McAdams's endless recycling of "Aguilar's Back of Head" series explained - at last!
garag...@gmail.com
Bethesda witnesses were BACK-OF-THE-HEAD ONLY witnesses.
Of course, we don't. Carrico, like all the other Parkland docs and autopsy
witnesses, said JFK's skull defect involved the back AND the side.
But McAdams NEEDS Carrico and the rest of them to be SIDE-OF-THE-HEAD ONLY
witnesses. And so whenever any of their clear statements describing what
was apparently a significant rearward component in JFK's skull defect,
McAdams attacks the witness, as well as any skeptic who dares to quote the
witness accurately.
Skulls are not like cubes; they can have a defect involving BOTH the rear
and the side, as we've always pointed out pertains to JFK's. But McA wants
them only to put JFK's defect on the side, where it seems to be in the
inadequate file of autopsy photographs.
Anyone who says it is anything but a SIDE-ONLY WOUND becomes, in McAdams'
view, and borrowing from his endearing vernacular, lying scum.
Gary
John McAdams
But Carrico placed the wound on the posterior side of the head, and
*not* anywhere in occipital bone.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Amen.
This "series" has been run AND completely responded to SO many times,
it's a waste of anyone's time, imo, to even bother with them anymore.
I sort of fell into the Carrico one (hey, doo-doo happens<g>) ... but
any others he's reposting or will repost I don't intend to even open.
Barb :-)
John Fiorentino
I think most clear thinkers understand what .John is pointing out.
John F.
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126158114.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
So?
Perchance, John, have you ever walked or sat behind someone? Just what
part of their head do you see? Why, gee whiz, that would be the BACK
of their head. Fancy that! Under the hair and scalp is it ALL
OCCIPITAL BONE?
No, of course not. Because that is not how human anatomy defines all
that territory. It's ALL the "BACK OF THE HEAD" ... it is not all
comprised of occipital bone.
See the backs of their ears? See the part of their head just behind
their ear ... at any level you choose? By golly, that's still the BACK
of their HEAD.
There are things other than occipital bone that lurk back there, John.
Here, I'll show you....
http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Module/skull.html
Funny...this was posted for you in December of '03 as well as other
links on skull anatomy. :-)
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gary:
>
>I think most clear thinkers understand what .John is pointing out.
God, I hope so ... then they see right through it. :-)
Barb :-)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gary:
>
>I think most clear thinkers understand what .John is pointing out.
>
>John F.
Translation: If you don't buy the LNTs slanted field, you don't
'think clearly'. LOL.
Pamela
[...]
The JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X page,
now at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com
Check out www.themagicflute.org for info about me as a flute player and teacher.
Anthony Marsh
This is what I can not tell just by looking at a photo. Just looking at
a photo can you tell exactly where the occipital bone is? I have a few
bald-headed friends where it is quite easy to see where the occipital
bone is, but I have not been so lucky when there is hair there. Is it
fair to feel the head? So, looking at The Killing of a President, page
87, can you tell where Carrico's thumb is touching his head? Nowhere
near the occipital bone? Are you sure?
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
> McAdams argues falsely that skeptics claim Carrico and other Parkland and
> Bethesda witnesses were BACK-OF-THE-HEAD ONLY witnesses.
>
> Of course, we don't. Carrico, like all the other Parkland docs and autopsy
> witnesses, said JFK's skull defect involved the back AND the side.
>
> But McAdams NEEDS Carrico and the rest of them to be SIDE-OF-THE-HEAD ONLY
> witnesses. And so whenever any of their clear statements describing what
> was apparently a significant rearward component in JFK's skull defect,
> McAdams attacks the witness, as well as any skeptic who dares to quote the
> witness accurately.
>
> Skulls are not like cubes; they can have a defect involving BOTH the rear
> and the side, as we've always pointed out pertains to JFK's. But McA wants
> them only to put JFK's defect on the side, where it seems to be in the
> inadequate file of autopsy photographs.
>
Hey, a cube can have a defect which extends from one side to the back.
And where did we get the expression that someone is a square-headed
mother******?
> Anyone who says it is anything but a SIDE-ONLY WOUND becomes, in McAdams'
> view, and borrowing from his endearing vernacular, lying scum.
>
> Gary
>
>
Gerry Simone (W)
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6k62i1th82cfam9od...@4ax.com...
garag...@gmail.com
McAdamns is pointing out that when a witness says something early on
that is anti-conspiracy and years later says something seemingly
pro-conspiracy, he defers to Gerald Posner's commonsense notion (CC, p.
?235) that statements closer to the event are to be trusted over
statements made later, given the adverse influence of time and events
over memory.
And he also means that when a credible witness says something early on
that's pro-conspiracy, as Carrico surely did, you either, 1) say he was
in no position to have seen what he reported (McClelland), or 2) you
forget what Posner said about earliest being best and you leap at
whatever he says many years later that's anit-conspiracy as if it were
engraved on Moses's tablets.
And that's how Warrenistas deal with witnesses who were thoughtless
enough to have given inconvenient evidence originally.
Here's the inconsiderate Carrico early on:
On the day of the assassination, Carrico was apparently the first
physician to reach JFK's side. Within a few hours of the
assassination, he wrote in longhand, " (the skull) wound had avulsed
the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse
oozing.....attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar
tissue via packs instituted...." (Emphasis added) (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission asked Dr. Carrico, "Will you
describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have
already mentioned briefly?"
Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm (sic--the author feels
certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7-cm) defect in the
posterior skull, the occipital region. (Emphasis added) There was an
absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue,
brain tissue present...".
Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this
large opening where the skull was absent?"
Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)
In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico
said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side
of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see
blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that
wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268) (emphasis added)
_____________________________________________
Gary
PS One of keys to keeping JFK's skull wound away from the back of his
head is to argue that "behind the ear" may be O.K., and of course
"occiput" may be O.K., provided that by "occiput/behind the ear" one
means only that the wound was on the side, that it did NOT involve the
occipital bone.
But as the link below shows, the occipital bone wraps around the
backside of the skull and in people with big ears, it's just about
possible to pin one's ear back along the skull and "touch" the edge of
occipital bone.
Lateral View of The Skull:
http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/bio201/skull/latskul.htm
Among Warrenistas, accurate anatomic discussions such as this are
tantamount to heresy. I'm frankly surprised that the author of this
on-line, anatomic tutorial hasn't already been reported to the FBI. ;~}
Barb Junkkarinen
It doesn't matter, Tony .... Carrico never claimed occipital bone ....
he said the wound was on the posterior of the head behind the ear ....
that is generically the occipital region.... another term he used. In
the back/posterior/rear/occipital region of the head, there is
temporal bone, occipital bone and parietal bone. Unless a wound was
smack dab in the middle, low on the posterior of the head OR fairly
low on the posterior of the head behind the ear where the 3 bones meet
up, I wouldn't expect to see a doctor pinpoint occipital bone
specifically .... they don't have x-ray eyes to see thru the scalp and
hair. But they do know anatomy and know what the posterior/ occipital
region of the skull means.... and what bones are *likely* lurking
under whatever wound they are seeing, but they most likely will give a
general anatomic location, unless they can specifically see/know any
occipital or temporal bone is involved ... parietal bone comprises
most of the posterior of the skull.
