> 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?
That is what happens with an explosive bullet. Like the kind that Hinckley used.
>On Oct 13, 10:44=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>> >On Oct 13, 11:31=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Sa=
>int=3D
>> >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=3D
>> >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-loa=
>f
>> 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=92t know.
>End of quotation.
Interesting, though, that Humes et al stuck to their "official" story that they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain.
But, as I wrote before, there's no way they could have observed the lacerations to the brain the way they did and documented them with so much detail without bread-loafing cutting it.
>Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
100& certain.
Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing the camera) is correct?
> 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.
Why does he need a hole in the skull if the first bullet already blasted out the skull there?
Which fragments were recovered behind JFK?
> A good name for your wacky theory would be "Robert's Dog Ate My Homework"
> theory.
>>> 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.
> Then the drawings are fakes?
Well, you think things are fake so who are you to criticize?
>> 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?
Top.
> 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?
So you finally admit that no bullet hit the back of JFK's head.
Now we are getting somewhere.
> On Oct 13, 10:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2012 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> 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 impressio 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.
Unresponsive. Humes did not say "fragmented" and certainly not on impact.
Specter said "fragment." I didn't ask to quote Specter.
You could also claim that CE399 "fragmented" because the WC said tiny fragments came out of the base.
I am not impressed by Sophistry.
> 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.?
Why would you use the phony Rydberg diagram to try to prove anything? Oh wait, I know. Because you know it's a lie!
> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>> On Oct 13, 10:44=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>>> On Oct 13, 11:31=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Sa=
>> int=3D
>>>> 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=3D
>>>> 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-loa=
>> f
>>> 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=92t know.
>> End of quotation.
> Interesting, though, that Humes et al stuck to their "official" story that
> they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain.
> But, as I wrote before, there's no way they could have observed the
> lacerations to the brain the way they did and documented them with so much
> detail without bread-loafing cutting it.
Wrong. All they have to do is think they see a hole on the back of the head and note a fragment behind the eye on the X-rays which they plan to remove for the FBI. Then connect the dots. Just as they did with the back to throat wound. Not by observing, dissecting, and documenting. Just by guessing. Guess that's why you admire them so much.
> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
> >On Oct 13, 10:44=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Herbert Blenner says...
> >> >On Oct 13, 11:31=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23-9df3-17683557b14c@googlegroups.com>, Sa=
> >int=3D
> >> >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=3D
> >> >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-loa=
> >f
> >> 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=92t know.
> >End of quotation.
> Interesting, though, that Humes et al stuck to their "official" story that
> they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain.
> But, as I wrote before, there's no way they could have observed the
> lacerations to the brain the way they did and documented them with so much
> detail without bread-loafing cutting it.
> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> 100& certain.
I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
dumb things that some people believe.
> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
> the camera) is correct?
Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position the image upon the head.
Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
In article <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
[...]
>> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>> 100& certain.
>I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>dumb things that some people believe.
If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above his
EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and then
stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
>> the camera) is correct?
>Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by >the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I >abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the >elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while >recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position >the image upon the head.
Fine as long as you finally understand that the entry was where I have shown it
to be in the copy of F8 that I have repeatedly posted.
Do I need to post that copy again so you can identify the entry...just to make
sure you have it right?
>Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical >defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
I'm sure the approximate trajectory could be calculated using the shape of the
entry....that's if the shape of the entry hadn't been compromised, as the scalp
wound was in JFK's BOH.
> > On Oct 13, 10:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2012 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >>> 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 impressio 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.
> Unresponsive. Humes did not say "fragmented" and certainly not on impact.
> Specter said "fragment." I didn't ask to quote Specter.
> You could also claim that CE399 "fragmented" because the WC said tiny
> fragments came out of the base.
> I am not impressed by Sophistry.
> > 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.?
> Why would you use the phony Rydberg diagram to try to prove anything? Oh
> wait, I know. Because you know it's a lie!
I used the Rydberg diagram to show that it shows what you denied.
“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.”
Now go ahead and deny that you are the author of the above quotation.
>On 10/13/2012 10:53 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> 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.
