Question for anyone, including Marsh--I'll remove him from my killfile for this.
John Canal
JFK's scalp was undermined and stretched...I received some support, albeit
via private emails--and I appreciate them--but none from any active
posters.
Because, I think this is an important issue (reconciling what appears to
be a cowlick entry in the BOH photos with the autopsists' near EOP
entry)---assuming this group is about resolving important issues related
to the JFK assassinatiuon---I want to try something.
Come on indulge me...if only for academic reasons....what can it hurt?
Okay, WITHOUT ARGUING WITH ANYONE ABOUT WHETHER THE ENTRY WAS NEAR THE EOP
OR SOME PLACE ELSE....OR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SCALP WAS
UNDERMINED/STRETCHED, I have one simple question!!!
1. FIRST, THOUGH, ### JUST FOR ARGUMENTS' SAKE ###, LET'S SAY THE ENTRY
"WAS" NEAR THE EOP....which means the bullet would have entered only about
2.0 to 2.5 inches above his hairline...that's roughly where the EOP
typically is on an adult male.
2. Also, ### just for arguments' sake ###, let's say the "red splotch" in
the BOH photos is indeed the entry....which I estimate to be very roughly
5 to 5.5 inches above his hairline (in the photos).
3. Finally, ### just for the sake of argument ###--even though this part
might not be all that relevant--, let's also say that all the photos
showing the BOH were taken well after midnight and even after S & O left
the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
AM.
Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
At last, here's the question:
For the love of God, can anyone (AGAIN ACCEPTING 1, 2 & 3 ABOVE, JUST FOR
THE BLOODY SAKE OF ARGUMENT) see any plausible explanation for the
dispariety (very roughly 2.5 to 3.0 inches) in where the entry would have
been at Z-312 and where it is in the BOH photos....OTHER THAN THAT THE
SCALP WAS UNDERMINED/STRETCHED?
Note: I really don't think the BOH scalp was undermined/stretched/repaired
as part of some sinister plot...I think it was simply done as part of the
necessary and predictable process employed to prepare the body for an
open-casket funeral.
Trust me I'm open minded...so tell me these other explanations...I'm
really all ears.
Thanks for your honesty.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
davidemerling
Your sequence is plausible, but not very probable.
Why would the only photograph(s) of the BOH ever taken all, inexplicably,
leave a false impression of the true geometry and relative position of the
rear wound? Why would anybody ONLY take misleading photographs that
involving stretching and distorting? That's just doesn't seem likely.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Canal
davidemerling says...
>
>On Feb 19, 8:58=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I know there must be other active posters here who agree with me that
>t
>> via private emails--and I appreciate them--but none from any active
>> posters.
>>
>> Because, I think this is an important issue (reconciling what appears to
>> be a cowlick entry in the BOH photos with the autopsists' near EOP
>> entry)---assuming this group is about resolving important issues related
>> to the JFK assassinatiuon---I want to try something.
>>
>> Come on indulge me...if only for academic reasons....what can it hurt?
>>
>P
>> OR SOME PLACE ELSE....OR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SCALP WAS
>> UNDERMINED/STRETCHED, I have one simple question!!!
>>
>> 1. FIRST, THOUGH, ### JUST FOR ARGUMENTS' SAKE ###, LET'S SAY THE ENTRY
>t
>> 2.0 to 2.5 inches above his hairline...that's roughly where the EOP
>> typically is on an adult male.
>>
>> 2. Also, ### just for arguments' sake ###, let's say the "red splotch" in
>> the BOH photos is indeed the entry....which I estimate to be very roughly
>> 5 to 5.5 inches above his hairline (in the photos).
>>
>> 3. Finally, ### just for the sake of argument ###--even though this part
>> might not be all that relevant--, let's also say that all the photos
>> showing the BOH were taken well after midnight and even after S & O left
>> the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
>> AM.
>>
>> Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
>>
>> At last, here's the question:
>>
>> For the love of God, can anyone (AGAIN ACCEPTING 1, 2 & 3 ABOVE, JUST FOR
>> THE BLOODY SAKE OF ARGUMENT) see any plausible explanation for the
>> dispariety (very roughly 2.5 to 3.0 inches) in where the entry would have
>> been at Z-312 and where it is in the BOH photos....OTHER THAN THAT THE
>> SCALP WAS UNDERMINED/STRETCHED?
