DVP appears to be the skpokesman for the "Cowlick Entry, No-BOH Wound" crowd, but....
John Canal
Wound" crowd, but he evidently has no clue how to decipher F8, possibly
one of the most revealing autopsy photographs....and that's not just my
opinion.
The HSCA used F8 to determine where they thought the entry was, and four
researchers/JFK authors took the time to replicate that photo because it
is so important to the discussions regarding the headwounds...indeed,
among other things, it, not only pinpoints the entry location, shows the
anterior margin of the "great defect", and photographically proves the
direction of the fatal bullet, it also strongly supports the autopsists'
claim that the BOH skull was fragmented.
That said, poor DVP, obviously because he doesn't understand F8, posts,
practically exclusively, ad nauseam, links to the only visual evidence
that he thinks he understands.
He also doesn't care whether or not the 6.5 mm opacity represents a real
bullet fragment. I wonder if he's found, or even tried to find it on one
of his favorite pieces of evidence, the lateral x-ray?
IMHO, the "Cowlick Entry, No-BOH Wound" crowd might want to select someone
who knows the medical evidence better (although he does know RH) to be
what appears to be their chief spokesman for debating these issues.
BTW, David, do you happen to know where the transverse sinus is, or the
sella turcica, left cerebral peduncle, pons, falx, gyri, sulci, 3rd
ventricle, corpus callosum, mammillary bodies, or flocculus are? Do you
even care? I'll bet you feel comfortable about that because, undoubtedly,
neither Posner nor VB know or care either....after all, they had Baden's
conclusions to parrot. Go figure.
Anyway, here's DVP on the other group proudly showing off his knowledge of
the medical evidence once again:
<Quote on>
LOL. Gil The Kook thinks that mess of a photo known as "F8" proves a darn
thing.
It's worthless. Totally worthless. Because you cannot possibly determine
what's "in" vs. "out" on that mess of a picture.
Naturally, the kooks think that F8 somehow (some way) trumps these 2
pictures, which are pictures that positively prove (in tandem) that JFK
did not--and could not--have had a great-big, gaping hole in the back part
of his cranium:
[...]
<Quote off>
LOL! F8 wothless, totally worthless??????
David, it was only when Larry Sturdivan finally saw a good copy of F8 that
he decided the entry was near the EOP. It was only after Dr. Zimmerman
examined the original F8 that he became certain the entry was near the
EOP.
I'll bet you anything you want that both of them consider the evidentiary
value of F8 to be at least equal to that of the lateral x-ray and/or F3.
Would they be on your "kooks" list?
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Here's DVP on the other group proudly showing off his knowledge of the medical evidence once again: <Quote on> LOL. Gil The Kook thinks that mess of a photo known as "F8" proves a darn thing. It's worthless. Totally worthless. Because you cannot possibly determine what's "in" vs. "out" on that mess of a picture. Naturally, the kooks think that F8 somehow (some way) trumps these 2 pictures, which are pictures that positively prove (in tandem) that JFK did not--and could not--have had a great-big, gaping hole in the back part of his cranium... <Quote off> LOL! F8 wothless, totally worthless?????? David, it was only when Larry Sturdivan finally saw a good copy of F8 that he decided the entry was near the EOP. It was only after Dr. Zimmerman examined the original F8 that he became certain the entry was near the EOP." <<<
Good for Larry Sturdivan.
Good for Chad Zimmerman.
I'm happy that they were about to make ANY sense at all out of that
mess known as "F8". But I can't make any sense out of it at all.
John, would you prefer that I just start telling lies about a picture
that I cannot decipher or interpret properly at all? Should I merely
PRETEND that I can tell exactly where the entry and exit holes are in
F8? And should I merely PRETEND that F8 is as clear as a bell to me,
and that I can distinguish "up" from "down" and "left" from "right"
when viewing that photograph?
Is that what I should do, instead of admitting that F8, in my opinion,
is a complete and utter mess and useless as evidence with respect to
the task of trying to decide where exactly the wounds were located on
John F. Kennedy's head?
No, thanks.
Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I'm stupid when it comes to the subject of
"F8". But I'm not going to start telling people that I can make 'head
or tail' out of F8....because I cannot.
If other people think they've sorted out the imagery seen in the F8
photo....great. I'm happy for them. But to me, it's a photograph that
can probably never be used as a definitive piece of physical evidence
in the JFK case, because of the built-in difficulties in properly
aligning, orienting, and accurately interpreting the things we're
seeing in this picture:
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
This are speaks to you not knowing important parts of the medical evidence
but arguing as if you're ceratin you have all the answers concerning these
issues. The HSCA deciphered F8, as have many of us have who have studied
the evidence. The key is that F8 directly contradicts what F3 "appears" to
show as far as locating the entry....the former showing the entry in the
skull and the later showing it in a mobile scalp. And F8 provides us with
other key information...which I don't want to confuse you with.
As a matter of fact, the Clark Panel also wined that F8 was unuseable and
ended up starting this whole mess because they relied on the BOH photo,
F3. And talk about blind loyalty or trying not to embarrass the great Dr.
Fisher, that's why (Fisher was nominated to the Clark Panel by the
President of the Forensic Pathologists Assoc.) McMeekin and Baden et. al.
rubber stamped his incorrect entry location...then Posner, McAdams,
Fiorentino, Durnavich, Todd, Cage, and VB, trusted Baden....and of course,
you and some others chase after them in a nice little line too.
If you don't unerstand key parts of the medical evidence, don't say those
parts are a mess--just say you don't understand those parts and leave it
to others to decide what's a mess and what isn't.