Barb :-)
Barb :-)
John McAdams
Barb, you are being evasive.
It's obvious that most of the wound was *posterior.* That's the HSCA
and the Clark Panel version of the wound.
Your theory requires that the "great defect" actually be in occipital
*bone* somewhere near the EOP.
Carrico isn't a witness who agrees with you.
It's just typical of how you and Gary have rounded up every witness
who testimony can be selectively used and tendentiously interpreted to
put the wound near the EOP were you want it.
Anthony Marsh
Well, dear one, it was not meant for you. I assume you know the
differences. It's McAdams who claimed that Carrico indicated that the
wound was not near the occipital bone. So, again my question to him, but
you can take a stab at it, is looking at page 87 of The Killing of a
President, what bone is Carrico's thumb touching?
> the back/posterior/rear/occipital region of the head, there is
> temporal bone, occipital bone and parietal bone. Unless a wound was
> smack dab in the middle, low on the posterior of the head OR fairly
> low on the posterior of the head behind the ear where the 3 bones meet
> up, I wouldn't expect to see a doctor pinpoint occipital bone
> specifically .... they don't have x-ray eyes to see thru the scalp and
> hair. But they do know anatomy and know what the posterior/ occipital
Ah ha! So that answers on question for me. A doctor would be no more able
to tell where the sutures are than a lay person. But how about on a bald
head?
> region of the skull means.... and what bones are *likely* lurking
> under whatever wound they are seeing, but they most likely will give a
> general anatomic location, unless they can specifically see/know any
> occipital or temporal bone is involved ... parietal bone comprises
> most of the posterior of the skull.
>
And of course the head wound was closed up at Parkland so no one could see
which bones were where. Have you seen reference diagrams which disagree
with each other over how far the parietal bone goes rearward?
> Barb :-)
>
> Barb :-)
>
>>>.John
>>>
>>>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
Nope. I post a link to the dang skull, showing which bones comprise
the back of the head (it really does exist in everyone else's world,
John) ... which by the way has been posted for you before ... you fail
to in anyway acknowledge the back of the head .... and you say *I* am
being evasive.
Uh-uh.
>
>It's obvious that most of the wound was *posterior.* That's the HSCA
>and the Clark Panel version of the wound.
But it's not yours unless you think from the cowlick forward (for
that's where you say the defect was) is what any physician (or panel)
would refer to as back of the head/posterior/occipital parietal/rea of
the head.
>
>Your theory requires
Really. What's my theory, John? Please tell me so I can tell Rush. You
refer to my "needs" and "wants" and "theory" often ... why don't you
tell me what it is?
> that the "great defect" actually be in occipital
>*bone* somewhere near the EOP.
Why?
And the "great defect" as seen, noted, measured, drawn and reported by
the autopsists was 10 x 17cm anteroposteriorly .... t'aint nobody, got
an occipital bone that big. :-)
The entry hole was in occipital bone per the autopsists.
Bone north of that was missing at the beginning of the autopsy after
they got the scalp reflected.
That would have ... obviously...included some occipital bone. Same for
the portion of the defect that was lateral right for 10cm from 1"
right of the eop. No duh there either for anyone who bothers to know
the anatomy of the skull.
Same for temporal bone.
But the vast majority of bone loss was parietal ..... some on the rear
of the head and the majority of the parietal bone over the rest of the
skull right of midline.
So, why is it again you say I need "the great defect" "in occipital
bone"?
That's nonsense.
>
>Carrico isn't a witness who agrees with you.
I agree with Carrico's placement of the wound he saw. So did the
autopsists and other medical professionals who saw and worked on the
body at both Parkland and Bethesda.
Sorry, John, you're just odd man out.
>
>It's just typical of how you and Gary have rounded up every witness
>who testimony can be selectively used and tendentiously interpreted to
>put the wound near the EOP were you want it.
John, the autopsy report puts the entry at the eop ..... it's nothing
I arrived at ANY OTHER WAY than from what the AUTOPSISTS testified to
and reported.
What's typical is the way you tie knots in all of this making claims
about what other people believe and "need" despite those false
assumptions/claims having been sorted out for you time and time again
...... but then what would you post if not that pap....heck, you might
actually have to respond to a question or engage in some real
discussion!
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Oops. :-^)
>I assume you know the
>differences. It's McAdams who claimed that Carrico indicated that the
>wound was not near the occipital bone. So, again my question to him, but
>you can take a stab at it, is looking at page 87 of The Killing of a
>President, what bone is Carrico's thumb touching?
First thing I note is that Carrico's hand placement matches what he
wrote and testified to ... but not the drawing he did for Bradlee. :-)
As for his thumb ...can't be sure, but I don't think his thumb is over
far enough to be in occipital bone, though it looks very close to
where the three bones should be meeting up, so maybe. His forefinger
and middle finger look likely to be including occipital bone
territory.
>
>> the back/posterior/rear/occipital region of the head, there is
>> temporal bone, occipital bone and parietal bone. Unless a wound was
>> smack dab in the middle, low on the posterior of the head OR fairly
>> low on the posterior of the head behind the ear where the 3 bones meet
>> up, I wouldn't expect to see a doctor pinpoint occipital bone
>> specifically .... they don't have x-ray eyes to see thru the scalp and
>> hair. But they do know anatomy and know what the posterior/ occipital
>
>Ah ha! So that answers on question for me. A doctor would be no more able
>to tell where the sutures are than a lay person. But how about on a bald
>head?
I think it depends on the head. I've seen some where one can see where
all the major bones are .... and some, not so much. Depends on the
person, I think. As for palpating the lambdoid suture ... I don't
know, very doubtful I think, particularly in an adult.
>
>> region of the skull means.... and what bones are *likely* lurking
>> under whatever wound they are seeing, but they most likely will give a
>> general anatomic location, unless they can specifically see/know any
>> occipital or temporal bone is involved ... parietal bone comprises
>> most of the posterior of the skull.
>>
>
>And of course the head wound was closed up at Parkland so no one could see
>which bones were where.
Pretty much. One Parkland doctor said the occipital bone was broken in
its lateral half and protruding .... others noted "occiput" .... but
most gave general, yet perfectly understandable to anyone who knows
anatomy, descriptions....doing that for the medical record is part of
their job.
> Have you seen reference diagrams which disagree
>with each other over how far the parietal bone goes rearward?
No. If you can post links to them, I'd like to take a look.
Thanks,
Barb :-)
garag...@gmail.com
Right, you are, Moreover, Carrico was also one of 7 Dallas witness who
said they saw JFK's cerebellum, which is quite posterior, indeed, its
"occipital" in location.