>>
>d
>> as part of some sinister plot...I think it was simply done as part of the
>> necessary and predictable process employed to prepare the body for an
>> open-casket funeral.
>>
>> Trust me I'm open minded...so tell me these other explanations...I'm
>> really all ears.
>>
>> Thanks for your honesty.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>
>Your sequence is plausible, but not very probable.
>
>Why would the only photograph(s) of the BOH ever taken all, inexplicably,
>leave a false impression of the true geometry and relative position of the
>rear wound? Why would anybody ONLY take misleading photographs that
>involving stretching and distorting? That's just doesn't seem likely.
Well, I didn't want my post to precipitate a hi-low entry or BOH wound-no
BOH wound debate, but considering that you're the first one to show some
courage and reply to my post I'll give you "MY" answer to your question.
I'm absolutely convinced that the paranoid Burkley was controlling the
autopsy and he avoided having any pictures taken of the BOH when the body
was first received. He feared that, if damage to that part of the head was
announced/photographed, it might have been interpreted as evidence of a
frontal shot....and the county didn't need to hear or think thta was a
possibility. That's also why, IMO, Humes did not say in the autopsy report
that he'd seen cerebellum...he waited until his WC testimony 4 months
later (when the tension surrounding the assassination had waned somewhat)
to make that revelation. Also, no photos of the BOH were taken (or
survived) with the scalp reflected....coincidence?...I doubt it.
Even the autopsy report understates the BOH damage ("the large wound
exrtended 'somewhat' into the occipital"). Later the autopsists would say
that the bone was loose posteriorly on the right side all the way to near
the EOP---that's hardly "somewhat" into the occipital.
So, IMO, that's why no BOH photos were taken early...they didn't want to
show the damage there.
Thanks for responding. That's said, I'll assume you can think of no other
explanation for the 3 inch (give or take) disparity I described other than
the scalp was undermined/stretched.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner
The simple answer is they did take photographs to leave false
impressions not once but twice.
Autopsy photographs show a transverse abrasion surrounding the bullet
hole in Kennedy's back. The FPP corroborated the documentation by
Humes of a longitudinal bullet hole in the back.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
>>> the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
>>> AM.
>>>
>>> Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
>>>
>>> At last, here's the question:
>>>
>>> THE BLOODY SAKE OF ARGUMENT) see any plausible explanation for the
>>> dispariety (very roughly 2.5 to 3.0 inches) in where the entry would have
>>> been at Z-312 and where it is in the BOH photos....OTHER THAN THAT THE
>>> SCALP WAS UNDERMINED/STRETCHED?
>>>
>>> Note: I really don't think the BOH scalp was undermined/stretched/repaire=
>> d
>>> as part of some sinister plot...I think it was simply done as part of the
>>> necessary and predictable process employed to prepare the body for an
>>> open-casket funeral.
>>>
>>> Trust me I'm open minded...so tell me these other explanations...I'm
>>> really all ears.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your honesty.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Canal
>>> jca...@webtv.net
>>
>>
>> Your sequence is plausible, but not very probable.
>>
>> Why would the only photograph(s) of the BOH ever taken all, inexplicably,
>> leave a false impression of the true geometry and relative position of the
>> rear wound? Why would anybody ONLY take misleading photographs that
>> involving stretching and distorting? That's just doesn't seem likely.
>
> Well, I didn't want my post to precipitate a hi-low entry or BOH wound-no
> BOH wound debate, but considering that you're the first one to show some
> courage and reply to my post I'll give you "MY" answer to your question.
>
How the bloody Hell would you know when you killfile everyone? You don't
want replies. If no one replies then you can pretend that you are 100%
correct and that no one can correct you.
> I'm absolutely convinced that the paranoid Burkley was controlling the
> autopsy and he avoided having any pictures taken of the BOH when the body
> was first received. He feared that, if damage to that part of the head was
> announced/photographed, it might have been interpreted as evidence of a
How the Hell would Burkley know that damage to the back of the head
proves the shot came from the front. He was not a forensic pathologist.
