I wish you'd quit riding the fence. :-)
John Canal
correct about the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head,
Larry Sturdivan being the most well known and respected of that group,
which, FWIW, I've been a decade-long member of.
In any case, I have somewhat of an issue with my fellow near-EOP entry
researchers/authors. If you agree that the bullet entered a little above
the EOP (skull) then you must agree that the bullet punctured the scalp
roughly 2.5 inches above his hairline...which is pretty much typically
where the EOP is on an adult male.
That said, the BOH photos (#42/43, aka the F3 series)--and even the photos
of the back wound that show the scalp wound--show the scalp defect that
the autopsists said was the entry to be VERY VERY ROUGHLY FIVE INCHES
ABOVE THE HAIRLINE.
I find it almost humorous that some of my fellow near-EOP entry
researchers explain that roughly 2.5-inch discrepancy by saying the red
splotch in the BOH photos is NOT the entry but is instead clotted blood.
My oh my, haven't those folks become a bit desperate? :-) Come on, first
of all, the autopsists sectioned the scalp entry, finding tiny bits of
bone as well as "coagulation necrosis" in the tissue around the entry's
margins. Then they centered it in the photos they took of it naming the
photos, "Missile wound in the right occipital region". Then, not to say I
agree with much Baden et al. reported, but the FPP did note that there was
an abrasion collar along part of the margin of the entry. Add to that the
facts that it [the entry]: appears in the photos to be 1) slanted to the
right just as Rydberg's drawings show it, and 2) consistent with the
autopsists' measurement of 15mm x 6 mm. SO, HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH CAN
THE RED SPLOTCH DEPICTED IN THE BOH PHOTOS #### NOT #### BE THE
AUTOPSISTS' ENTRY? OF COURSE IT IS.
A few of my fellow near-EOP entry researchers have a different
explanation. They say it's the camera angle that makes the entry in the
photos look too high.
Pleeeease my fellow near-EOP entry researchers come down to earth. We know
the autopsists said they stretched the scalp in order to try to cover the
top/right/front area of his head where the scalp and skull was blown
out...and doesn't that make sense--after all they were preparing his body
for an open-casket funeral. Stretching the scalp would have been a routine
step to that end, considering the nature of his wounds.
The only logical explanation for the aforementioned 2.5-inch discrepancy
is that the relatively undamaged rear scalp was stretched about 2.5
inches....and that's why:
1) the autopsist in the photos has so much scalp gripped in his hand in an
area where they said the scalp and skull had been blown out from.
2) the hair below a point about 2.5 inches above the hairline (EOP)
appears in the photos to be of a different texture (thinner) than that
above it.
3) they said they "undermined" the scalp which is a unique process
performed by morticians, and even some hair restoration professionals, to
maximize the "stretchability" of the scalp. It is ### NOT ### just
separating the five layers of the scalp from the bone and then stretching
it---not hardly--it involves separating the top layer of the scalp from
the layers below it because those lower layers include muscle and tough
tissue which is difficult to stretch.
4) there is a white "spot" in that lower occipital area where the scalp
was stretched....separating the top layer of scalp from the other four is
a delicate task performed with a scalpel, especially when time is of the
essence,...and they most likely breeched the top layer at that point
allowing a bit of the underlying tissue to exude up through their slight
error.
and 5) Sibert and O'Neill both said the BOH photos looked "doctored",
noting that they'd seen brain matter exuding from the BOH (seemingly, to
them, in direct conflict with the photos)...IOW, they left the morgue
sometime between midnight and 1:00 AM with the scalp repair (including the
stretching of the lower occipital scalp) being performed--along with the
photos being taken--after they had left.
So, I ask you my fellow near-EOP entry researchers not to be afraid to
agree with me that their completely understandable stretching of the rear
scalp, as far-fetched as it might seem, is the most reasonable explanation
for the aforementioned 2.5 inch discrepancy....it sure as heck beats the
silly, "It's clotted blood" (come on, my good friend, Larry) and "It's the
camera angle" explanations.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Robert Harris
John, why do you care?
If you believe Oswald fired that shot, then why does it matter whether
he hit JFK higher or lower on the back of the head? Unless this has a
bearing on the conspiracy question, it becomes nothing more than a
matter of trivia.
Why aren't you infinitely MORE concerned about the fact that major
damage was inflicted in the upper-rear of the head, sometime AFTER the
explosion at 313??