I'm counting on VB getting it right and straightening this whole mess out
in RH II.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Here's DVP on the other group proudly showing off his knowledge of
the medical evidence once again: <Quote on> LOL. Gil The Kook thinks that
mess of a photo known as "F8" proves a darn thing. It's worthless. Totally
worthless. Because you cannot possibly determine what's "in" vs. "out" on
that mess of a picture. Naturally, the kooks think that F8 somehow (some
way) trumps these 2 pictures, which are pictures that positively prove (in
tandem) that JFK did not--and could not--have had a great-big, gaping hole
in the back part of his cranium... <Quote off> LOL! F8 wothless, totally
worthless?????? David, it was only when Larry Sturdivan finally saw a good
copy of F8 that he decided the entry was near the EOP. It was only after
Dr. Zimmerman examined the original F8 that he became certain the entry
was near the EOP." <<<
>
>
> Good for Larry Sturdivan.
> Good for Chad Zimmerman.
>
> I'm happy that they were about to make ANY sense at all out of that
> mess known as "F8". But I can't make any sense out of it at all.
>
> John, would you prefer that I just start telling lies about a picture
> that I cannot decipher or interpret properly at all? Should I merely
> PRETEND that I can tell exactly where the entry and exit holes are in
> F8? And should I merely PRETEND that F8 is as clear as a bell to me,
> and that I can distinguish "up" from "down" and "left" from "right"
> when viewing that photograph?
>
Start with the scalp. The scalp is reflected down over the eyes. Dr.
Angel identified the semi-circular defect as being above the right eye.
> Is that what I should do, instead of admitting that F8, in my opinion,
> is a complete and utter mess and useless as evidence with respect to
> the task of trying to decide where exactly the wounds were located on
> John F. Kennedy's head?
>
Then leave it to the professionals like Dr. Lawrence Angel.
John Fiorentino
I agree F-8 is hard to interpret, (or should I say, I see where one might
have difficulty) however, I've looked at it, and I've had a neurologist
and an x-ray tech look at it.
We also had a forensic anthropologist look at it.
I voiced my opinion that if what we see in F-8 is indeed an entry, it is
only several inches down from the Vertex. Every one of the above agreed
with me.
So, I don't think it's worthless.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:27ca1762-feab-4033...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
>
>David:
>
>I agree F-8 is hard to interpret, (or should I say, I see where one might
>have difficulty) however, I've looked at it, and I've had a neurologist
>and an x-ray tech look at it.
>
>We also had a forensic anthropologist look at it.
>
>I voiced my opinion that if what we see in F-8 is indeed an entry, it is
>only several inches down from the Vertex. Every one of the above agreed
>with me.
>
>So, I don't think it's worthless.
Good for ou....but, you eyeballed it to determine that the entry was "only
several inches down from the vertex"......I eyeballed it amost a decade
ago and could tell that it was near the EOP. That said, I knew no one
would trust my eyeballs, so I spent good money for a male model skull and
replicated the photo...my replication confirmed what I thought was true
using my eyeballs.....but I new the skeptics would buy either my eyeballs
or my replication, so I asked Larry to replicate the photo. His results
were close to mine. Paul Seaton and John Hunt also replicated it with the
same results.
Sure, I've told you all this before and, and you closed your eyes or
something, meditated, and announced that all four of us were wrong.
I bet a steak dinner that Zimmerman, who was neutral on the issue, would
believe the entry was near the EOP once he saw the originals--I won my
bet, but Jerry McNally (I think that was who I bet), never posted
again...and I didn't collect my steak dinner). Anyway, Chad was convinced
the entry was near the EOP because F8 was so clear and also because he saw
that trail of opacities extending anteriorly from near the EOP on the
original lateral. On the original, Larry saw the lateral sinus near the
entry...an that sinus is near the EOP. Larry also saw the same trail of
opacties that Chad (and Dr. Joseph Davs) saw.
John, the EOP entry has been scientifically proven...tell me the name of
your neurologist and I'll mail him the graphics documenting my replication
and let's see what he says? I know you won't do that either.
I've had a neurosurgeon and a forensic anthropologist look at it too.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "So, I don't think it [F8] is worthless." <<<
Good for you.
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm counting on VB getting it right and straightening this whole mess out in RH II." <<<
No "straightening out" is needed. VB's got it right it RH. That's
obvious from the autopsy photo and X-ray. The photo positively shows
the entry hole in the cowlick area, which couldn't be more obvious,
despite silly Dr. Humes' flip-flopping.
And the dried brain tissue cannot possibly be deemed to be "slightly
above" the EOP, and we know that Humes noted the location of the entry
wound to be "slightly above" the EOP in the autopsy report of Nov.
'63. And his notes and the AR of Nov. '63 are certainly better
evidence than his remembrances many months (and years) later.
And the lateral X-ray positively proves that the kind of scenario you
(John Canal) are advocating is literally impossible....because the BOH
area of JFK's head (which you need to have torn apart) is totally
intact.
But John Canal would rather wrestle Occam to the ground, stomp on him
(and his Razor), and march to a different anti-Occam drummer.
A curious hobby, John. Almost as curious as the hobby engaged in by
the "Anybody But Oswald" kooks at the acj board.
John Fiorentino
I not going to argue with you, but you haven't "proven" anything.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ggfmj...@drn.newsguy.com...
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> In article <492b3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
***That red spot next to the ruler in the BOH photo looks a bit of a
ways above the EOP. The entry wound was described as 15 x 6mm and
the red spot is ovoid in shape. The EOP can be seen below the red
spot.