He had never done any autopsies. He was a pill pusher, that's it.
> frontal shot....and the county didn't need to hear or think thta was a
> possibility. That's also why, IMO, Humes did not say in the autopsy report
> that he'd seen cerebellum...he waited until his WC testimony 4 months
> later (when the tension surrounding the assassination had waned somewhat)
> to make that revelation. Also, no photos of the BOH were taken (or
> survived) with the scalp reflected....coincidence?...I doubt it.
>
Simple fact, Humes was incompetent.
Anthony Marsh
> I know there must be other active posters here who agree with me that
> JFK's scalp was undermined and stretched...I received some support, albeit
> via private emails--and I appreciate them--but none from any active
> posters.
>
Another false Argument by Authority. There is no expert in this universe
loony enough to claim that the scalp in the back of the head could have
been stretched 4 inches. You stand alone.
> Because, I think this is an important issue (reconciling what appears to
> be a cowlick entry in the BOH photos with the autopsists' near EOP
> entry)---assuming this group is about resolving important issues related
> to the JFK assassinatiuon---I want to try something.
>
It is not important. It is silly. You are trying to salvage the
reputations of The Three Stooges. Just stop the pretense and admit that
they were incompetent.
> Come on indulge me...if only for academic reasons....what can it hurt?
>
> Okay, WITHOUT ARGUING WITH ANYONE ABOUT WHETHER THE ENTRY WAS NEAR THE EOP
> OR SOME PLACE ELSE....OR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SCALP WAS
> UNDERMINED/STRETCHED, I have one simple question!!!
>
> 1. FIRST, THOUGH, ### JUST FOR ARGUMENTS' SAKE ###, LET'S SAY THE ENTRY
> "WAS" NEAR THE EOP....which means the bullet would have entered only about
> 2.0 to 2.5 inches above his hairline...that's roughly where the EOP
> typically is on an adult male.
>
> 2. Also, ### just for arguments' sake ###, let's say the "red splotch" in
> the BOH photos is indeed the entry....which I estimate to be very roughly
> 5 to 5.5 inches above his hairline (in the photos).
>
> 3. Finally, ### just for the sake of argument ###--even though this part
> might not be all that relevant--, let's also say that all the photos
> showing the BOH were taken well after midnight and even after S& O left
> the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
> AM.
>
> Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
>
> At last, here's the question:
>
> For the love of God, can anyone (AGAIN ACCEPTING 1, 2& 3 ABOVE, JUST FOR
John Canal
So, you can't answer one simple question?, but jump in on something I
wrote to Emerling---that I really didn't plan on saying. That
figures...not that you care, but back on my killfile list you go.
>How the bloody Hell would you know when you killfile everyone?
Bzzzzt...wrong again, AM....not everyone...just you.
Thanks for not answering the question....bye!
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Thanks for the lesson in human nature...I learned something--while I
didn't think very many posters would dare answer my question....I really
thought more than one would.
Tells me quite a bit about what this forum is all about.
As they say, live and learn.
:-)
Cheers.
John Canal
P.S. Has anybody heard from Mitch? I was anxiously waiting for his reply
to my post in a different thread....maybe he's working on is replication
of F8? Ya think?
David Von Pein
It would appear as though John Canal will never (ever) give up on his
fantasies regarding the "BOH" issues and his incredibly-silly theory about
how the doctors deliberately "under-reported" the damage to President
Kennedy's head--even though, per Canal, the END RESULT IS IDENTICAL--i.e.,
Either way you slice it, the doctors knew with 100% CERTAINTY that JFK was
shot only ONCE in the head, with that bullet entering from behind. But,
per Canal, the doctors wanted to add an element of deceit and deception to
THE TRUE FACT THAT KENNEDY WAS ONLY SHOT FROM BEHIND, so they decided to
"under-report" the head damage, even though the doctors could VERY EASILY
have explained any "BOH" damage to Kennedy's head as having resulted from
a bullet entering the head from the rear (had such damage actually
existed, which it didn't, of course).
How could the doctors have easily done such a thing, you ask?