Gary
John McAdams
Now *that's* a perfectly sensible statement.
Have you parted company with Gary, who thinks the testimony of the
Dallas doctors can be used to put the wound in occipital bone?
And please don't claim now that Gary doesn't try to put the wound in
occipital bone.
If it was entirely in parietal bone, that's consistent with the Clark
Panel and HSCA descriptions of the wound, and give no license to
anybody to huff and puff about what the Evil Minions did.
John Fiorentino
I think the overriding question here is.......Do you believe the autopsy
photos and X-rays are frauds?
John F.
garyN...@gmail.com <garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126294834.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Do YOU believe the autopsy photos and X-rays are forgeries?
John F.
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6282i15mmfa5679ji...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Barb:
>
>Do YOU believe the autopsy photos and X-rays are forgeries?
Have never claimed that .... I believe they are of JFK's body, whether
or not one or more may have been diddled, I don't know .... am leaving
the door open on that question on the x-rays because of recent
work/findings by some people ... the cookie frag is in question. Was
it added? Or is it just something other than what officialdom touted
it to be. Good indications from several sources now that it is not
what or where it's been proclaimed to be.
Don't mean to be vague, but I cannot be definite about something I am
not 100% sure of.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gary:
>
>I think the overriding question here is.......Do you believe the autopsy
>photos and X-rays are frauds?
>
>John F.
John,
Actuallky, I think that's a punt question ... avoiding the weight of
the evidence ala Parkland and the autopsy. The HSCA itself criticized
the films and photos as being not up to standard, and noted that in
some cases the best they could do was estimate. They, particularly the
x-rays, have been read and interpreted different ways by different
people...even within the offical panel experts. Neither are an easy
read. But it's waving the films and x-rays that some punt with when
faced with the Parkland witnesses .... who just happen to be
corroborated by the autopsy.
There are questions, uncertainties about what the films and photos
tell us .... despite McA's protestations to the contrary, there is no
doubt what the Parkland and autopsy witnesses described.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed, Gary. Can't you just see the splash and talk that would have
generated from a physician seeing cerebellum oozing/hanging from a
wound in the top of the head !
Barb :-)
>
>Gary
>
Barb Junkkarinen
I've never said anything different.
>
>Have you parted company with Gary, who thinks the testimony of the
>Dallas doctors can be used to put the wound in occipital bone?
I've never seen Gary say the Parkland descriptions put the wound
specifically in occipital bone, John ... that's one of your creative
assertions that you constantly lob out at mne and Gary and others.
Don't believe your own press. :-)
>
>And please don't claim now that Gary doesn't try to put the wound in
>occipital bone.
See above.
As far as I know, Gary doesn't put the wound in occipital bone any
more than I do or that anyone else does who understands what the
Parkland people described ... and who have read the autopsy report. IT
puts defect in occipital bone.
>
>If it was entirely in parietal bone, that's consistent with the Clark
>Panel and HSCA descriptions of the wound, and give no license to
>anybody to huff and puff about what the Evil Minions did.
"Evil Minions" is another one of your inventions, John.
Three autopsists and their report put defect in mostly parietal but
also in temporal and occipital bone.
No one pathologist, let alone three working together, could be so
incompetent as to not know the EOP from an ant hill, so I guess you
have a choice ..... what do you apply to them .... your "Evil Minions"
or "lying scum" ?
Barb :-)
John Canal
says...
>
>On 10 Sep 2005 11:18:20 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
><jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary:
>>
>>I think the overriding question here is.......Do you believe the autopsy
>>photos and X-rays are frauds?
>>
>>John F.
>
>John,
Hi Barb,
I don't know what's a more silly conclusion; the one (based only on x-rays and
photos) about the location of the entry being grossly misidentified by the
prosectors.....or the one that assumes twenty-something medically trained
individuals, including two neurosurgeons, were mistaken about a defect of
significant size to the right rear of his head.
While the poof mounts of a near-EOP entry with the verification that opacities
can be seen on the original lateral extending inward from the, thank God
Boswell's ARRB deposition "finally" bridged the conflict between the
aforementioned twenty-something witnesses and the lateral x-ray which pretty
much shows an intact (albeit severely fractured right rear of the head). Indeed,
he "admitted" he replaced pieces of bone before the x-rays were taken.
Of course, like the low opacities, McAdams et. al. will dismiss Boswell's
testimony as, er halucinating, insignificant information, or total memory
failure.
Bests,
John C.
John McAdams
Then what *is* the point of Gary's campaign, unless it's to get the
wound back into occpital bone?
It really was posterior. That's what the Clark Panel said. That's
what the HSCA said.
Either Gary needs to get it back further posterior than those panels,
or he's huffing and puffing about nothing.
>>
>>And please don't claim now that Gary doesn't try to put the wound in
>>occipital bone.
>
>See above.
>
>As far as I know, Gary doesn't put the wound in occipital bone any
>more than I do or that anyone else does who understands what the
>Parkland people described ... and who have read the autopsy report. IT
>puts defect in occipital bone.
So you think the *defect* (rather than mere fragmentation) extended
into occipital bone?
If Gary isn't making that case, what is the point of the essay I
critique?
>>
>>If it was entirely in parietal bone, that's consistent with the Clark
>>Panel and HSCA descriptions of the wound, and give no license to
>>anybody to huff and puff about what the Evil Minions did.
>
>"Evil Minions" is another one of your inventions, John.
>Three autopsists and their report put defect in mostly parietal but
>also in temporal and occipital bone.
>
>No one pathologist, let alone three working together, could be so
>incompetent as to not know the EOP from an ant hill, so I guess you
>have a choice ..... what do you apply to them .... your "Evil Minions"
>or "lying scum" ?
>
Aguilar is the person who thinks everybody who works for the
government is an Evil Minion or lying scum, so you'll have to ask him
which they are.
But you *still* need to tell me what you think the point of his essay
is.
.John
--
John McAdams
OK, so you think when he drew the wound above the ear, clearly in
parietal bone, he was lying?
Then there is this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cerebellum.htm
But maybe the autopsy photos are faked, right?
And maybe Humes and Boswell lied about the condition of the
cerebellum, eh?
But wait! They are your Maximum Experts on the location of the
inshoot!
.John
--
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <8176i15tt93hbtmrt...@4ax.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
>says...
>>
>>On 10 Sep 2005 11:18:20 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>><jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Gary:
>>>
>>>I think the overriding question here is.......Do you believe the autopsy
>>>photos and X-rays are frauds?
>>>
>>>John F.
>>
>>John,
>
>Hi Barb,
>
>I don't know what's a more silly conclusion; the one (based only on x-rays and
>photos) about the location of the entry being grossly misidentified by the
>prosectors.....or the one that assumes twenty-something medically trained
>individuals, including two neurosurgeons, were mistaken about a defect of
>significant size to the right rear of his head.