Near is a relative term. The autopsists said the wound was slightly
above the EOP. The BOH photo shows it to be more than slightly above
the EOP. The hair directly above the red spot fans out in different
directions. If nothing else, the wound is closer to the cowlick than
the EOP.
***Ron Judge
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"I'm counting on VB getting it right and straightening this whole mess out in RH
>>>>II." <<<
>
>
>No "straightening out" is needed. VB's got it right it RH. That's
Then why did he promise to consult with me before he wrote about these
issues in RH-2? Being polite? Maybe. Trying to shut me up? Maybe. I hope
not, though, seeing that he said he called me only because he respected me
and my work and that we've been in contact for about a decade.
>obvious from the autopsy photo and X-ray. The photo positively shows
>the entry hole in the cowlick area, which couldn't be more obvious,
>despite silly Dr. Humes' flip-flopping.
More repetitous crap...get something new, David.
John Canal
John Canal
>
>I not going to argue with you, but you haven't "proven" anything.
You're entitled to your opinion.
John Canal
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>On Nov 24, 6:40=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <492b3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >David:
>>
>t
>> >have difficulty) however, I've looked at it, and I've had a neurologist
>> >and an x-ray tech look at it.
>>
>> >We also had a forensic anthropologist look at it.
>>
>> >I voiced my opinion that if what we see in F-8 is indeed an entry, it is
>> >only several inches down from the Vertex. Every one of the above agreed
>> >with me.
>>
>> >So, I don't think it's worthless.
>>
>y
>> several inches down from the vertex"......I eyeballed it amost a decade
>> ago and could tell that it was near the EOP. That said, I knew no one
>> would trust my eyeballs, so I spent good money for a male model skull and
>> replicated the photo...my replication confirmed what I thought was true
>> using my eyeballs.....but I new the skeptics would buy either my eyeballs
>> or my replication, so I asked Larry to replicate the photo. His results
>> were close to mine. Paul Seaton and John Hunt also replicated it with the
>> same results.
>>
>> Sure, I've told you all this before and, and you closed your eyes or
>> something, meditated, and announced that all four of us were wrong.
>>
>> I bet a steak dinner that Zimmerman, who was neutral on the issue, would
>> believe the entry was near the EOP once he saw the originals--I won my
>> bet, but Jerry McNally (I think that was who I bet), never posted
>> again...and I didn't collect my steak dinner). Anyway, Chad was convinced
>w
>> that trail of opacities extending anteriorly from near the EOP on the
>> original lateral. On the original, Larry saw the lateral sinus near the
>> entry...an that sinus is near the EOP. Larry also saw the same trail of
>> opacties that Chad (and Dr. Joseph Davs) saw.
>>
>> John, the EOP entry has been scientifically proven...tell me the name of
>n
>> and let's see what he says? I know you won't do that either.
>>
>> I've had a neurosurgeon and a forensic anthropologist look at it too.
>>
>> John Canal
>
>
>***That red spot next to the ruler in the BOH photo looks a bit of a
>ways above the EOP.
While, I've said it looks like it's well above the EOP, I've also said I
can't be 100% absolutely certain. Ron, you're jumping in on a debate
that's been going on between me and McAdams et.al. since before Bush was
elected president...or else you'd be well aware of my position on that.
>The entry wound was described as 15 x 6mm and
>the red spot is ovoid in shape. The EOP can be seen below the red
>spot.
You can see the EOP?
>Near is a relative term. The autopsists said the wound was slightly
>above the EOP. The BOH photo shows it to be more than slightly above
>the EOP.
Ron, that's because the scalp has been put back (I say carelessly) after
all kinds of things were done to it and his head. Haven't we been here
before?
>The hair directly above the red spot fans out in different
>directions. If nothing else, the wound is closer to the cowlick than
>the EOP.
Duh. Come on Ron, tell me something new. Now hear this: IMHO, the wound in
the scalp is closer to the cowlick, but see above for why.
John Canal
John Canal
>
>I not going to argue with you, but you haven't "proven" anything.
One more comment. If you can ever muster up the courage superimpose a
model of an adult male's skull over JFK's JFK in F8.....even DVP, if you
pointed him in the right direction, could see that the cowlick entry is
not even in the picture...it's so obvious.
What's the old saying, "If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the
question"...we'll let's modify that for here to say, "If you can't stand
the results, don't replicate F8".
Admittedly, I was nervous (about what the results would be) when I first
replicated F8 years ago...but was pleased and not-so-surprised about the
results after I did it.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
They also said it was near the hairline. The cowlick is not near the
hairline.
David Von Pein
>>> "What's the old saying, "If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the
question"...well, let's modify that for here to say, "If you can't stand
the results, don't replicate F8"." <<<
How can you expect to "replicate" ambiguity and mush and
disorientation....and then expect the replication to reveal anything
worthwhile?
Food for F8 thought. IMO.
jas
John, your posts are provocative and interesting. I enjoy reading them --
they are well written.
However, I don't see why this argument continues on with so much fervor.
It's comparing apples and oranges because no matter where the entry wound
was located on the back of JFK's head, it really doesn't matter in the sum
and essence of the case because the entry wound even at the EOP is still
indicative of a shot from the 6th floor sniper's nest. I agree, the back
right of the head was blown out, and along the way the pieces of the skull
were put back into place as best they could. This was probably done in an
attempt to restore the normal shape of the head for pictures out of
respect for the President and the Kennedy family. But any rear portion of
the head "blasted out" as so many people said they saw doesn't necessarily
indicate a shot from the front as CTers like to say. The manner in which
the bullet entered literally blew the right side of the head out in all
directions, with larger pieces of the matter blowing out mainly towards
the the front as seen in Zapruder 313. So, because of the way JFK's head
was positioned at 313, I feel an entry wound at the EOP would create a
wound similar to an entry wound at the cowlick area.