Answer:
Because such an explanation WOULD BE THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TRUTH.
But John A. Canal would rather jump through innumerable hoops of fire
instead of admitting that his convoluted theory doesn't have a leg (or
any common sense at all) to stand on.
=================================================
"BOH" GALLERY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5856e761c980873
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a94f08867e7542e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/206d901e1d772b00
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bd2d6afd533d2c63
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed6f679852c2c6b4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3068cd0dca637ae6
=================================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Just more rhetoric from DVP, which, nonetheless, will surely precipitate an
"attaboy" from Fiorentino.
And it's a waste of time arguing with him because he can't even comprehend F8,
which, as far as these issues go, is perhaps the autopsy photo with the most
evidentiary value.
But, to make excuses for his inability to understand F8, he'll just say that
photo is a mess. To that telling comment, I'd ask him to check with some of the
more technically savy hard-line LNs like Mitch Todd and ask if he [Mitch]
agrees, that F8 is a worthless mess.
Of course DVP won't because doing so would amount to an admission that he's
unable to comprehend the more technical aspects of the medical evidence....a
weakness, however, that obviously doesn't keep him from arguing about it.
Cripes, he can't--or won't--even answer a simple question (see my original post
in this thread)...but his non-answer is actually an answer...the one I expected.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
<TOP POST>
While I realize most posters here didn't bother to read this post, I'm sure some
did......and for those few who did read it and didn't answer my one simple
question, your "non-answer" is actually an answer---the obvious one that I
expected.
:-)
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article<hlmqi...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>
> Thanks for the lesson in human nature...I learned something--while I
> didn't think very many posters would dare answer my question....I really
> thought more than one would.
>
How would you know when you killfile everyone who disagrees with you?
>> showing the BOH were taken well after midnight and even after S& O left
>> the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
>> AM.
>>
>> Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
>>
>> At last, here's the question:
>>
>> For the love of God, can anyone (AGAIN ACCEPTING 1, 2& 3 ABOVE, JUST FOR
davidemerling
> In article <a4bcced4-111f-4fca-9e40-3125d2c6a...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
If there truly was a gaping hole in the back of the president's head, you
would think they would document that with the photographs. After all,
isn't the purpose of taking the photographs - to document the nature of
the wounds? Or, at least the doctors would MENTION that it existed.
Why take a photograph of the back of the president's head that
specifically misleads the viewer of the photograph in this regard?
Well - you have answered that question. In your opinion, the intent WAS to
mislead. Further, you have speculated about a scenario where the autopsy
doctors (all three!) were influenced by Dr. Burkley and then proceeded to
lie about this, over and over again, in several investigations spanning 3
decades. Somehow, I doubt Dr. Burkley had much of a concern about the
forensics of the investigation. Rather, I think he was largely concerned
to protect the few skeletons Kennedy had in his medical closet, not the
least of which was his Addison's disease. The president was dead, and I
don't think it mattered one bit to Burkley which direction the bullet came
from.
I appreciate your passion - but it really doesn't make much sense. Plus,
you have had to SPECULATE as to the motivation that would have led to the
stretching and distorting of the scalp. It's puzzling why you so doggedly
insist on this rather convoluted and improbable scenario when there are
much simpler explanations that are supported by the evidence that requires
no speculation whatsoever.
Your scenario requires one to believe that the doctors are part of a
cover-up and they have maintained this lie all these years. I do not
accept that as very likely.
Remember, Dr. Humes is discredited in almost all conspiracy books. He has
been labeled an incompetent. He has been labeled a co-conspirator in the
president's murder. He has been accused or participating in a cover-up. He
has been accused of lying. It has been stated that he was being controlled
and coerced. These are not flattering assertions. He has been fully aware
of these attacks on his professionalism and integrity.
Wouldn't you think, after 30 years (when he gave testimony at the ARRB, or
even as early as his HSCA) that he would think, "Enough is enough! I'm not
lying for these guys any longer."?
And don't give me that silly idea that he was "ordered" to lie. Only
people who have never served in the military say stupid things like this.
You cannot be Court Martialed for your failure to lie. They cannot take
away your pension because you failed to follow orders and LIE about the
death of a murdered president.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Canal
davidemerling says...