Exactly. Both are preposterous.
>
>While the poof mounts of a near-EOP entry with the verification that opacities
>can be seen on the original lateral extending inward from the, thank God
>Boswell's ARRB deposition "finally" bridged the conflict between the
>aforementioned twenty-something witnesses and the lateral x-ray which pretty
>much shows an intact (albeit severely fractured right rear of the head). Indeed,
>he "admitted" he replaced pieces of bone before the x-rays were taken.
Amen. And even McAdams once posted that bone had been replaced in the
head before x-rays as a way of explaining why bone anterior to the
cowlick was in the x-rays given that's the area he claims was the only
defect.
As for the x-rays and photos in general ... in every case ... their
purpose, of course, is to document the findings of the autopsists. At
best, the films and photos from this case are a hard read, but because
of what we do know about them, they barely accomplish their purpose;
at worst, they've caused more questions and interpretaions and have
mixed and confused the pot further because, as the HSCA noted, they
are so very poor. Some or all lack things like definition, clear
orientation, scalar references and no notes were kept about what each
shot was supposed to depict.
>
>Of course, like the low opacities, McAdams et. al. will dismiss Boswell's
>testimony as, er halucinating, insignificant information, or total memory
>failure.
Or maybe he's on John's list of "lying scum." <g>
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:53:04 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 10 Sep 2005 10:57:45 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
>><garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Barb,
>>>
>>>Right, you are, Moreover, Carrico was also one of 7 Dallas witness who
>>>said they saw JFK's cerebellum, which is quite posterior, indeed, its
>>>"occipital" in location.
>>
>>Indeed, Gary. Can't you just see the splash and talk that would have
>>generated from a physician seeing cerebellum oozing/hanging from a
>>wound in the top of the head !
>>
>
>OK, so you think when he drew the wound above the ear, clearly in
>parietal bone, he was lying?
He said above the ear .... but he said posterior, on the back side of
the head, behind (posterior to) the ear.
This has been explained in full in several posts now, John.
>
>Then there is this:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cerebellum.htm
>
>But maybe the autopsy photos are faked, right?
Maybe you think so as you are the one who keeps saying that.
>
>And maybe Humes and Boswell lied about the condition of the
>cerebellum, eh?
Have you read the autopsy report on where sections were taken ...
including from the right cerebellar cortex ... and how all of the
sections taken were remarkable only for damage from the current
condition?
Have you read the autopsists to the ARRB on the photos of the brain
and comments on the cerebellum?
Nothing was made of the cerebellum at the time of the WC; the head
wound really wasn't a cone of contention at that time.
>
>But wait! They are your Maximum Experts on the location of the
>inshoot!
They sure are. They were there.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
You're the one with a campaign! LOL
Gary's list of witnesses came about because finally, previously held
documents on what some witnesses said was unavailable.... and lo and
behold, they corroborated the Parkland witnesses and more.
One mo time, John: It's the autopsists who put the defect into
including occipital bone.
Which part of that is so difficult for you to understand?
>
>It really was posterior. That's what the Clark Panel said. That's
>what the HSCA said.
That's what Parkland said, that's what the autopsists said ...
posterior...as in the occipital (rear face of the head) region ... and
that, unfortunately for you, can...shudder....include that bone that
scares you so much: occipital bone.
Why does occipital bone scare you so much, John?
Why do you move heaven and earth .... not to mention witnesses,
anatomy, medical terminology and autopsy reports to keep that wound
off the rear face of the head?
Have you noticed you're alone in that?
>
>Either Gary needs to get it back further posterior than those panels,
>or he's huffing and puffing about nothing.
You're the only one anybody sees huffing and puffing. We just don't
understand *why* you huff and puff to cyanosis to keep the rearmost
part of the defect off of the rear face of the head despite all the
witnesses and the autopsy that clearly says it was there.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>And please don't claim now that Gary doesn't try to put the wound in
>>>occipital bone.
>>
>>See above.
>>
>>As far as I know, Gary doesn't put the wound in occipital bone any
>>more than I do or that anyone else does who understands what the
>>Parkland people described ... and who have read the autopsy report. IT
>>puts defect in occipital bone.
>
>So you think the *defect* (rather than mere fragmentation) extended
>into occipital bone?
Plug pulled, Jojn. How many times...in just 24 hours even ... do I
have to explicitly spell this out for you?
This is ridiculous.
Read the damn autopsy report.
>
>If Gary isn't making that case, what is the point of the essay I
>critique?
Only God knows the purpose of your critique .... and at that, I'm
giving him credit for knowing all, because otherwise I doubt even He
could figure it out.
You ARE aware, aren't you, that not all the witness material from
Bethesda was released before things started coming out in '93 (I think
'93)?
>
>
>>>
>>>If it was entirely in parietal bone, that's consistent with the Clark
>>>Panel and HSCA descriptions of the wound, and give no license to
>>>anybody to huff and puff about what the Evil Minions did.
>>
>>"Evil Minions" is another one of your inventions, John.
>>Three autopsists and their report put defect in mostly parietal but
>>also in temporal and occipital bone.
>>
>>No one pathologist, let alone three working together, could be so
>>incompetent as to not know the EOP from an ant hill, so I guess you
>>have a choice ..... what do you apply to them .... your "Evil Minions"
>>or "lying scum" ?
>>
>
>Aguilar is the person who thinks everybody who works for the
>government is an Evil Minion or lying scum, so you'll have to ask him
>which they are.
No, John, it's YOU who ascribe all that to Garym them's your words,
not Gary's.
>
>But you *still* need to tell me what you think the point of his essay
>is.
At this point, I don't even know which "essay" you are talking about.
I thought you were talkiong about the witness compilations he did
given that's the silly serial critique thing of yours you keep
running.
And why don't you ask Gary? :-)
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Paul Seaton
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:43235371...@news.alt.net...
[..]
>
> So you think the *defect* (rather than mere fragmentation) extended
> into occipital bone?
This is the kind of loose thinking that has terminally clogged up this whole
debate.
John, the skull *defect* INCLUDES the 'mere fragmentation' for crying out
loud.
In what way would five (for eg) chunks of loose skull flopping around
attached to loose scalp NOT be taken to be part of the skull 'defect'. (the
hole in the blasted skull..) ?
Without such a definition, the 'size of the defect' would be a completely
meaningless concept , depending on which flaps happened to be hanging open
when you chose to measure it.
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
All well and good if we could also get some people here to finally let
go of the notion that the only hole on the head was in the back of the
head, entirely in the occipital region.
Barb Junkkarinen
Who thinks that? Nobody I know of, tho McA seems to try and make it
sound as if that's what the dreaded conspiracy people say.
Barb :-)
Paul Seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:n2ZUe.11493$ck6.4746@trndny05...
I agree.
But those folks tend not to have the clout McAdams wields - & by & large
they are not so intelligent or superficially persuasive, so I tend to just
ignore them as I ignore flat earthers.