The other thing I wanted to say is in the 45 years since the
assassination, the continual intense study by so many people of the
autopsy photos, the Zapruder film, the hastily-drawn autopsy diagrams,
what was stated by the Parkland doctors and staff and various onlookers
and SS men who saw Kennedy's head that day and how these statements (and
subsequent testimony) have been interpreted and re- interpreted umpteen
times by the LNers and CTers alike, has made so much out of being
"exacting" and "scientific that we've forgotten that *people* were the
ones who were there too. Somehow, JFK researchers have developed the
opinion that doctors present at Parkland were in complete knowledge and
understanding of just what the heck they were looking at when viewing
Kennedy's head in that short and hectic time. Truth is, doctors, as well
as lay people, were more or less in an almost stunned state because of the
who the victim was and the nature of the crime -- the President of the
U.S. being so brutally and bloodily gunned down in the wide-open streets
of Dallas. Doctors are highly educated people, but they are still *people*
and are subject to all the frailties and emotions of the human mind. I
personally don't think we'll ever know for sure, as they didn't know for
sure, of the exact and scientific nature of the wound -- it's exact
dimensions, exact borders, exact entry/exit wounds, and exact pieces of
the skull and brain matter and how they were blasted out in such a
destructive manner, literally destroying the right side of the head. So,
there needs to be some "wiggle room" given in JFK assassination wound
research, and not so many conclusive and exacting statements.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
I've sent the graphics documentating my replication to a pretty well known
and extremely highly credentialed forensic pathologist, not to mention
Larry Sturdivan, for examination,.....and I have also shown them to John
Stringer (Davd, he's the chap who took F8) at his home.....with no
disagreement from them on what the replication shows...the entry shown in
F8 is where the autopsists (and John McAdams, yes he said that but denied
the obvious--that it was "THE" entry) said it was--deep in the cranial
vault
>Food for F8 thought. IMO.
David, I checked over on the nuthouse and you posted a silly reply today
to the "BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD (ONCE AGAIN)" thread that I wanted
to reply to, but I wanted to wait until it showed up here to do
so----where is it--did you post it just on the other group?
John Canal
John Canal
jas says...
Except that I have far too many typos and grammatical errors..ought to proof my
posts..too lazy?
But why do I feel there's a "BUT" coming?
Ah, ha...it was a "however' vs. a "but".
>However, I don't see why this argument continues on with so much fervor.
>It's comparing apples and oranges because no matter where the entry wound
>was located on the back of JFK's head, it really doesn't matter in the sum
>and essence of the case because the entry wound even at the EOP is still
>indicative of a shot from the 6th floor sniper's nest.
I've heard that question literally dozens of times. Try this explanation.
1). The record of this assassination should be accurate.
2). The autopsists were mae tolook like the three stoges mainly because of their
alleged entry location error. Baden wrote in his book that Humes didn't know an
entry from an exit wound and went on to say the worst mistake they made was the
entry location.
3). The placement of the 6.5 mm opacity which was part of the eventual
determination that the entry was high and that false determination, itself,
demonstrates the great lengths the investigating bodies would go to in order to
make sure that the accurate reporting of the head wounds would not be taken as
evdence of other shooters....and, Oh, my God, a conspiracy!
4). If the entry movement trickery is accepted (it has been proven), then the
credibility of the Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA experts is totally undermined and this
begs an important question, i.e. if they lied about (covered-up) the entry why
wouldn't they lie about (cover-up) the existence of a boh wound?
5). Conversely, if the autopsists' claim about the near-EOP entry is confirmed
then maybe folks should wonder if it wasn't them who were bricklayers posing as
experts?
>I agree, the back
>right of the head was blown out,
I wouldn't say "blown-out". Not at all. I don't want to speak for Barb and Paul,
but I believe the BOH wound could be called "collateral damage". Piece of right
rear bone moved out of place but they were present and still adhered to the rear
scalp, which had a tear there.
>and along the way the pieces of the skull
>were put back into place as best they could. This was probably done in an
>attempt to restore the normal shape of the head for pictures out of
>respect for the President and the Kennedy family.
If the pieces that were out of position were still adhered to the scalp, it
would have been easy to "smooth" them back into place. Try imagining a very
simple, let's say five or six piece, child's puzzel that's all put together. Ok,
now imagine a piece of cloth glued on top of the puzzel. Next, imagine pcking
the puzzel up and seeing the pieces no longer fit nicely in place (e.g. no
longer all in one flat plane...perhaps with one or two sticking out). Then
imagine taking advantage of the cloth holdig each piece in its original location
and laying it all out flat...what do you have? Answer: A puzzel with all the
pieces fit back together again.
Get my point? No...I don't blame you. Forgive me for describing what I can see
in my mind's eye.
>But any rear portion of
>the head "blasted out"
Pleases, not blasted out...how about right rear pieces moved out of position?
>as so many people said they saw doesn't necessarily
>indicate a shot from the front as CTers like to say.
Not necessarily, but it does't hurt their case and that's precisely why some of
the government experts wanted to cover-up a BOH wound.