Every post I've ever had rejected by the moderators have deserved rejection
because I broke the rules. Usually because I said something derogatory about
you but let us not plow that ground now.
I'm thinking that any post rejected belonging to you, Aguilar and Martin were
rejected for the same reason. You boys broke the rules.
As for scaring someone away on the internet, how does that work? I mean it
isn't like I can reach out and smack you with a right hook or something. If you
boys are scared on the internet good thing you didn't see combat, General.
> On Oct 14, 10:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 10:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2012 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>>> 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 impressio 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.
>> Unresponsive. Humes did not say "fragmented" and certainly not on impact.
>> Specter said "fragment." I didn't ask to quote Specter.
>> You could also claim that CE399 "fragmented" because the WC said tiny
>> fragments came out of the base.
>> I am not impressed by Sophistry.
>>> 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.?
>> Why would you use the phony Rydberg diagram to try to prove anything? Oh
>> wait, I know. Because you know it's a lie!
> I used the Rydberg diagram to show that it shows what you denied.
> �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.�
> Now go ahead and deny that you are the author of the above quotation.
> In article <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>> On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> Herbert Blenner says...
> [...]
>>>> Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>>> 100& certain.
>> I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>> expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> dumb things that some people believe.
> If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above his
> EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and then
> stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>>> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
>>> the camera) is correct?
>> Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by
>> the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
>> abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
>> elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
>> recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
>> the image upon the head.
> Fine as long as you finally understand that the entry was where I have shown it
> to be in the copy of F8 that I have repeatedly posted.
> Do I need to post that copy again so you can identify the entry...just to make
> sure you have it right?
>> Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical
>> defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
> I'm sure the approximate trajectory could be calculated using the shape of the
> entry....that's if the shape of the entry hadn't been compromised, as the scalp
> wound was in JFK's BOH.
> > 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?
> That is what happens with an explosive bullet. Like the kind that
> Hinckley used.
In article <ecaafd5c-0502-414a-8852-2df2b4353ef3@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I > just believe in honesty, truth, justice, and the American Way.
So do many of us, which you continuously misunderstand. It isn't because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are inherently wrong to begin with.
> On Oct 13, 10:44?pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > 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
Hmm, now wait, Herbert. You did not answer his question, and I must admit that I would like to see that answer too. Did you ever orient F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
> 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?
While that was not addressed to me, undermining the scalp prior to stretching it would certainly allow it to stretch significantly farther than otherwise. So I would not think it at all odd for anyone to "still believe" that, since it is not even slightly outlandish.
> On Oct 14, 8:14 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article > > <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Herbert Blenner says...
> > >On Oct 13, 10:44=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> In article > > >> <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups=
> > >.com>,
> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > >> >> >> 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-loa=
> > >f
> > >> 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=92t know.
> > >End of quotation.
> > Interesting, though, that Humes et al stuck to their "official" story that
> > they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain.
> > But, as I wrote before, there's no way they could have observed the
> > lacerations to the brain the way they did and documented them with so much
> > detail without bread-loafing cutting it.
> > >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> > 100& certain.
> I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> dumb things that some people believe.
Are you saying that there aren't ways to make certain substances more elastic than they were before? If so I would be astonished. Plenty of those methods do not violate conservation of mass in the slightest.
> > Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
> > the camera) is correct?
> Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by > the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I > abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the > elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while > recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position > the image upon the head.
Ok...
So could you now answer his question? Yes or no, do you believe F8 shows the back of the head facing the camera? Thanks.
> In article
> <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 10:44?pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> 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
> Hmm, now wait, Herbert. You did not answer his question, and I must
> admit that I would like to see that answer too. Did you ever orient F8
> with the rear skull facing the camera?
How rude of you, asking him to admit what he thinks!
>> 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?
> While that was not addressed to me, undermining the scalp prior to
> stretching it would certainly allow it to stretch significantly farther
> than otherwise. So I would not think it at all odd for anyone to "still
> believe" that, since it is not even slightly outlandish.
Except that it is physically impossible and you have never shown that it has been done in any cases.
But otherwise you can theoretically go through a black hole.
> On Oct 14, 8:06 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2012 10:43 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> 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?