>
>On Feb 20, 10:24=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <a4bcced4-111f-4fca-9e40-3125d2c6a...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> davidemerling says...
<top post>
I don't have time to respond to someone who doesn't hesitate to opine on a
subject he knows so little about--the medical evidence.
You may want to check my reply to Mitch Todd that I just submitted,
providing it doesn't get rejected...some of that information may help you.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
>>>> the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
>>>> AM.
>>
>>>> Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
>>
>>>> At last, here's the question:
>>
I suspect his conspiracy theory is much wackier than that. He must have
Humes as the mastermind of the assassination, ready to do plastic
surgery to remove the other bullets and reconstruct the head to conceal
a massive wound in the back of the head.
> forensics of the investigation. Rather, I think he was largely concerned
> to protect the few skeletons Kennedy had in his medical closet, not the
> least of which was his Addison's disease. The president was dead, and I
> don't think it mattered one bit to Burkley which direction the bullet came
> from.
Why SHOULD it matter to Burkley? The government could explain away anything.
>
> I appreciate your passion - but it really doesn't make much sense. Plus,
> you have had to SPECULATE as to the motivation that would have led to the
> stretching and distorting of the scalp. It's puzzling why you so doggedly
> insist on this rather convoluted and improbable scenario when there are
> much simpler explanations that are supported by the evidence that requires
> no speculation whatsoever.
>
The problem is pride. Canal wants to pretend that he is a loyal WC
defender, defending the honor of the government. But the evidence leads
him to suspect it was a conspiracy. But he can not sink to the level of
becoming a conspiracy believer.
I would hope that I am one of the most rabid conspiracy believers here and
his wacky theories are just as bad as the alterationists.
> Your scenario requires one to believe that the doctors are part of a
> cover-up and they have maintained this lie all these years. I do not
> accept that as very likely.
>
Well, coincidentally all the autopsy doctors were part of a cover-up and
they have lied all these years. But you have to remember one fact. They
were all military and were under military orders to participate in the
cover-up. Facing court martial and summary execution.
> Remember, Dr. Humes is discredited in almost all conspiracy books. He has
> been labeled an incompetent. He has been labeled a co-conspirator in the
> president's murder. He has been accused or participating in a cover-up. He
> has been accused of lying. It has been stated that he was being controlled
> and coerced. These are not flattering assertions. He has been fully aware
> of these attacks on his professionalism and integrity.
>
> Wouldn't you think, after 30 years (when he gave testimony at the ARRB, or
> even as early as his HSCA) that he would think, "Enough is enough! I'm not
> lying for these guys any longer."?
>
No. A lot of people have been in similar situations and never blown the
whistle. Only a few insiders have blown the whistle and live to tell about
it. Frank Olson was going to blow the whistle on the CIA drug
experimentation so they killed him. My father was going to blow the
whistle on the CIA drug experimentation, but they negotiated a deal where
he would keep quiet in return for being allowed to resign with no actions
taken against him or his family. That is why I am alive today.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<e953b90e-b648-4d0d...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> davidemerling says...
>>
>> On Feb 20, 10:24=A0am, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article<a4bcced4-111f-4fca-9e40-3125d2c6a...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> davidemerling says...
>
> <top post>
>
> I don't have time to respond to someone who doesn't hesitate to opine on a
> subject he knows so little about--the medical evidence.
>
Just more of your phony Argument by Authority.
But YOU have no medical expertise.
Gerry Simone
there was an exit wound at the BOH.
Nothing looks stretched to me but I recall reading from Stewart Galanour's
book, that Humes changed his mind for the HSCA, but then disagreed with
the HSCA (cowlick) and recanted his original observation in a magazine
interview (above and to the right of the EOP).
Humes may have been incompetent relative to seasoned autopsists, but he
was there, not the HSCA panel.
Then one has to consider what Mantik says about the X-rays.
Something smells, that's all I can say at this point.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hlmqi...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> I can only comment for academic reasons, as many doctors at Parkland said
> there was an exit wound at the BOH.
>
OK, which Parkland doctors said it was an exit wound?