Hey, did I just say something nice about .John ??? :-)
--
Paul Seaton
garag...@gmail.com
Gary
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 10 Sep 2005 11:18:20 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
><jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary:
>>
>>I think the overriding question here is.......Do you believe the autopsy
>>photos and X-rays are frauds?
>>
>>John F.
>
>John,
>
>Actuallky, I think that's a punt question ... avoiding the weight of
>the evidence ala Parkland and the autopsy. The HSCA itself criticized
>the films and photos as being not up to standard, and noted that in
>some cases the best they could do was estimate. They, particularly the
>x-rays, have been read and interpreted different ways by different
>people...even within the offical panel experts. Neither are an easy
>read. But it's waving the films and x-rays that some punt with when
>faced with the Parkland witnesses .... who just happen to be
>corroborated by the autopsy.
>
>There are questions, uncertainties about what the films and photos
>tell us .... despite McA's protestations to the contrary, there is no
>doubt what the Parkland and autopsy witnesses described.
>
Just keep saying that, Barb, and keep believing it too.
But Barb, you have basically said you are going to ignore the photos
and x-rays, and go with *your* interpretation of the testimony.
Always go with the evidence that's most convenient, I suppose.
John McAdams
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, most clear thinkers certainly do!
>
>McAdamns is pointing out that when a witness says something early on
>that is anti-conspiracy and years later says something seemingly
>pro-conspiracy, he defers to Gerald Posner's commonsense notion (CC, p.
>?235) that statements closer to the event are to be trusted over
>statements made later, given the adverse influence of time and events
>over memory.
>
Unfortunately for you, Gary, this rule only applies when a witness
actually changes their testimony.
When vague testimony is clarified, it's a different matter.
>And he also means that when a credible witness says something early on
>that's pro-conspiracy, as Carrico surely did, you either, 1) say he was
>in no position to have seen what he reported (McClelland), or 2) you
>forget what Posner said about earliest being best and you leap at
>whatever he says many years later that's anit-conspiracy as if it were
>engraved on Moses's tablets.
>
>And that's how Warrenistas deal with witnesses who were thoughtless
>enough to have given inconvenient evidence originally.
>
>Here's the inconsiderate Carrico early on:
>
>On the day of the assassination, Carrico was apparently the first
>physician to reach JFK's side. Within a few hours of the
>assassination, he wrote in longhand, " (the skull) wound had avulsed
>the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse
>oozing.....attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar
>tissue via packs instituted...." (Emphasis added) (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
>
Which was an error on the part of several Parkland doctors, as they
have admitted.
>Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission asked Dr. Carrico, "Will you
>describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have
>already mentioned briefly?"
>Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm (sic--the author feels
>certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7-cm) defect in the
>posterior skull, the occipital region. (Emphasis added) There was an
>absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue,
>brain tissue present...".
Gary, you do understand that "occipital region" doesn't have to mean
literally in occipital bone, don't you?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
>Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this
>large opening where the skull was absent?"
>Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)
>
>In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico
>said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side
>of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic)
Yep, consistent with what he told Specter.
>One could see
>blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that
>wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268) (emphasis added)
>
>_____________________________________________
>
>Gary
>
>PS One of keys to keeping JFK's skull wound away from the back of his
>head is to argue that "behind the ear" may be O.K., and of course
>"occiput" may be O.K., provided that by "occiput/behind the ear" one
>means only that the wound was on the side, that it did NOT involve the
>occipital bone.
>
>But as the link below shows, the occipital bone wraps around the
>backside of the skull and in people with big ears, it's just about
>possible to pin one's ear back along the skull and "touch" the edge of
>occipital bone.
>
Unfortunately for you, Carrico placed the wound way too high to be in
occipital bone.
>Lateral View of The Skull:
>http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/bio201/skull/latskul.htm
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
>Among Warrenistas, accurate anatomic discussions such as this are
>tantamount to heresy. I'm frankly surprised that the author of this
>on-line, anatomic tutorial hasn't already been reported to the FBI. ;~}
>
Among buffs, it's absolutely critical to *selectively* quote
witnesses, and then interpret them as consistent with one's theory,
notwithstanding that the actual testimony is all over the place, and
too vague to justify any precise wound location.
Barb Junkkarinen
I haven't said that at all.
>
>Always go with the evidence that's most convenient, I suppose.
Seems to me that's what you do. All you wave is the fims and photos,
at that, only the panel opinions you like. You not only ignore
Parkland and the autopsists, you evade them like the plague ....
despite the fact that they are the only people in the universe to have
actually seen and/or handled JFK in the aftermath of the shooting.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On 9 Sep 2005 15:56:47 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
><garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, most clear thinkers certainly do!
>>
>>McAdamns is pointing out that when a witness says something early on
>>that is anti-conspiracy and years later says something seemingly
>>pro-conspiracy, he defers to Gerald Posner's commonsense notion (CC, p.
>>?235) that statements closer to the event are to be trusted over
>>statements made later, given the adverse influence of time and events
>>over memory.
>>
>
>Unfortunately for you, Gary, this rule only applies when a witness
>actually changes their testimony.
>
>When vague testimony is clarified, it's a different matter.
So, Jenkinds and Baxter were only clarifying previous vague testimony?
HAHAHAHA!
>
>
>>And he also means that when a credible witness says something early on
>>that's pro-conspiracy, as Carrico surely did, you either, 1) say he was
>>in no position to have seen what he reported (McClelland), or 2) you
>>forget what Posner said about earliest being best and you leap at
>>whatever he says many years later that's anit-conspiracy as if it were
>>engraved on Moses's tablets.
>>
>>And that's how Warrenistas deal with witnesses who were thoughtless
>>enough to have given inconvenient evidence originally.
>>
>>Here's the inconsiderate Carrico early on:
>>
>>On the day of the assassination, Carrico was apparently the first
>>physician to reach JFK's side. Within a few hours of the
>>assassination, he wrote in longhand, " (the skull) wound had avulsed
>>the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse
>>oozing.....attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar
>>tissue via packs instituted...." (Emphasis added) (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
>>
>
>Which was an error on the part of several Parkland doctors, as they
>have admitted.
Several? Name them. More than that maintain what they said they saw to
this day. And the autopsy found defect in the same area. Gee, fancy
that.
>
>
>>Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission asked Dr. Carrico, "Will you
>>describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have
>>already mentioned briefly?"
>>Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm (sic--the author feels
>>certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7-cm) defect in the
>>posterior skull, the occipital region. (Emphasis added) There was an
>>absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue,
>>brain tissue present...".
>
>Gary, you do understand that "occipital region" doesn't have to mean
>literally in occipital bone, don't you?