Not only is that question critical to the issue of conspiracy, but it
explains the longtime mystery of why the Parkland doctors saw massive
damage that was not visible in some of the autopsy photos.
John, you cannot deny that this damage was real. Not only is it clearly
seen in the sharpest Zapruder frames during the 330's, but Dr. Boswell
confirmed its existence himself, and the fact that the blownout skull
and scalp was pushed back into place when photos were taken.
I don't know why you are wasting all these years and bandwidth. You are
probably correct about the lower entry point of the 312 shot, but you
must know, that your fellow nutters are just like you. Their primary
tool for dealing with things like that, is evasion.
Robert Harris
In article <hgqjl...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Brigette Kohley
know full well that the oval in the cowlick does not resemble the
entry expected of a high-velocity bullet breaking up on the skull.
http://www.patspeer.com/blasts2.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com-a.googlepages.com/65mmwounds.jpg
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
>
>
>John, why do you care?
>
>If you believe Oswald fired that shot, then why does it matter whether
>he hit JFK higher or lower on the back of the head? Unless this has a
>bearing on the conspiracy question, it becomes nothing more than a
>matter of trivia.
>
>Why aren't you infinitely MORE concerned about the fact that major
>damage was inflicted in the upper-rear of the head, sometime AFTER the
>explosion at 313??
>
>Not only is that question critical to the issue of conspiracy, but it
>explains the longtime mystery of why the Parkland doctors saw massive
>damage that was not visible in some of the autopsy photos.
>
>John, you cannot deny that this damage was real. Not only is it clearly
>seen in the sharpest Zapruder frames during the 330's, but Dr. Boswell
>confirmed its existence himself, and the fact that the blownout skull
>and scalp was pushed back into place when photos were taken.
>
>I don't know why you are wasting all these years and bandwidth.
I guess great minds do not always think alike. IMO, the issue is extremely
important. First of all it shows us what length individuals close to and
in control of the investigation went (in the name of the old excuse) "In
the best interests of our county." IOW, some of them were lying...and that
means all of us researchers have had to figure out who was lying and who
wasn't. IMO, the hard-line LNs make it simple for themselves (too simple,
IMO) any witness whose testimony didn't support Fisher's and Baden's B/S
was either a liar or was hallucinating.
Second, you have trusted individuals like Baden, IMO, lying like rugs just
so they don't insult their associate and great icon of forensic pathology,
Fisher....and it doesn't matter if they trample all over the facts while
doing so.
And third, I think it's fascinating to see before my own eyes so many
obviously highly intelligent individuals be so gullible that they believe
Baden's absolutely stupid B/S...or stand by positions they know might be
wrong...just to save face.
>You are
>probably correct about the lower entry point of the 312 shot,
You can bet your last dime I am.
>but you
>must know, that your fellow nutters are just like you. Their primary
>tool for dealing with things like that, is evasion.
You must have missed the reasons I gave you why I won't spend any time
reading about your theory or watching the videos you've composed. If a
bullet hit JFK from the front, give me explanations for:
1) why no bullet fragments were found behind JFK?
2) why there was no beveled out circular defect found in any rear skull
piece?
and 3) why there was only one channel-like laceration that went through
his brain?
Give me reasonable explanations for those and I read your theory and watch
your videos.
John Canal
John Canal
Brigette Kohley says...
>
>John C, those who've actually studied gunshot wounds (like Sturdivan)
>know full well that the oval in the cowlick does not resemble the
>entry expected of a high-velocity bullet breaking up on the skull.
"Breaking up on the skull"?????????? Horse_____!!!!!!!!! The bullet didn't
break up until it reached a point almost half way through his
head....Sturdivan and I have agreed on that since I convinced him he was
wrong about his original cowlick entry!
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> John C, those who've actually studied gunshot wounds (like Sturdivan)
> know full well that the oval in the cowlick does not resemble the
> entry expected of a high-velocity bullet breaking up on the skull.
>
I am not sure what you are trying to say. You may know that I do not
believe there was ANY wound on the back of the head. But most forensic
pathologists have seen elongated wounds on the skull due to the incoming
angle of the bullet or hitting a curved area on the surface.
I don't get your point about the high-velocity bullet breaking up on the
skull. First, the M-C bullet was not high velocity. And in many tests it
could penetrate without breaking up or before breaking up.