>> showing the BOH were taken well after midnight and even after S& O left
>> the morgue...but, of course, before Stringer left, which was around 3:15
>> AM.
>>
>> Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this? Good.
>>
>> At last, here's the question:
>>
>> For the love of God, can anyone (AGAIN ACCEPTING 1, 2& 3 ABOVE, JUST FOR
John Canal
>
>I can only comment for academic reasons, as many doctors at Parkland said
>there was an exit wound at the BOH.
They did see a BOH wound, just like the autopsists, the FBI agents and
other credible Bethesda witnesses did...but the evidence overwhelmingly
shows it wasn't an exit wound.
>Nothing looks stretched
That was part of the morticians job. Undermining and stretching the scalp
was something they did to be able to cover--with intact scalp--an area,
like the top/right/front of JFK's head, that had missing or mascerated
scalp. If this process caused "another" area, from where they stretched
the scalp from to obviously look stretched, I guess that process wouldn't
be used...right?
>to me but I recall reading from Stewart Galanour's
>book, that Humes changed his mind for the HSCA, but then disagreed with
>the HSCA (cowlick) and recanted his original observation in a magazine
>interview (above and to the right of the EOP).
The morticians stretched the scalp to cover the aforementioned area of
JFK's head...they didn't give a hoot about the fact that, because of their
BOH scalp stretching, the entry effectively "moved" a few inches higher
above the hairline (about 5.25 inches--as seen in the BOH photos) than
where it was (about 2.25 inches) originally when the bullet struck at
Z-312.
Humes didn't even think about the fact that the entry appeared to be too
high above the hairline until he saw the photos for the first time in
1967...then he just assumed the missing or fragmented skull behind the
scalp caused the wound to look higher...he probably forgot the morticians
stretched the scalp.
The fact that the entry looked too high never caused him any real grief
until the HSCA...that's when he became confused about why the red splotch
seemed to be very much too high in the photos.
Even by the time of the ARRB, he couldn't understand why it looked that
high above the hairline and simply denied the entry in the photos was the
real entry.
Bizarre...yes, I know. But the bottom line is that if Humes et al. were
correct about the entry being near the EOP (about 2.25 inches above the
hairline), then the scalp ### HAD ### to have been stretched because it's
about 5.25 inches above the hairline in the photos.
On the other hand, if Humes was wrong and the entry was in the cowlick,
then the scalp obviouly wasn't stretched...at least enough to distort the
location of the entry.
Clear as mud, right?
But to just say the evidence is overwhelming for the entry being precisely
where Humes said it was would be gross understatement.
I find it revealing (and woudn't mind gettng your thoughts on this,
because you don't have a horse in this race) that ### NOT ONE ### of the
cowlick entry advocates "supposedly" has never replicated F8 which shows
the entry in the skull......while several of us who know the cowlick entry
is a myth (I'll toot my own horn here--I was the first to do it about 8 or
9 years ago) have replicated that photo and scientifically proven Humes'
entry to be near the EOP.
Oh, here's why I said they "supposedly" have never replicated F8. While I
won't say they've lied, I think they may have replicated it and
misremembered...because they wouldn't want to say anything that would hurt
their case for a cowlick entry. IOW, I just can't imagine any of the
cowlick entry theorists ### NOT ### testing the soundness of their theory
by replicating F8....which can be done in an hour or so.....instead these
guys have invested seemingly countless hours presenting other weak and
foolish arguments to support their case debating mostly me.
If they knew the cowlick entry was a fact, they'd simply post a
replication of F8 to prove it....they haven't and I don't wonder why for a
millisecond....yup, they just "misremembered" perfroming such a
replication.
:-)
>Humes may have been incompetent relative to seasoned autopsists,
Not nearly as incompetent as the CTs need him to be to fit their theories
or the "cowlick entry, no-BOH-wound" LNs need him to be to fit their
theories.
>but he
>was there, not the HSCA panel.
The HSCA panel didn't need to be there...they knew damn well the entry was
near the EOP and there was a BOH wound. Cripes, even McAdams could tell at
a glance that the beveled semi-circular defect in F8 is deep inside the
cranial cavity. The problem was that the Clark Panel's, Dr. Fisher (the
originator of the cowlick entry and no-BOH-wound findings)....was the
colleague and even business associate of several HSCA pathologists...they
weren't going to disagree with him...and agree with Humes...no chance.