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
I'd suggest that Gary, the physician and surgeon, understands anatomy
quite well. What you don't want to understand is that the three bones
meet up behings the ear and that occipital bone goes quite far up
buddied up against parietal bone on the back/rea/posterio face of the
head. One would, I think, have to be pretty precise and careful to fit
a 7cm wound posterior to the ear on the rear/back/posterior face of
the head in solely parietal bone.
On my tasteful full size adult male replica skull, occipital bone
extends lateral right 5cm from just above the eop at midline.
The autopsy reported the defect extended 10 cm lateral right from 1"
right of midline.
Oh that's right, you don't think 3 autopsists could locate and measure
from an eop....
>
>
>>Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this
>>large opening where the skull was absent?"
>>Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)
>>
>>In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico
>>said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side
>>of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic)
>
>Yep, consistent with what he told Specter.
>
>>One could see
>>blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that
>>wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268) (emphasis added)
>>
>>_____________________________________________
>>
>>Gary
>>
>>PS One of keys to keeping JFK's skull wound away from the back of his
>>head is to argue that "behind the ear" may be O.K., and of course
>>"occiput" may be O.K., provided that by "occiput/behind the ear" one
>>means only that the wound was on the side, that it did NOT involve the
>>occipital bone.
>>
>>But as the link below shows, the occipital bone wraps around the
>>backside of the skull and in people with big ears, it's just about
>>possible to pin one's ear back along the skull and "touch" the edge of
>>occipital bone.
>>
>
>Unfortunately for you, Carrico placed the wound way too high to be in
>occipital bone.
In his drawing .... not in his demonstration on TKOAP pg 87. The page
where what all those folks are showing with their hand on their heads
in oh so similar fashion.
>
>
>>Lateral View of The Skull:
>>http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/bio201/skull/latskul.htm
>>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
>
>
>>Among Warrenistas, accurate anatomic discussions such as this are
>>tantamount to heresy. I'm frankly surprised that the author of this
>>on-line, anatomic tutorial hasn't already been reported to the FBI. ;~}
>>
>
>Among buffs, it's absolutely critical to *selectively* quote
>witnesses, and then interpret them as consistent with one's theory,
>notwithstanding that the actual testimony is all over the place, and
>too vague to justify any precise wound location.
You're a buff....and you definitely fit your definition, so maybe you
have a point about some "buffs".
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 Sep 2005 15:56:47 -0400, "garyN...@gmail.com"
> <garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, most clear thinkers certainly do!
>>
>>McAdamns is pointing out that when a witness says something early on
>>that is anti-conspiracy and years later says something seemingly
>>pro-conspiracy, he defers to Gerald Posner's commonsense notion (CC, p.
>>?235) that statements closer to the event are to be trusted over
>>statements made later, given the adverse influence of time and events
>>over memory.
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately for you, Gary, this rule only applies when a witness
> actually changes their testimony.
>
> When vague testimony is clarified, it's a different matter.
>
>
Which is why police often reinterview witnesses.
>
>>And he also means that when a credible witness says something early on
>>that's pro-conspiracy, as Carrico surely did, you either, 1) say he was
>>in no position to have seen what he reported (McClelland), or 2) you
>>forget what Posner said about earliest being best and you leap at
>>whatever he says many years later that's anit-conspiracy as if it were
>>engraved on Moses's tablets.
>>
>>And that's how Warrenistas deal with witnesses who were thoughtless
>>enough to have given inconvenient evidence originally.
>>
>>Here's the inconsiderate Carrico early on:
>>
>>On the day of the assassination, Carrico was apparently the first
>>physician to reach JFK's side. Within a few hours of the
>>assassination, he wrote in longhand, " (the skull) wound had avulsed
>>the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse
>>oozing.....attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar
>>tissue via packs instituted...." (Emphasis added) (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
>>
>
>
> Which was an error on the part of several Parkland doctors, as they
> have admitted.
>
>
Which error of many?
>
>>Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission asked Dr. Carrico, "Will you
>>describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have
>>already mentioned briefly?"
>>Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm (sic--the author feels
>>certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7-cm) defect in the
>>posterior skull, the occipital region. (Emphasis added) There was an
>>absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue,
>>brain tissue present...".
>
>
> Gary, you do understand that "occipital region" doesn't have to mean
> literally in occipital bone, don't you?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
>
Of course, but it does refer to the general area near the occipital bone.
You had said that the wound was "nowhere near" the occipital bone. Again,
look at page 87 of The Killing of a President. Where is Carrico's thumb?
>
>
>>Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this
>>large opening where the skull was absent?"
>>Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)
>>
>>In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico
>>said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side
>>of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic)
>
>
> Yep, consistent with what he told Specter.
>
>
>>One could see
>>blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that
>>wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268) (emphasis added)
>>
>>_____________________________________________
>>
>>Gary
>>
>>PS One of keys to keeping JFK's skull wound away from the back of his
>>head is to argue that "behind the ear" may be O.K., and of course
>>"occiput" may be O.K., provided that by "occiput/behind the ear" one
>>means only that the wound was on the side, that it did NOT involve the
>>occipital bone.
>>
>>But as the link below shows, the occipital bone wraps around the
>>backside of the skull and in people with big ears, it's just about
>>possible to pin one's ear back along the skull and "touch" the edge of
>>occipital bone.
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately for you, Carrico placed the wound way too high to be in
> occipital bone.
>
Not sure about high. The occipital bone can go fairly high.
>
>
>>Lateral View of The Skull:
>>http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/bio201/skull/latskul.htm
>>
>
>
Look at that diagram carefully. The lamboidal suture is below the level
of the eyes.
Now look at the Dox drawing.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2.jpg
The lamboidal suture extends above the level of the eyes. In fact their
entrance wound so high on the head is only about an inch above the
lamboidal suture. As I tried to explain to Barb, but she seems to have had
no previous experience with this, diagrams of the skull vary in how they
depict the sutures.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
>
>
>
>>Among Warrenistas, accurate anatomic discussions such as this are
>>tantamount to heresy. I'm frankly surprised that the author of this
>>on-line, anatomic tutorial hasn't already been reported to the FBI. ;~}
>>
>
>
> Among buffs, it's absolutely critical to *selectively* quote
> witnesses, and then interpret them as consistent with one's theory,
> notwithstanding that the actual testimony is all over the place, and
> too vague to justify any precise wound location.
>
> .John
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Brian Kelleher
Bottom line in this debate on the BOH is that the autopsy report,
x-rays. autopsy photos, and WC testimony of HBF individually and
collectively provide unambigous and irrefutable evidence that the
right rear quadrant of the head was intact except for the cowlick
area.
Those in the conspiracy coverup camp tend to believe the autopsy
record was doctored to coverup a back of the head blow out. Fair
enough. A case can be made for this albeit an extremely weak one IMO.
There are a few vocal individuals that post on this site that are
operating under the false pretense that the autopsy record can be
reconciled with the notion that the right rear quadrant of the head
(upper right occiptal bone) could open and shut like a gate ostensibly
due to a particular pattern of skull fractures and lacerations. They
are also operating under the false pretence that there is wide scale
acceptance of this ridulous notion in the lone gunmen community.