They wouldn't expect a FMJ bullet to break up BEFORE entering the skull.
Most theories involve the M-C bullet breaking up inside the head. The 6.5
mm object could not possibly be some sliver of the base of the bullet
sheered off at the entry. For one thing most of the WC defenders think the
head shot bullet is what left behind the two large fragments found in the
front seat compartment. And the base fragment is intact, sans its lead
core. Yes, a PART of the lead core could have been squeezed out at the
entrance, but that would be a 4.5 mm lump, not a 6.5 mm sliver. The 6.5 mm
sliver is simply physically impossible, a myth created to prove that a 6.5
mm bullet hit the back of the head. It did not exist in reality.
Anthony Marsh
> There are many researchers/authors who agree that Humes et al. were
> correct about the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head,
> Larry Sturdivan being the most well known and respected of that group,
> which, FWIW, I've been a decade-long member of.
>
> In any case, I have somewhat of an issue with my fellow near-EOP entry
> researchers/authors. If you agree that the bullet entered a little above
> the EOP (skull) then you must agree that the bullet punctured the scalp
> roughly 2.5 inches above his hairline...which is pretty much typically
> where the EOP is on an adult male.
>
> That said, the BOH photos (#42/43, aka the F3 series)--and even the photos
> of the back wound that show the scalp wound--show the scalp defect that
> the autopsists said was the entry to be VERY VERY ROUGHLY FIVE INCHES
> ABOVE THE HAIRLINE.
>
> I find it almost humorous that some of my fellow near-EOP entry
> researchers explain that roughly 2.5-inch discrepancy by saying the red
> splotch in the BOH photos is NOT the entry but is instead clotted blood.
>
But yet you worship Humes and give him a pass when he says it's only
clotted blood. There is no HOLE there. Only something on top of the
scalp. No HOLE through the scalp. That makes it kinda hard for the thing
to be a bullet hole when it's not even a HOLE.
Scalp can not be stretched 4 inches. That is physically impossible.
> and 5) Sibert and O'Neill both said the BOH photos looked "doctored",
> noting that they'd seen brain matter exuding from the BOH (seemingly, to
> them, in direct conflict with the photos)...IOW, they left the morgue
> sometime between midnight and 1:00 AM with the scalp repair (including the
> stretching of the lower occipital scalp) being performed--along with the
> photos being taken--after they had left.
>
> So, I ask you my fellow near-EOP entry researchers not to be afraid to
> agree with me that their completely understandable stretching of the rear
> scalp, as far-fetched as it might seem, is the most reasonable explanation
> for the aforementioned 2.5 inch discrepancy....it sure as heck beats the
> silly, "It's clotted blood" (come on, my good friend, Larry) and "It's the
> camera angle" explanations.
>
>
Come on, my good friend, Humes.
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Because like most bullets, this one didn't explode or shatter.
>
> 2) why there was no beveled out circular defect found in any rear skull
> piece?
The bullet, which probably came from a hand gun knocked out the large
piece of skull that was already broken loose by the explosion at 313.
>
> and 3) why there was only one channel-like laceration that went through
> his brain?
Because the bullet entered into a brain that was already a scrambled
mess. And three highly qualified radiologists said there was
indisputable evidence in the xrays, of two headshots.
>
> Give me reasonable explanations for those and I read your theory and watch
> your videos.
This has nothing to do with my "theory". The evidence is extremely easy
to see, and it has been fully corroborated by Dr. Boswell. It needs to
be explained.
Robert Harris
pjsp...@aol.com
undeformed, and then decide to break up afterward, and your friend
Sturdivan knows that.
Dr. James Beyer, as quoted in a 12-19-63 AP article on Kennedy’s head
wound. (In this article, perhaps inadvertently, Beyer second-guesses
the conclusions of his successor at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Dr. Pierre Finck.) “I’m still surprised at the reported
size of the head wound if a normal, completely jacketed, military type
bullet was used—and if it did not strike some object, such as a
portion of the President’s limousine before hitting the president’s
head.” Ordinarily, he said, a military type bullet, if fired from a
range of about 100 yards as the fatal bullet apparently was, would
cause only a relatively small wound at the point of entry and would
not necessarily cause extensive damage inside the skull. In contrast,
he said, a soft-nosed hunting-type bullet—whose soft nose tends to
mushroom out after striking a target-- could cause a head wound of the
devastating type described even though the initial entrance was not
large."