>The manner in which
>the bullet entered literally blew the right side of the head out in all
>directions, with larger pieces of the matter blowing out mainly towards
>the the front as seen in Zapruder 313. So, because of the way JFK's head
>was positioned at 313, I feel an entry wound at the EOP would create a
>wound similar to an entry wound at the cowlick area.
Oh, you're saying it wouldn't have mattered whether the bullet entered in the
cowlick or near the EOP, the blown out top/right/front bone would have been the
result. I'm not sure on that at all. The bullet that entered near the EOP
deflected up as it penetrated the rear skull....if a bullet hit in the cowlick
and did not deflect up the front right of his face might have been blown off,
IMO.
>The other thing I wanted to say is in the 45 years since the
>assassination, the continual intense study by so many people of the
>autopsy photos, the Zapruder film, the hastily-drawn autopsy diagrams,
>what was stated by the Parkland doctors and staff and various onlookers
>and SS men who saw Kennedy's head that day and how these statements (and
>subsequent testimony) have been interpreted and re- interpreted umpteen
>times by the LNers and CTers alike, has made so much out of being
>"exacting" and "scientific that we've forgotten that *people* were the
>ones who were there too. Somehow, JFK researchers have developed the
>opinion that doctors present at Parkland were in complete knowledge and
>understanding of just what the heck they were looking at when viewing
>Kennedy's head in that short and hectic time. Truth is, doctors, as well
>as lay people, were more or less in an almost stunned state because of the
>who the victim was and the nature of the crime -- the President of the
>U.S. being so brutally and bloodily gunned down in the wide-open streets
>of Dallas. Doctors are highly educated people, but they are still *people*
>and are subject to all the frailties and emotions of the human mind. I
>personally don't think we'll ever know for sure, as they didn't know for
>sure, of the exact and scientific nature of the wound -- it's exact
>dimensions, exact borders, exact entry/exit wounds, and exact pieces of
>the skull and brain matter and how they were blasted out in such a
>destructive manner, literally destroying the right side of the head. So,
>there needs to be some "wiggle room" given in JFK assassination wound
>research, and not so many conclusive and exacting statements.
I agree with you on a lot of that, but what happened to the reputations of the
auopsy docs, not to mention what has been and continues to be said about dozens
of PH and other eyewitnesses, should not be or have occurred...the threat of a
conspiracy has long ago waned...it's time for the paranoids to admit that and
correct the record.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <3eff0d60-1990-4282...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "What's the old saying, "If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the
>> question"...well, let's modify that for here to say, "If you can't stand
>> the results, don't replicate F8"." <<<
>>
>>
>>
>> How can you expect to "replicate" ambiguity and mush and
>> disorientation....and then expect the replication to reveal anything
>> worthwhile?
>
> I've sent the graphics documentating my replication to a pretty well known
> and extremely highly credentialed forensic pathologist, not to mention
> Larry Sturdivan, for examination,.....and I have also shown them to John
> Stringer (Davd, he's the chap who took F8) at his home.....with no
> disagreement from them on what the replication shows...the entry shown in
> F8 is where the autopsists (and John McAdams, yes he said that but denied
> the obvious--that it was "THE" entry) said it was--deep in the cranial
> vault
>
More false Argument by Authority. No one else in this universe agrees
with your wacky theory. Not even the autopsy doctors.
Anthony Marsh
Let me get this straight. The HSCA fudged mightily to get their trajectory
through the cowlick area and exiting at the coronal suture to point
directly to the sniper's nest. Then you come along and say that doesn't
matter, because you can change the location of the entry wound by 4 inches
and it still produces exactly the same trajectory? Can you explain
mathematically how you do that? You change the data points on a whim and
the result is exactly the same each time?
> right of the head was blown out, and along the way the pieces of the skull
> were put back into place as best they could. This was probably done in an
> attempt to restore the normal shape of the head for pictures out of
> respect for the President and the Kennedy family. But any rear portion of
Your speculation is nonsense.
> the head "blasted out" as so many people said they saw doesn't necessarily
> indicate a shot from the front as CTers like to say. The manner in which
How does a shot from behind create a massive hole in the back of the head?
> the bullet entered literally blew the right side of the head out in all
> directions, with larger pieces of the matter blowing out mainly towards
> the the front as seen in Zapruder 313. So, because of the way JFK's head
Mainly upwards, not front as seen in Z-313.
You need wiggle room to make incompatible evidence fit your preconceived
conclusions.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> In article <c54e28ec-4093-44df-8e5f-f79cd1937...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net says...
***I can see where the EOP is on JFK's head, in that photo. The
horizonal band of hair below the wound is covering it. The wound is
next to the cowlick, not the EOP.
>
> >Near is a relative term. The autopsists said the wound was slightly
> >above the EOP. The BOH photo shows it to be more than slightly above
> >the EOP.
>
> Ron, that's because the scalp has been put back (I say carelessly) after
> all kinds of things were done to it and his head. Haven't we been here
> before?
***We have been here before, but the photo looks to be pre-autopsy.
The only scalp to put back would be that of the exit wound.
***Ron Judge
>
> >The hair directly above the red spot fans out in different
> >directions. If nothing else, the wound is closer to the cowlick than
> >the EOP.
>
> Duh. Come on Ron, tell me something new. Now hear this: IMHO, the wound in
> the scalp is closer to the cowlick, but see above for why.
>
> John Canal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I guess the doctors made a bit of a mistake, as the EOP is not near
the hairline, either. Butting my ring finger up against the bottom of
my EOP, i can fit the width of three fingertips between it and the
base of my hairline.