What these individual want to ignore is that, consistent with what we
see on the lateral x-ray, autopsy photos and Z film, the autopsy
report gives us a maximum diameter of 13 cm to work with in locating
an opening in the scalp and skull that any of the Parkland Drs or
nurses could have observed. You can either put the 13 cm opening on
the top right side of the head extending from the cowlick area into
the frontal bone where we see it in the x-rays, autopsy photos, Z
film, and Dox and Ryberg drawings; or you can put it well back on the
right rear of the head where McClelland insists he looked down into it
at his liesure while the president was lying face up on the gurney.
You can't have it both ways unless you are in the conspiracy and
coverup camp.
Keep up the good work John. You are 100% correct. There is not a shred
of credible evidence in the case of a BOH blowout or BOH gate. The
autopsy record solidly refutes the notion.
Brian Kelleher
Paul Seaton
"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pgqhi1d7pikk3lfoj...@4ax.com...
Garbage.
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions" (autopsy report).
(Brian has previously tried to gloss this as meaning " chiefly parietal bone
but extending somewhat into parietal bone" :-)
Whenever people start declaiming about how "unambigous and irrefutable"
their evidence is, it's usually a sure sign that they haven't got any.
Brian : dotJohn's explanation for the 'brain removal problem' is currently
that there was so very little brain left, that it could be easily ...um....
shaken out of a four inch sharp edged irregular hole on top of the head.
(Mind your fingers, Jim !!!!) Would you go along with that ? Don't you think
the brain was removed from BENEATH the skull through the foramen magnum ...
somehow ??
--
Paul Seaton
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
The autopsy reports a 13cm defect APART from the entry in occipital
bone, near the eop. The overall defect, before the entry wound was
isolated/com[pleted, per the pathologists, was 17cm
anterioposteriorly.
Even avoiding that, one cannot plausibly posit a 13 cm A/P defect that
becan at the cowlick and went forward ... doesn't ift.13cm is an eensy
over 5 inches. Sans an elongated head like a watermelon, which JFK did
NOT have, that 5+ inches if measured forward from the typical cowlick
area, extends well into the forehead area beyond the hairline .... and
we do know from autopsy photos that there is no damage down the
forehead.
Damage to the right rear quadrant is drawn, measured and noted in the
autopsy working papers; it is also noted in the autopsy report.
And to even suggest that the Z-film is any sort of good evidence as to
the overall extent of the wound is, of course, preposterous.
Barb :-)
>
John Canal
>Bottom line in this debate on the BOH is that the autopsy report,
>x-rays. autopsy photos, and WC testimony of HBF individually and
>collectively provide unambigous and irrefutable evidence that the
>right rear quadrant of the head was intact except for the cowlick
>area.
Brian, here's an idea--withhold any more of your decrees about unambiguous
and irrefutable evidence until you get to see the originals, esp. #44 &
#45...assuming [and hoping] your permission to see them will be granted.
What I'm trying to say is that "when" you see them you'll probably realize
you have F8 misorientated and also see [in F8] that the bone had fallen
out when they reflected the scalp all the way down to near the EOP. Then
you'd even be able to deduce, since the prosectors didn't break apart his
rear skull with a hammer, it was loose in DP...with a piece undoubtedly
out of position....thus the right rear defect seen at Parkland. At
Bethesda, Boswell smoothed the rear scalp with attached bone back into
place before the x-rays.
See how it all fits, Brian? It's not rocket science. I didn't think so.
:-(
Just go see the originals.
John C.
Brian Kelleher
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
The autopsy report say the MAXIMUM diam of the great exit defect in the
scalp and skull was 13. In his WC testimony Humes confirmed this and
mentioned that 13 cm was the maximum diameter of the scalp defect. This
makes it easy to see how far back the defect extended since the forward
extremity of the scalp defect is readily seen in several of autopy photos
and Z film. The 17 cm on the face sheet can only be after the scalp was
incised and reflected. Even a skull defect that measures 17 cm across the
apex of the skull as shown in the fact sheet drawing is not going to cross
into occiptal bone. Not even close. Measure 5 inches back from where the
scalp defect begins at the hairline over the right temple, and you find
yourself in the upper cowlick area. I find nothing in the autopsy record
or HBF testimony that indicates a laceration extending to the area of the
EOP. No lacrations of the scalp in the BOH; no gapping hole in the skull
to observe at Parkland.
>
>Even avoiding that, one cannot plausibly posit a 13 cm A/P defect that
>becan at the cowlick and went forward ... doesn't ift.13cm is an eensy
>over 5 inches. Sans an elongated head like a watermelon, which JFK did
>NOT have, that 5+ inches if measured forward from the typical cowlick
>area, extends well into the forehead area beyond the hairline .... and
>we do know from autopsy photos that there is no damage down the
>forehead.
Perhaps on your head. The exit defect as shown in the Dox drawing is based
on the autopsy x-ray and photos and is scaled at approx 5 inches in
greatest diameter. See Joe Durnavich's scaled drawings of the lateral on
John's site to verify.
>
>Damage to the right rear quadrant is drawn, measured and noted in the
>autopsy working papers; it is also noted in the autopsy report.
Strongly disagree. IMP you are mistenterpreting an ambiguous statement in
the report text and ignoring what is obvious in the x-rays and photos.
There is simply no way a defect that starts near the front right hairline
above the temple and extends 5 inches in greatest diameter can involve
occipital bone. It involves the upper occipital region (cowlick), not the
occiptal bone
>
>
>And to even suggest that the Z-film is any sort of good evidence as to
>the overall extent of the wound is, of course, preposterous.
Consistent with the autopsy x-ray, autopsy photos, Ryberg drawing and Dox
drawing, the Z-film clearly shows a roughly 5-inch diameter defect of
skull and scalp on the upper right side of the president's head. Also
consistent with all this medical evidence, the Z-film shows the right rear
qaudrant intact. Nothwtihstanding all these nice visual aids, you and
others relentlessly insist that the truely compeling medical evidence
shows a much larger defect that extends back into the right rear quadrant.
And what high quality evidence is that again . .?
Never mind, I know the drill.
Brian
Brian Kelleher
wrote:
>[....]
>
>>Bottom line in this debate on the BOH is that the autopsy report,
>>x-rays. autopsy photos, and WC testimony of HBF individually and
>>collectively provide unambigous and irrefutable evidence that the
>>right rear quadrant of the head was intact except for the cowlick
>>area.
>
>Brian, here's an idea--withhold any more of your decrees about unambiguous
>and irrefutable evidence until you get to see the originals, esp. #44 &
>#45...assuming [and hoping] your permission to see them will be granted.
