This brief article explains the damage to the back of JFK's head and the evidence which confirms the conclusions of the three top civilian experts to examine the Xrays at the National Archives, that the President was hit by two headshots.
Please read it all. The most important parts are near the very end.
In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
says...
<TOP POST>
I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two channel-like pathways through his brain.
Any eigth grader would understand that...and I know you're more intelligent than that.
But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or on one of the films!
So, and this is not rocket science, because there was only one pathway through the brain that means there was only one bullet that hit him in the head!
Now, if you want to make the usual claim that Humes et al were so incompetent that they would have missed seeing (with the brain literally in their hands) a second pathway through the brain....or that they were in on a conspiracy and covered-up a second pathway, then disuss this matter with someone else, and please don't address posts re. this issue to me.
John Canal
>This brief article explains the damage to the back of JFK's head and the >evidence which confirms the conclusions of the three top civilian experts >to examine the Xrays at the National Archives, that the President was hit >by two headshots.
>Please read it all. The most important parts are near the very end.
It seems to me, that if the Minstrel's analysis is correct, that it would prove that there was not a hit from the front, since such a shot, presumably, would have blown a hole through that scalp which looks to be intact.
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
Oswald says...
>On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>You found the brain? This *is* news.
I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
The autopsists examined it.
Did you read their report?
Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd pathway through it?
Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a claim?
> It seems to me, that if the Minstrel's analysis is correct, that it would
> prove that there was not a hit from the front, since such a shot,
> presumably, would have blown a hole through that scalp which looks to be
> intact.
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
> <TOP POST>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
SHOW me even one channel-like pathway was through his brain? You are making up crap again. Show me the wound path of the bullet in the lateral X-ray.
> Any eigth grader would understand that...and I know you're more
> intelligent than that.
> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
> on one of the films!
No examination. Just guesswork and lies.
> So, and this is not rocket science, because there was only one pathway
> through the brain that means there was only one bullet that hit him in the
> head!
FYI a bullet hitting someone in the head does not have to leave a pathway and one bullet can leave two pathways.
> Now, if you want to make the usual claim that Humes et al were so
> incompetent that they would have missed seeing (with the brain literally
> in their hands) a second pathway through the brain....or that they were in
> on a conspiracy and covered-up a second pathway, then disuss this matter
> with someone else, and please don't address posts re. this issue to me.
Now if you want to finally admit that Humes and co-criminals were so incompetent that they could not find the bullet wound in the neck and did not see the bullet hole in the forehead, then we might be getting somewhere finally.
>> This brief article explains the damage to the back of JFK's head and the
>> evidence which confirms the conclusions of the three top civilian experts
>> to examine the Xrays at the National Archives, that the President was hit
>> by two headshots.
>> Please read it all. The most important parts are near the very end.
> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> Oswald says...
> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
> The autopsists examined it.
> Did you read their report?
> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> pathway through it?
Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
pieces taking different paths in the head?
So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
> On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
>> Oswald says...
>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>> The autopsists examined it.
>> Did you read their report?
>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> pathway through it?
> Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> pieces taking different paths in the head?
Please quote for me where Humes explained that the bullet fragmented upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did the Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.
> So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
First prove that they actually sectioned the brain.
Second, prove that qualified forensic pathologists examined the sectioned brain.
In article <50790a3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
[...]
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
>> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
>> on one of the films!
>No examination. Just guesswork and lies.
Similar to the way you've studied the medical evidence in this case and formed your wacky theories?
For example, like the one where you've posted that most of the bullet [your imaginary one] that hit him above the right eye "blew-back" presumably towards the shooter?
>On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
>ly
>> Oswald says...
>> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> >> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Ha=
>rris
>> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>> The autopsists examined it.
>> Did you read their report?
>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> pathway through it?
>Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>pieces taking different paths in the head?
I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loaf cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family.
How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
BTW, do you still orientate F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> Oswald says...
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
> The autopsists examined it.
Prove it.
> Did you read their report?
> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> pathway through it?
Yes and I think you misrepresented what they said.
You call a laceration a bullet path.
SHOW me the bullet path on the X-rays.