>Then one has to consider what Mantik says about the X-rays.
Mantik is spot on about the 6.5 mm opacity being an alteration, but I'm
afraid he's wrong about the BOH skull being "whited-in" to cover up
missing skull there. If there was missing skull where did it go? Do you
see any occipital skull tracking towards the rear in the Z-film? No, I
don't think so. And, in spite of what many CTs will tell you, the Harper
fragment is parietal...not occipital. Yes, again, there was a BOH wound,
but the skull had fragmented (from the deformed nose of the bullet fired
from the SN, with all the loose bone pieces staying adhered to the scalp
there).......with one or two of those pieces separating allowing brain and
blood to exude out the gaps.....with this flow of gore being exacerbated
by the fact that he was on his back until he was turned over at Bethesda.
>Something smells, that's all I can say at this point.
Yes, the cover-up by the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA experts.
Sorry for being long-winded, but I wanted to get some of that off my chest.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Gerry Simone
Kennedy's head (I was the one who 'jumped' to the conclusion that, that's an
exit wound as opposed to an entry wound).
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b89ddaa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
no stretching of the scalp to support Humes' initial observations?
The morticians were not involved until after the autopsy and photos, right?
I've seen a bootleg copy of the Z film where I could swear you see
fluttering (the best way to describe it) rearward of bone or tissue after
Z313. I still say that Jackie tries to grab brain or bone off the trunk.
Also, Z334-z336 shows an avulsion to the BOH indicative of the type of hole
that Parkland medical personnel described. (I even argue that one can see a
large opening to JFK's BOH on a good copy of the Moorman film, like a
darker-shaded notch). We don't see skull tracking backwards cuz it's too
fast. Weren't there other bones other than the Harper Fragment found in DP?
If Mantik is right, then that bone is missing (the avulsion). I also
question the autopsy photos and X-rays. I also can't help to think that
Humes has been wearing Depends since 1963 cuz he saw stuff that he's too
afraid to talk about (is Humes still alive?).
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hmco2...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
>
>I'd have to come back to you on this later but you agree then that there was
>no stretching of the scalp to support Humes' initial observations?
The scalp wasn't stretched until after midnight.
>The morticians were not involved until after the autopsy and photos, right?
The morticians didn't touch the body until, at the earliest 11:00 PM.
Photos that included the intact (stretched BOH scalp) were probably taken
by Stringer during reconstruction (by the morticians) around 1:30AM, give
or take.
>I've seen a bootleg copy of the Z film where I could swear you see
>fluttering (the best way to describe it) rearward of bone or tissue after
>Z313.
Tissue, maybe...brain tissue went all over. But there's no conclusive
evidence bone went to the rear.
>I still say that Jackie tries to grab brain or bone off the trunk.
I wouldn't argue with her grabbing brain tissue....didn't she give a
handful to one of the PH doctors?
>Also, Z334-z336 shows an avulsion to the BOH indicative of the type of hole
>that Parkland medical personnel described.
I've always thought that Jackie's hand caused some of the distorted BOH
profile....maybe I'm wrong.
>(I even argue that one can see a
>large opening to JFK's BOH on a good copy of the Moorman film, like a
>darker-shaded notch).
Not conclusive, though, right?
>We don't see skull tracking backwards cuz it's too
>fast.
Or we don't see bone tracking to the rear because none did...as evidenced
by the fact that all the recovered pieces of bone were either parietal or
frontal.
>Weren't there other bones other than the Harper Fragment found in DP?
Four pieces total...three parietal and one frontal.
>If Mantik is right, then that bone is missing (the avulsion). I also
>question the autopsy photos and X-rays.
There you're making a gigantic leap.
>I also can't help to think that
>Humes has been wearing Depends since 1963 cuz he saw stuff that he's too
>afraid to talk about (is Humes still alive?).
No, he died in the late nineties. But, IMO, yes, out of all the autopsy
witnesses, he seemed to be the most tight-lipped.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net