Dr. Alfred Olivier, 5-6-64 testimony before the Warren Commission.
“This type of a stable bullet I didn’t think would cause a massive
head wound, I thought it would go through making a small entrance and
exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this
bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side
of the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull.”
Dr. Alfred Olivier, 4-18-75 testimony before the Rockefeller
Commission. “When that bullet entered the head the nose of the bullet
erupted on the skull and expended a tremendous amount of energy. This
caused what is known as a temporary cavity. Apparently, this cavity
was nearer the side of the head so that it buried in that area, and
say, took the path of least resistance. If the bullet path had been
near the top of the head it could have burst through the top.”
ERUPTED ON THE SKULL.
Larry Sturdivan’s testimony before the HSCA, 1978. When testifying
about the “magic” bullet, he told the HSCA: “It is slightly deformed
which, through my calculations, indicate it must have been deformed on
bone since it could not have deformed in soft tissue.” When speaking
about the head wound, moreover, he noted that “As a bullet deforms it
also increases its presented area, and therefore, a deformed bullet
will have a much greater drag than a non-deformed bullet.”
It follows then that the bullet purportedly striking Kennedy on the
back of his head deformed on the back of his head and had much greater
drag upon entering the skull than a non-deformed bullet.
Michael S. Owen-Smith, High Velocity and Military Gunshot Wounds, 1981
from, Management of Gunshot Wounds, 1988. “if the bullet fragments on
impact, all the energy will be used up in creating horrendous wounds…
Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio published a picture of such a wound. It's on
the slide below.
http://www.patspeer.com/blasts2.jpg
On Dec 22, 12:07 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <d03161a6-af67-4113-b514-0c06fa13e...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>John, full metal jacketed bullet don't enter a skull complete and
>undeformed, and then decide to break up afterward, and your friend
>Sturdivan knows that.
You don't know what you're talking about. First I never said the bullet
entered undeformed....obviously CE-567 is proof the bullet deformed.
That said, the entire bullet cleared the inside table of the skull and it
didn't come apart until it reached almost half way through his head.
And there's a good scientific reason why the bullet didn't fragment until
it went that far---it takes TIME, albeit about 200-300 microseconds, for
the pieces to separate--and during that time the entire mass (even through
it was deformed and fractured) would have traveled several inches. Do the
math. Fackler has. I have. Sturdivan has. You should try it.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
So the bullet disappeared? Ah, I know one of the conspirators confiscated
it?
>> 2) why there was no beveled out circular defect found in any rear skull
>> piece?
>
>The bullet, which probably came from a hand gun knocked out the large
>piece of skull that was already broken loose by the explosion at 313.
So a rear piece of skull flapped down and your bullet traveled through the
opening? Or your bullet caused that rear piece to flap down? If the latter
then there would have been some circular beveled out defect on that piece
where your bullet made contact with that piece that flapped down. There
was no such defect found.
>>
>> and 3) why there was only one channel-like laceration that went through
>> his brain?
>
>Because the bullet entered into a brain that was already a scrambled
>mess.
But the rear portion of the brain suffered pretty much only a puncture
type wound because the bullet didn't fragment until it traveled several
inches into his head. Furthermore, if it was such a scrambled mess how
were the autopsists able to identify one complete through and through
laceration?
>And three highly qualified radiologists said there was
>indisputable evidence in the xrays, of two headshots.
For clarification, that'd be three highly qualified radiologists who never
saw the body, right, Robert? But three pathologists, one a board certified
forensic pathologist, who had the body in their hands, said there was
evidence of only one hit to the head.
Sillyness is the only way I would characterize your theory.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> In article<a47236b8-ab23-478e...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>>
>> John, full metal jacketed bullet don't enter a skull complete and
>> undeformed, and then decide to break up afterward, and your friend
>> Sturdivan knows that.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about. First I never said the bullet
> entered undeformed....obviously CE-567 is proof the bullet deformed.
>
IFF you assume that CE-567 came from the head shot. You are begging the
question.
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
That's "silliness" John and I'd like to know why the "moderators" around
here are sitting on TWO postings I made to you - neither of which, I was
notified about as rejections.
Robert Harris