>On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>> <TOP POST>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>SHOW me even one channel-like pathway was through his brain? You are >making up crap again. Show me the wound path of the bullet in the >lateral X-ray.
Marsh, what ever happened to BOH Gary Aguilar? He is past due on dropping in with his BS. Perhaps he will see this thread.
Well, frankly, my dear sir, I've read so many different things about the brain that I don't know what to believe. It seems to me, though, that a first shot may have plowed the field, so to speak, and a second shot may have hit bone still present without plowing more brain. So, even if I could take seriously anything coming out of the autopsy, it would not rule out a second shot, and I think Minstrel Bob's theory practically requires something like this, if it is going to somehow push the scalp down without blowing a hole through it. Not that I want to defend Bobby's theory. I just believe in honesty, truth, justice, and the American Way.
I am referring to the back scalp which is supposedly pulled up in the autopsy photo and shows no damage, a conclusion which Bob obviously credits. It seems most likely that a shot from the front would blow a big hole in this part of the scalp. I don't think Bob's theory is impossible, just unlikely. But I don't have this problem of an intact scalp because I don't believe one darn thing about the autopsy. I think JFK two *two* head shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
In article <k5a46e0...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
> <TOP POST>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two > channel-like pathways through his brain.
What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough left in which a "pathway" could form.
> Any eigth grader would understand that
Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
> ...and I know you're more > intelligent than that.
> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION > OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the brain still present in the cranium?
A. Most of it.
Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing - the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere? Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the right-front have entered??
That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a "pathway" supposed to have formed there?
You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my videos. You have much to learn.
> > On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> >> Oswald says...
> >>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> >>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> >>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
> >>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
> >> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
> >> The autopsists examined it.
> >> Did you read their report?
> >> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> >> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> >> pathway through it?
> > Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> > pieces taking different paths in the head?
> Please quote for me where Humes explained that the bullet fragmented
> upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did the
> Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.
Source: WC testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 358
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, would you elaborate a bit on the differences
in the paths, specifically why the bullet went in one direction in
part and in part in the second direction, terminating with the
fragment right over the right eye?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. I will make a drawing of the posterior
portion of the skull showing again this beveling which we observed at
the inner table of the skull. Our impression is that as this
projectile impinged upon the skull in this fashion, a small portion of
it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you
will, and that it went off at an angle, and left the track which is
labeled 388, which is labeled on Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to
the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something
which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us who have
seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity
have long since learned that portions of these missiles may go off in
various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are
not clearly understood.
End of quotation.
One track connects the point labeled “OUT” to the point labeled “IN”
while a second track connects the point labeled “FRAGMENT” to the
point labeled “IN.”
> > So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
> First prove that they actually sectioned the brain.
> Second, prove that qualified forensic pathologists examined the
> sectioned brain.
Look up quick and you may recognize sarcasm above your head.
In article <bobharris77-F01A44.22362913102...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...
>In article <k5a46e0...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>> <TOP POST>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of >being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
You just might have been thinking that you'd be providing a perfect example of
the pot calling the kettle black.......that's IMO, of course.
:-)
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough >left in which a "pathway" could form.
That's not what the drawings of the brain show.
And besides any part of a second pathway through the brain that's missing, your
theory is missing a beveled out defect in the skull where your imaginary bullet
exited, not to mention any fragments that were recovered behind JFK.
A good name for your wacky theory would be "Robert's Dog Ate My Homework"
theory.
>Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>> ...and I know you're more >> intelligent than that.
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION >> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
>You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
>Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the >brain still present in the cranium?
>A. Most of it.
>Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
>A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
Then the drawings are fakes?
>Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing - >the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere? >Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
>And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the >right-front have entered??
But the back of the brain was relatively intact, Robert...look at the drawings!
Why didn't your imaginary bullet leave a pathway through at least the back of
it?
Out of all the lacerations described, there were none where you claim your
bullet passed/exited.
>That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the >part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a >"pathway" supposed to have formed there?
The rear of the brain was relatively intact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No pathways through the brain there...get it?
No exit-like defects in the rear skull there either.