>> That is what happens with an explosive bullet. Like the kind that
>> Hinckley used.
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:11:30 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <ecaafd5c-0502-414a-8852-2df2b4353ef3@googlegroups.com>,
> So do many of us, which you continuously misunderstand. It isn't
> because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your
> assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are
> inherently wrong to begin with.
Yes. That is the truth. You believe my assertions are "inherently wrong to begin with." You said that perfectly. That really is why you disagree with me. You "think my assertions are inherently wrong to begin with." That is not a good reason.
In article <26f0e9ae-e880-4af1-a8fb-079c72cea249@googlegroups.com>,
fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:11:30 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <ecaafd5c-0502-414a-8852-2df2b4353ef3@googlegroups.com>,
> > So do many of us, which you continuously misunderstand. It isn't > > because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your > > assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are > > inherently wrong to begin with.
> Yes. That is the truth. You believe my assertions are "inherently wrong to > begin with." You said that perfectly. That really is why you disagree with > me. You "think my assertions are inherently wrong to begin with." That is > not a good reason.
Wrong. It would not be a good reason *only* if I had decided in *advance* that your assertions would be inherently wrong *before* I knew what your assertions would be. But that is not the case here. I have found many of your assertions to be inherently wrong only *after* seeing what your assertions were first, and only *after* reading your extremely threadbare justifications for your assertions. For example, still to this day you have never once addressed the problem of trajectory through Connally's torso that would have to be the case if your incredibly weak scenario of him being shot from the front had an ice tray's chance in the Inferno of surviving. Since you continue to ignore it, I'll state the problem yet again, so that everyone reading this and other threads can plainly see what you so consistently avoid:
The entrance in Connally's back was farther to the right in his body than the exit in his chest. This means it was a right to left path through his torso. For him to be shot by Greer at any time while he is turned partially away from Greer, since Connally never turns his torso to the left in the entire film but only to the right, the trajectory would quite obviously be the exact opposite of what it really was, a left to right path through his torso.
I also want everyone to see another problem you have consistently failed to address, which I have also brought up to you several times in more than one thread. "Skinny" and at least three others would have had to have gone right past your shooter as he was coming the opposite direction onto the bridge, or else your shooter would not have made it in time to be photographed by Cabluck as the press bus was about to go under the bridge.
Yet they never saw a man carrying a rifle onto the bridge.
I'll also remind you that you admitted several days ago that you did not know which direction was which in Dealey Plaza as recently as only six months ago. You then falsely accused me of being wrong when I said that the bridge over Elm runs essentially north-south, and then compounded that by making it plain that even as of a few days ago you *still* did not understand the directions in Dealey Plaza, when you said to me that Cabluck was photographing the north side of the bridge, when in actual truth that photograph is of the east side of the bridge. Another poster corrected you before I did. And when I got back in town on Monday, I posted several corrections to you on this, noting that I have lived less than three hours' drive from Dealey Plaza since 1967, have been there many, many, many times over a period of several decades, and most definitely had the directions in Dealey Plaza correct several decades ago.
I also told you several easy ways to determine which way is truly north in Dealey Plaza. I have still as of today seen no replies from you to either the other poster's correction or mine. So I also want everyone to notice how you keep avoiding these corrections and have absolutely refused thus far to admit your obvious mistake.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that your assertions are inherently wrong. Not only do the assertions themselves not stand up under close scrutiny, but your justifications for your assertions do not stand up either. And you ruin your own credibility still further when you refuse to admit your own blatantly obvious mistakes even after more than one poster has pointed them out to you.
> In article > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
> >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Herbert Blenner says...
> [...]
> >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> >> 100& certain.
> >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> >dumb things that some people believe.
> If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above > his
> EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and > then
> stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to make various substances more elastic than they were before, without violating conservation of mass in the slightest. I'm also still waiting for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.
> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Herbert Blenner says...
> > >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> > >.com>,
> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > [...]
> > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> > >> 100& certain.
> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> > >dumb things that some people believe.
> > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above
> > his
> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and
> > then
> > stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changing the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100& certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly attributed to me.
> I'm also still waiting
> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide quoted text -
John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were certain.
Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of Canal’s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier suggestion."
Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word with fewer than four letters?
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, 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.
> 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!
Interesting that you think there was enough left of the brain to be able to examine it for a channel like the one you describe. No probem, we can just re-examine the brain. Oh, the brain is missing? Isn't that convenient....
>On Oct 17, 9:48=A0pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> =A0John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Herbert Blenner says...
>> > >On Oct 14, 8:14=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googleg=
>roups=3D
>> > >.com>,
>> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
>> > [...]
>> > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the sca=
>lp?
>> > >> 100& certain.
>> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>> > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several ot=
>her
>> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
>> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches a=
>bove
>> > his
>> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined =
>and
>> > then
>> > stretched, please write it here:_______________________________________=
>_____
>> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
>> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
>> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
>> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
>I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changing >the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100& >certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
Evidently I wrote that I was 100% certain that stretching increases the volume of the scap, but certainly shouldn't have.
What I'm guilty of is not reading your posts carefully because I'm so used to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching would increase the scalp's volume.
I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
I hope we're clear on that.
>So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly >attributed to me.
No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably that of some others) confusion.
Unmask your wacky theories from your scientific fog why don't you and tell us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the throat (?).
If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
> >=A0I'm also still waiting
>> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
>> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide =
>quoted text -
>John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing >the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were >certain.
>Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of >Canal=92s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe >that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I >suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to >the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier >suggestion."
>Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word >with fewer than four letters?
No, but here's what I'd like you to do: Tell us once and for all whether or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH. 
> On Oct 17, 9:48?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > ?John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Herbert Blenner says...
> > > >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > >> In article > > > >> <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> > > >.com>,
> > > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > > [...]
> > > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the > > > >> >scalp?
> > > >> 100& certain.
> > > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> > > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> > > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> > > >dumb things that some people believe.
> > > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several > > > other
> > > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> > > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches > > > above
> > > his
> > > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined > > > and
> > > then
> > > stretched, please write it > > > here:____________________________________________
> > I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
> > in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
> > make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
> > violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
> I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changing > the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100& > certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
Doesn't that depend mightily on exactly how the word "volume" is used?
If it is used as the equivalent of an increase in mass, I would agree that that is incorrect. However, no such thing has ever seemed to me to be what Mr. Canal was actually suggesting. I'm looking right at the exchange and where I see him answering "100% certain" to your query about whether he still believes that stretching increases the "volume," it is quite obvious to me that all he means is that the elastic scalp, stretched farther, will indeed take up more "volume," but not more "mass." The number of molecules don't increase, they are simply stretched farther apart in any elastic material that is stretched, no matter what that material is, n'est pas?
> So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly > attributed to me.
Since I falsely attributed nothing to you, I will do no such thing. You, instead, need to admit to him that you misunderstood increase in volume as him saying increase in mass as well, which was quite obviously not what he was saying.
> >?I'm also still waiting
> > for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
> > not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide > > quoted text -
> John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing > the camera.
John Canal on 10-14-12:
"Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing the camera) is correct?"
> Instead he asserted the claim as a fact
No, he asked if you *still* *believe* it. Or is he incorrect, and you never specifically expressed such a belief? If so, that's what you need to say: "I never said the BOH is facing the camera in F8."
> and asked if I were > certain.
> Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of > Canal?s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe > that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I > suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to > the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier > suggestion."
> Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word > with fewer than four letters?
All your reply indicates is that you abandoned your belief that that particular semicircular feature is the entry as seen from the inside of the cranium. It says nothing about how you believe the photograph in general is oriented, whether taken from the front, back, right side, left side, etc. of the cranium. Therefore, I would think that indeed, not only have I proven that I understood your answer perfectly well, I also understand quite well that it gives no answer whatsoever to the exact question that was asked. Therefore I shall ask it again:
Do you today believe that F8 was taken with the rear of the head facing the camera?
There's one word of three letters that will suffice for one answer, and there is another of two letters that will suffice for the other.
Or you can say, "I'm not sure," or "I don't know."
Please don't be like some other posters in this group, Herbert, and avoid answering such a plain and perfectly reasonable question.