***Ron Judge
John Canal
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>On Nov 25, 7:02=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c54e28ec-4093-44df-8e5f-f79cd1937...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 24, 6:40=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <492b3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> >> >David:
>>
>igh=3D
>> >t
>> >> >have difficulty) however, I've looked at it, and I've had a neurologi=
>st
>> >> >and an x-ray tech look at it.
>>
>> >> >We also had a forensic anthropologist look at it.
>>
> is
>> >> >only several inches down from the Vertex. Every one of the above agre=
>ed
>> >> >with me.
>>
>> >> >So, I don't think it's worthless.
>>
>onl=3D
>> >y
>> >> several inches down from the vertex"......I eyeballed it amost a decad=
>e
>> >> ago and could tell that it was near the EOP. That said, I knew no one
>and
>> >> replicated the photo...my replication confirmed what I thought was tru=
>e
>> >> using my eyeballs.....but I new the skeptics would buy either my eyeba=
>lls
>> >> or my replication, so I asked Larry to replicate the photo. His result=
>s
>> >> were close to mine. Paul Seaton and John Hunt also replicated it with =
>the
>> >> same results.
>>
>> >> Sure, I've told you all this before and, and you closed your eyes or
>> >> something, meditated, and announced that all four of us were wrong.
>>
>ld
>> >> believe the entry was near the EOP once he saw the originals--I won my
>> >> bet, but Jerry McNally (I think that was who I bet), never posted
>ced
>> >> the entry was near the EOP because F8 was so clear and also because he=
> sa=3D
>> >w
>> >> that trail of opacities extending anteriorly from near the EOP on the
>e
>> >> entry...an that sinus is near the EOP. Larry also saw the same trail o=
>f
>> >> opacties that Chad (and Dr. Joseph Davs) saw.
>>
>of
>> >> your neurologist and I'll mail him the graphics documenting my replica=
>tio=3D
>> >n
>> >> and let's see what he says? I know you won't do that either.
>>
>> >> I've had a neurosurgeon and a forensic anthropologist look at it too.
>>
>> >> John Canal
>>
>> >***That red spot next to the ruler in the BOH photo looks a bit of a
>>
>> While, I've said it looks like it's well above the EOP, I've also said I
>> can't be 100% absolutely certain. Ron, you're jumping in on a debate
>> that's been going on between me and McAdams et.al. since before Bush was
>> elected president...or else you'd be well aware of my position on that.
>>
>> >The entry wound was described as 15 x 6mm and
>> >spot.
>>
>> You can see the EOP?
>
>***I can see where the EOP is on JFK's head, in that photo. The
>horizonal band of hair below the wound is covering it. The wound is
>next to the cowlick, not the EOP.
You're wrong. The replications of F8 by myself, Sturdivan, Hunt, and
Seaton scientifically prove the entry was near the EOP. But if that
doesn't impress you try this. If the bone in the BOH was fragmented and
fell out when they reflected the scalp, the only reason F8 shows half the
entry along the edge of intact (not fragmented skull), is because that
part of the entry was BELOW the fragmented bone. Conversely, if the entry
had been in the cowlick, when F8 was taken, the entire entry would have
been on the table with the pieces of bone that fell out.
Even McAdams admitted that the defect in F8 that everyone (except for a
few), including the HSCA, agreed was the entry, was deep inside the
cranial vault. But, when .john realized what he had said (that the entry
was not in the cowlick, but much lower) he claimed the defect was not the
entry. Humorously, Fiorentio corrected .john, and said I was correct--it
was the entry--but that it was in the cowlick. LOL!
It's obvious, that when several individuals try to defend a lie, it's
tough keeping them all on the same page.
What do you think caused the trail of tiny opacities seen on the lateral
extending anteriorly from near the EOP or the longitudinal laceration to
the right cerebrum that began at the tip of the occipital lobe (I didn't
say PARIETAL LOBE, BTW)????? It was a bullet entering near the EOP.
Ron, give it up, this debate is over.
>reflected the scalp
>> >Near is a relative term. =A0The autopsists said the wound was slightly
>> >above the EOP. =A0The BOH photo shows it to be more than slightly above
>> >the EOP.
>>
>> Ron, that's because the scalp has been put back (I say carelessly) after
>> all kinds of things were done to it and his head. Haven't we been here
>> before?
>
>***We have been here before, but the photo looks to be pre-autopsy.
>The only scalp to put back would be that of the exit wound.
"We didn't photograph the wound in the occiput until the brain was
removed." [Humes' ARRB Deposition, p. 95]
John Canal
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <4586aafb-9b13-4e68...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>r2bz...@sbcglobal.net says...
>>
>>>
>>> >The entry wound was described as 15 x 6mm and
>>> >the red spot is ovoid in shape. =A0The EOP can be seen below the red
>>> >spot.
>>>
>>> You can see the EOP?
>>
>>***I can see where the EOP is on JFK's head, in that photo. The
>>horizonal band of hair below the wound is covering it. The wound is
>>next to the cowlick, not the EOP.
>
>You're wrong. The replications of F8 by myself, Sturdivan, Hunt, and
>Seaton scientifically prove the entry was near the EOP. But if that
>doesn't impress you try this. If the bone in the BOH was fragmented and
>fell out when they reflected the scalp, the only reason F8 shows half the
>entry along the edge of intact (not fragmented skull), is because that
>part of the entry was BELOW the fragmented bone. Conversely, if the entry
>had been in the cowlick, when F8 was taken, the entire entry would have
>been on the table with the pieces of bone that fell out.
