit and entry sites.
Ironically, Larry Sturdivan inadvertently explained why the BOH photo
is incredible while advancing a failed argument to discredit a
tangential entry as the cause of 15 mm elliptical wound on Governor
Connally's back.
Source: HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan
Mr. EDGAR. Would it not be elliptical if it entered at an angle?
Mr. STURDIVAN. Yes, but if you make some geometrical drawings,
you will find that in order for the ellipse to be roughly twice the
diameter in one direction that it is in the other, it would have had
to have entered at an angle that was 60 degrees from the normal.
In other words, if this is a normal entry wound, it would had to
have been tilted 60 degrees from that or only 30 degrees parallel to
the surface.
A bullet entering at that angle would had to have roughly
turned a 60-degree angle upon entry in order to exit out the front
of the Governor and bullets just don't make abrupt 60-degree angle
turns. Consequently, I can conclude from that, since the path was
predominantly forward, that it was not an acute angle but a yawed
bullet that entered him.
Mr. EDGAR. Thank you.
End of source.
Sturdivan's deflection argument is valid and fails on attributing an
elliptical wound to a yawed bullet. Of all people, Dr. John Lattimer
showed that yawed bullets punch not an elliptical but rectangular
holes with rounded corners in the target.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/tumbling.jpg
Frankly, I am amazed that one of these ballistic Einsteins has not
shot them self in the foot. But then again, Doctor John could have and
treated himself.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 28, 5:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/58143...
>>
>> TONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>>>>> "OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
>> President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head. You
>> never have and you never will, because there was none." <<<
>>
>> JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>
>>>>> "Too wacky a theory for me to dignify by arguing any more with you
>> about it. Bye." <<<
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>>
>> Like many CTers, Mr. Marsh refuses to believe what this photo below is
>> telling everyone who gazes an eye upon it (i.e., there's an obvious bullet
>> entry hole in the upper portion of JFK's head, near the cowlick area, plus
>> NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER to any other REAR/OCCIPITAL portion of JFK's cranium;
>> not even a hint of scalp damage, other than that small bullet hole of
>> entrance near the cowlick) ....
>>
>> www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
> If a bullet made the 9 mm by 15-20 mm elliptical abrasion shown on the
> BOH photo then it could not have exited anywhere near the identified
> location. The reason being that the trajectory of the incoming bullet
> differed by about sixty degrees from the direction of the straight
> line connecting the alleged exit and entry sites.
>
Where do you see anything 9 mm by 20 mm?
Gerry Simone (O)
It may be a hole but I don't know if it really is one.
Thank you for your very detailed reply. I don't know much about this from
first hand research, just what I read from various sources and from which I
hope to understand what's going on.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ffua1...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/58143915cb8f9d7c
>
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "OK, let's go real SLOW. Find a picture showing the back of the
> President's head. Show me a hole in the scalp on the back of his head. You
> never have and you never will, because there was none." <<<
>
>
> JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>
>>>> "Too wacky a theory for me to dignify by arguing any more with you
> about it. Bye." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>
> Like many CTers, Mr. Marsh refuses to believe what this photo below is
> telling everyone who gazes an eye upon it (i.e., there's an obvious bullet
> entry hole in the upper portion of JFK's head, near the cowlick area, plus
> NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER to any other REAR/OCCIPITAL portion of JFK's cranium;
> not even a hint of scalp damage, other than that small bullet hole of
> entrance near the cowlick) ....
>
Again you misrepresent what I have said. I have never said that there is
any damage whatsoever to the back of the head. And Canal denies that there
is a bullet hole in the cowlick area. He won't say what it is. Humes said
it was a blood clot. Are you calling Humes a liar?
> www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>
> Tony, therefore, must think that JFK was hit in the head from the
> front....and yet there's not a hint of damage to the back of JFK's head in
> any of the photos or X-rays. (Except that small bullet hole of entry.)
>
Must think? I have always said it.
> Therefore, per CTers like Tony M., the bullet that was used by the
> imaginary frontal gunman to kill John Kennedy in the head somehow managed
> to NOT rip a hole THROUGH THE REAR OR LEFT-REAR SCALP OF JFK'S HEAD...and
> also (somehow, some incredible zig-zagging way) managed to NOT rip a hole
> in ANY PART of the left side of JFK's head either....
>
A bullet need not exit the left rear.
> www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE1_HI.jpg
>
> Incredibly and unbelievably (per many conspiracy theorists), that bullet
> from the alleged frontal (Knoll?) shooter didn't cause any damage of any
> kind AT ALL to the left side of Kennedy's head.
>
Of course it did. Look at the autopsy photos and the drawing Boswell did
for the ARRB.
> Nor did that bullet leave a single solitary metal fragment in the left
> hemisphere of John Kennedy's head, even though (per most CTers) the bullet
> was fired from the Grassy Knoll and was on a definite "RIGHT SIDE OF THE
> HEAD THROUGH THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HEAD" trajectory when it hit President
> Kennedy's cranium at or very near Zapruder Frame #313.
>
Several very tiny fragments. Like a snowstorm.
> Talk about a Magic Bullet. It seems to me that Tony (and many, many other
> CTers who believe such conspiracy-flavored tripe) have had the real
> "Magic" bullet all along.
>
Not a Magic Bullet. An Explosive Bullet.
> Funny that nobody seems to have noticed. Or maybe the CTers just don't
> care about that seemingly-very-odd lack of damage to both the left side of
> Kennedy's head AND the back of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photographs
> and X-rays.
>
There does not have to be an exit on the left side.
> Or: maybe all of the photos and X-rays are total frauds/fakes (despite
> what those dozen or so HSCA "experts" said about the pictures and X- rays
> being unaltered in any manner whatsoever).
>
No, the photos and X-rays are genuine. You are misrepresenting what they
show.
> But that's what is so terribly nice about being a conspiracy theorist,
> isn't it? You can just start spitting out theories and fall back on CTer
> Rule #4A: "If All Else Fails, Just Say That Something Is Fake".
>
Show me what I have said is fake.
> LNers, thankfully, don't have such freedom with the evidence.
>
Free to ignore it.
Gerry Simone (O)
recollection but you are right as to the precise description.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YbSdnRR4lOwQLb7a...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
What John points to as a hole => It could be a hole but I don't know if it
actually is a hole.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z9Odnc5GMdvzNr7a...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Thank you for pointing out the subtle but important difference.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YbSdnRd4lOxkLb7a...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
superficial.
The black and white version of that 'hole' is even less discernible.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193555458.7...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
front in an upward vector.
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193611397.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
Anthony Marsh
That's what the FPP said. What do YOU see?
> Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>
> That's what the FPP said. What do YOU see?
>
>
Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
Herbert
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gerry Simone (O)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kd2dnVD3QPdPaLja...@comcast.com...
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/58143915cb8f