No bllet fragments found behind JFK either.
>You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my >videos. You have much to learn.
I'd be wasting more time watching them than I am right now answering your
jibberish.
> In article <k5a46e0...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>> <TOP POST>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
> Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
> being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
> What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
> left in which a "pathway" could form.
>> Any eigth grader would understand that
> Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>> ...and I know you're more
>> intelligent than that.
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
> You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
> Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
> brain still present in the cranium?
> A. Most of it.
> Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
> A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
> Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
> the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
> Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
> And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
> right-front have entered??
> That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
> part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
> "pathway" supposed to have formed there?
> You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my
> videos. You have much to learn.
> Robert Harris
Oh, I get it! The second head shot hit the part of the brain that was already gone! In other words, the 'second' head shot missed. But just for fun, let's caal it a head shot anyway.
> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
> >On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
> >ly
> >> Oswald says...
> >> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >> >> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Ha=
> >rris
> >> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> >> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
> >> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
> >> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
> >> The autopsists examined it.
> >> Did you read their report?
> >> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> >> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> >> pathway through it?
> >Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> >pieces taking different paths in the head?
> I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
> wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
> bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
> >So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
> But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loaf
> cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
> IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
> didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
> deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family.
> How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
> through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
> smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
> evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
> IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
> without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
> BTW, do you still orientate F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
> John Canal
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 - Page 150
Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
the process?
A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
brain.
Q: As it was being sectioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
brain? How did that work?
A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
A: To show the damage.
Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
bullet?
A: I don’t know.
End of quotation.
Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>> ...and I know you're more
>> intelligent than that.
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
> You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
> Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
> brain still present in the cranium?
> A. Most of it.
> Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
> A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
> Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
> the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
> Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
It's fun to misinterpret witnesses. So when a witness says "But when we looked inside there was nothing there" you can misinterpret that as meaning that the whole brain was blasted out.
> And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
> right-front have entered??
Some people assume the a bullet blasts out where it exits, not where it enters.
> That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
> part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
> "pathway" supposed to have formed there?
Give him a couple more centuries to work on that. You guys are always in such a rush.
Bob has his issues, to be sure, but he's not some reckless nut by the standards of this place. He presents carefully reasoned arguments, and bases them on the same faulty assumptions as the Lone Nutters make. Plus, he is as ill-mannered and egomaniacal as any Lone Nut "researcher." It's very amusing that he is ridiculed here. It must be part of the show.
> I am referring to the back scalp which is supposedly pulled up in the
> autopsy photo and shows no damage, a conclusion which Bob obviously
> credits. It seems most likely that a shot from the front would blow a big
> hole in this part of the scalp. I don't think Bob's theory is impossible,
No, it doesn't. And you have not looked at many head wounds.
> just unlikely. But I don't have this problem of an intact scalp because I
> don't believe one darn thing about the autopsy. I think JFK two *two* head
> shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
In other words you believe that ALL the evidence in this case is fake. And maybe WWII was faked also.
> In article <50790a3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>> says...
>>> <TOP POST>
>>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>> SHOW me even one channel-like pathway was through his brain? You are
>> making up crap again. Show me the wound path of the bullet in the
>> lateral X-ray.
> Marsh, what ever happened to BOH Gary Aguilar? He is past due on dropping
> in with his BS. Perhaps he will see this thread.
> Bill Clarke
> kk
Maybe people like you scared him away. Or McAdams deleted every one of his posts. Whatever happened to Martin Shackelford? He gave up. Exactly what McAdams wants.
> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>> On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
>> ly
>>> Oswald says...
>>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Ha=
>> rris
>>>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>> The autopsists examined it.
>>> Did you read their report?
>>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>>> pathway through it?
>> Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>> pieces taking different paths in the head?
> I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
> wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
> bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
Neither/nor? Are you starting to criticize Humes now. Throw him under the bus?
>> So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
> But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loaf
> cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
> IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
> didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
> deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family.
Anyone ever hear of doing X-rays on the brain?
> How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
> through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
> smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
> evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
And why do you assume that laceration means bullet path?
> IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
> without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