>
>Even McAdams admitted that the defect in F8 that everyone (except for a
>few), including the HSCA, agreed was the entry, was deep inside the
>cranial vault. But, when .john realized what he had said (that the entry
>was not in the cowlick, but much lower) he claimed the defect was not the
>entry. Humorously, Fiorentio corrected .john, and said I was correct--it
>was the entry--but that it was in the cowlick. LOL!
>
I never said that what you think is a "defect" was in fact any real
defect.
Interestingly, the folks who think they see a "defect" deep in the
skull see it in two *different* locations!
So why can't you folks get your act together on where the "defect" is?
>It's obvious, that when several individuals try to defend a lie, it's
>tough keeping them all on the same page.
>
It's you guys who see the "defect" in TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS!
>What do you think caused the trail of tiny opacities seen on the lateral
>extending anteriorly from near the EOP or the longitudinal laceration to
>the right cerebrum that began at the tip of the occipital lobe (I didn't
>say PARIETAL LOBE, BTW)????? It was a bullet entering near the EOP.
>
Why did you invoke the HSCA above?
They didn't mention any such trail extending from the EOP. Rather,
they saw a *higher* trail consistent with the entry wound in the
cowlick area.
>Ron, give it up, this debate is over.
>
Do you understand how silly that sounds?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Depends on your hairline. Depends on your EOP.
For unqualified autopsy doctors it's close enough.
> ***Ron Judge
>
Anthony Marsh
Horizontal band of hair? Please tell us the brand name or at least
generic name of whatever you are taking.
jas
Maybe, maybe not, but this trite, uninformative, and generally uncolorful
response is certainly not going to convince me -- or anyone else here for
that matter -- otherwise.
>
> > the head "blasted out" as so many people said they saw doesn't necessarily
> > indicate a shot from the front as CTers like to say. The manner in which
>
> How does a shot from behind create a massive hole in the back of the head?
You still don't understand yet how the bullet blasted the skull outwards
in many directions, including the direction of the bullet? Hmmmm.....There
wasn't a "massive hole," the right rear skull bone pieces were somewhat
avulsed outwards, as John Canal points out, and as the x-rays show.
>
> > the bullet entered literally blew the right side of the head out in all
> > directions, with larger pieces of the matter blowing out mainly towards
> > the the front as seen in Zapruder 313. So, because of the way JFK's head
>
> Mainly upwards, not front as seen in Z-313.
Upwards and to the front, as seen in Z-313.
> conclusions.- Hide quoted text -
And we here on this forum need the wiggle room in the form of you
taking a long break from your posting.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 30 Nov 2008 15:17:43 -0500, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <4586aafb-9b13-4e68-bcf2-e478ac332...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net says...
It seems obvious by the ongoing bickering over the location of the
entrance wound that you may both be wrong. If the 4th test from the DC
show has any value it may be in showing that a bullet can slice away the
side of the head without having a separate entrance wound.
John Canal
Even though you'll undoubtedly run off again, I'll respond.
>I never said that what you think is a "defect" was in fact any real
>defect.
So, you're simply saying what "I" think is a defect isn't the entry? Am I
understanding you correctly on that? Perhaps J. Fiorentino will jump in
[don't be afraid to, John] and comment on that?
>Interestingly, the folks who think they see a "defect" deep in the
>skull see it in two *different* locations!
I've already given you a reasonable explanation for the differences--if
you won't accept that explanation, fine...that's up to you. Here it is for
the last time. First of all, the autopsy docs said, "slightly above", so
no one will ever know precisely how far above the EOP the entry was. The
best that we can do, without exhuming the body, is to replicate the
photo...which we did, four of us independently. Now, I hope you don't
think four independent replications, all using different skulls, would
produce the same precise results? Be reasonable. All four, however, were
within less than an inch of each other. Larry was the "outlier", IMO, and
it's because he used a adult female skull which is typically a little
smaller than a male skull...the kin that the rest of us used. In the end
the replications showed what "we call the entry" to be between 3 mm to one
inch above the EOP.
>So why can't you folks get your act together on where the "defect" is?
Do you expect miracles? And speaking of getting acts together, you said
whatever it was that we were calling the entry was deep in the cranial
cavity...but Fiorentino corrected you and said what we were calling the
entry WAS in fact the entry.....BUT was NOT deep inside the cranial
cavity! Now, that's a legitimate case of two cowlick entry hold-outs NOT
getting their act together!
>>It's obvious, that when several individuals try to defend a lie, it's
>>tough keeping them all on the same page.
>>
>
>It's you guys who see the "defect" in TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS!
Right, see above.
>>What do you think caused the trail of tiny opacities seen on the lateral
>>extending anteriorly from near the EOP or the longitudinal laceration to
>>the right cerebrum that began at the tip of the occipital lobe (I didn't
>>say PARIETAL LOBE, BTW)????? It was a bullet entering near the EOP.
>>
>
>Why did you invoke the HSCA above?
>
>They didn't mention any such trail extending from the EOP. Rather,
>they saw a *higher* trail consistent with the entry wound in the
>cowlick area.
.john, how many dots do there have to be in a row for you to be able to
connect them? The HSCA [Dr. Joe Davis] DID see that trail but--here's a
shocker--the rest of the FPP ignored him and his trail...and had the gall
to testify there was NO evidence of a low entry on the x-rays!!!!! That's
a "dot" .john. Do you need more dots to figure out they didn't want to
report that the eminent, Dr. Fisher had screwed up? Ok, how about this.
Baden testified under oath there was no lower brain damage consistent with
a low entry....BUT a longitudinal laceration begin at the tip of the
occipital lobe...do you need to get out a copy of Gray's Anatomy to
understand that laceration was to the lower brain? Do you need one more
dot? There are several, but I'll bore you with only one more. Their
cowlick entry trajectory would be the joke of all of the
investigations/inquiries on this case, if it wasn't so sad that folks like
you, Posner, and VB fell for it [the trajectory]. Cripes, .john, Dale
Myers said the cowlick entry trajectory line pointed back 124 feet above
the, not the sixth floor and not the TSBD, but the roof of the Dal-Tex
building! Lattimer made gross adjustments trying to make such a trajectory
work....see the diagram in his book on page 256 (no, Tony, not the one on
.john's website). And that's not all the bad news for the cowlick entry
trajectory...for Pete's sake, look where the trajectory line points to as
it exits the skull---it sure as heck doesn't point anywhere near the
windsheld!!!
How can you ignore that stuff and continue to criticize us?
>>Ron, give it up, this debate is over.
>>
>
>Do you understand how silly that sounds?
No, but I'm sure it does to you.
:-)
John Canal
John Canal
[...] (edited]
>I never said that what you think is a "defect" was in fact any real
>defect.
Am I understanding you correctly--you don't even think what myself, Hunt,
Zimmerman, Fiorentino, Durnavich, and Sturdivan, agree is the entry is a
"defect", let alone an "entry'? Perhaps J. Fiorentino will jump in
[....edited] and comment on that?
>Interestingly, the folks who think they see a "defect" deep in the
>skull see it in two *different* locations!
I've already given you a reasonable explanation for the differences--if
you won't accept that explanation, fine...that's up to you.
Here it is for the last time. First of all, the autopsy docs said,
"slightly above", so no one will ever know precisely how far above the EOP
the entry was. The best that we can do, without exhuming the body, is to
replicate the photo...which four of us did--independently. Now, I hope you
don't think four independent replications, all using different skulls,
would produce the same precise results? Be reasonable. All four, however,
were within less than an inch of each other. Larry was the "outlier", IMO,
and I'm pretty sure it's because he used a adult female skull which is
typically a little smaller than a male skull...the kind that the rest of
us used. In the end the replications showed what "most" call the "entry"
to be between 3 mm to one inch above the EOP.
>So why can't you folks get your act together on where the "defect" is?
Do you expect--miracles? And speaking of getting acts together, you said
whatever it was that we were calling the entry was "deep" in the cranial
cavity...but Fiorentino corrected you and said what we were calling the
"entry" WAS in fact "the entry".....BUT he added that it was "NOT deep"
inside the cranial cavity! Now, IMO, that's a legitimate case of two
cowlick entry hold-outs NOT getting their act together!
>>It's obvious, that when several individuals try to defend a lie, it's
>>tough keeping them all on the same page.
>>
>
>It's you guys who see the "defect" in TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS!
Sure, see above.
>>What do you think caused the trail of tiny opacities seen on the lateral
>>extending anteriorly from near the EOP or the longitudinal laceration to
>>the right cerebrum that began at the tip of the occipital lobe (I didn't
>>say PARIETAL LOBE, BTW)????? It was a bullet entering near the EOP.
>>
>
>Why did you invoke the HSCA above?
>
>They didn't mention any such trail extending from the EOP. Rather,
>they saw a *higher* trail consistent with the entry wound in the
>cowlick area.
.john, how many dots do there have to be in a row for you guys to be able
to connect them? The HSCA [Dr. Joe Davis] DID see that trail but--here's a
shocker--the rest of the FPP ignored him and his trail...and had the gall
to say there was NO evidence of a low entry on the x-rays!!!!! That's a
"dot" .john. Do you need more dots to figure out they didn't want to
report that the eminent, Dr. Fisher had screwed up? Ok, how about this.
Baden testified under oath there was no lower brain damage consistent with
a low entry....BUT a longitudinal laceration began at the tip of the
occipital lobe...no one needs to get out a copy of Gray's Anatomy to
understand that laceration was to the lower brain? I'll give you one more
dot? There are several, but I'll bore you with only one more. Their
cowlick entry trajectory would be the joke of all of the
investigations/inquiries on this case, if it wasn't so sad that folks like
you, Posner, and VB fell for it [the trajectory]. Cripes, .john, Dale
Myers said the cowlick entry trajectory line pointed back 124 feet above
the, not the sixth floor and not the TSBD, but the roof of the Dal-Tex
building! Lattimer made gross adjustments trying to make such a trajectory
work....see the diagram in his book on page 256 (no, Tony, not the one on
.john's website). And that's not all the bad news for the cowlick entry
trajectory...for Pete's sake, look where the trajectory line points to as
it exits the skull---it sure as heck doesn't point anywhere near the
windsheld!!!
How can you ignore that stuff and continue to criticize us?
>>Ron, give it up, this debate is over.
>>
>
>Do you understand how silly that sounds?
No, but I'm sure it does to you.
:-)
John Canal
John Canal
IMO, your non-response speaks volumes about your inability to defend your
pathetically weak cowlick entry position. Of course, I'm sure you would
offer other reasons for running from the points I made, such as "my
comments are arcane" (you've used that one before), or you're too busy (I
could buy that except that you post on other threads).
After I thought my first response to you was rejected, I even edited
another try...to no avail.
Hopefully the fence sitters on this matter will see the light.
:-(
John Canal
In article <ggvcl...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
Anthony Marsh
Apples and oranges. He is talking about a DIFFERENT type of trail. Not
lead fragments. Bone fragments.