>What I'm trying to say is that "when" you see them you'll probably realize
>you have F8 misorientated and also see [in F8] that the bone had fallen
>out when they reflected the scalp all the way down to near the EOP. Then
>you'd even be able to deduce, since the prosectors didn't break apart his
>rear skull with a hammer, it was loose in DP...with a piece undoubtedly
>out of position....thus the right rear defect seen at Parkland. At
>Bethesda, Boswell smoothed the rear scalp with attached bone back into
>place before the x-rays.
According to Humes and Boswell there was no maniiplulation of any kind
prior to the head x-rays. And again, Humes specifically reported that the
maximum diameter was 5 inches and all the evidence shows that the forward
extent was near the hairline above the right temple. Start there and
measure back 5 inches using the scaled lateral and thats your maximum
rearward extent of the area that was gapping and open for inspection into
the skull. This puts the rearward margin in the cowllick. It all fits,
report, x-rays, photos, z-film and much of the Parkland testimony (as John
aptly points out).
IMO anything the Parkland Drs say about the rearward extent is
meaninless in the presence of the autopsy record.
And you? You are either claiming that HBF were incompetant in measuring
the maximum diameter of the scalp defect, or you are n the
coverup/evidence-doctoring camp. Those are your choices..
>
>See how it all fits, Brian? It's not rocket science. I didn't think so.
>:-(
>
>Just go see the originals.
Hopefully.
According to the autopsy record F-8 is after the brain was removed and
scalp reflected to expose the inshoot perforation in the occiptal bone.
Accordingly, whatever F-8 shows is irrelevant to the question of what the
Parkland Drs could or could not have observed of the defect. It does not
matter what nasty fracture extended into the occiptal bone. If the scalp
was intact in the BOH, there was no gapping hole regardless of the state
of the underlying skull.
Brian
Brian Kelleher
<N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Correct except for the gloss part. I have simply pointed out that the
terms occiptal region or occiput include the upper part of the rear of the
head (cowlick area) which is technically posterior parietal bone. The
following terms are ambiguous and have the exact same meaning:
extending somewhat into the occiptal region, .. occiput ...posterior
parietal
>
>Whenever people start declaiming about how "unambigous and irrefutable"
>their evidence is, it's usually a sure sign that they haven't got any.
>
>Brian : dotJohn's explanation for the 'brain removal problem' is currently
>that there was so very little brain left, that it could be easily ...um....
>shaken out of a four inch sharp edged irregular hole on top of the head.
>(Mind your fingers, Jim !!!!) Would you go along with that ? Don't you think
>the brain was removed from BENEATH the skull through the foramen magnum ...
>somehow ??
That is not John's explanation to my knowledge.
As you know, the Dox drawing is intended to represent the margins of the
great defect created by the bullet based on the x-rays and autopsy photos.
It represents the president's condition upon his arrival at Bethesda.
Humes clearly explained that to remove the brain and look for bullet
fragments, he extended the existing scalp lacerations down toward the ears
on either side of the head at which point when pealing back the scalp lots
of pieces of fractured skull came loose. This is what allowed him to
remove the brain with little or no sawing. According to Finck, the skull
fragments came loose from the right side and top, not the right rear.
So lets assume that during scalp reflection to remove the brain, they
fully opened the Zapruder gate on the right side; removed whatever heavly
fractured right frontal bone was left under the scalp; removed the 10 cm
fragment on the top left shown on the face sheet; and removed the several
6 cm long loose bone fragments in the cowlick area and above the right ear
that are shown on the face sheet and lateral.
Based on those assumptions, do you think that Humes could have removed the
brain through the wide open right side as implied by Finck?
BTW, have you seen Larry Sturdivan's recent comments in the report of his
archives visit as to the appearance of the underside of the brain and how
the injuries suggest an approach from the rear in severing the spinal
cord.?
Brian
Paul Seaton
So, Brian, according to you we can accurately rephrase the autopsy report
like so :
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the parietal
bone"
Even if you don't see how unfathomably ridiculous this construction is, I am
sure lurkers will have no such trouble.
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
Almost correct. Actually it is supposed to represent the condition of
the head just after the bullet hit. But it does not correctly show the
door hinged out.
> Humes clearly explained that to remove the brain and look for bullet
> fragments, he extended the existing scalp lacerations down toward the ears
> on either side of the head at which point when pealing back the scalp lots
> of pieces of fractured skull came loose. This is what allowed him to
> remove the brain with little or no sawing. According to Finck, the skull
> fragments came loose from the right side and top, not the right rear.
>
> So lets assume that during scalp reflection to remove the brain, they
> fully opened the Zapruder gate on the right side; removed whatever heavly
> fractured right frontal bone was left under the scalp; removed the 10 cm
> fragment on the top left shown on the face sheet; and removed the several
> 6 cm long loose bone fragments in the cowlick area and above the right ear
> that are shown on the face sheet and lateral.
>
> Based on those assumptions, do you think that Humes could have removed the
> brain through the wide open right side as implied by Finck?
>
> BTW, have you seen Larry Sturdivan's recent comments in the report of his
> archives visit as to the appearance of the underside of the brain and how
> the injuries suggest an approach from the rear in severing the spinal
> cord.?
>
> Brian
Anthony Marsh
No, not diameter. Length. Diameter means a circle.
Brian Kelleher
<N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
With the following edits shown in CAPS:
>
>"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>involving chiefly the LATERAL parietal bone but extending somewhat into the POSTERIOR parietal
>bone"
.
Brian Kelleher
Disagree. According to Dox's testimony the drawing was derived from the
x-rays at which time the door was not hinged out as far as I can tell. The
piece that you see dangling in the AP x-ray , right side profile photo and
BOH photos is not door hinged out. That piece comes from higher up.
Brian Kelleher
Ok, but the point is the area of disrupted scalp correlates very closely
with the area of distrupted skull bone. After all, it was the outward
displacement of the fragmenting skull that causeed the scalp lacerations.
Paul Seaton
!!! Now you are simply rewriting the autopsy report. "Parietal" means ...
"lateral parietal" !! "Occipital region" means " ... posterior parietal"
!!! "jawbone means superior parietal !!"
This is just soooooo ridiculous.
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but there can also be extensive fracturing of the skull below
scalp which is intact. The two things do not mirror each other
perfectly. There were heaving fractures in the occipital bone. Have you
ever considered the possibility that the scalp was stitched back
together for some of the autopsy photos?
paul seaton
involving **chiefly the parietal bone** but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions." (autopsy report, unrewritten by Brian K)
Q : Since the wound is only 'chiefly' parietal, what bone, apart from
parietal, is involved here, Brian ?
Ans : None, according to you.
Which is why I can't take this at all seriously.
paul seaton
Anthony Marsh
I know what you mean. That is part of the problem with her drawing.
I assume you know what I mean by the door hinged out. What do you think
is a piece from higher up? Is that also skull attached to the scalp.
>
>>>Humes clearly explained that to remove the brain and look for bullet
>>>fragments, he extended the existing scalp lacerations down toward the ears
>>>on either side of the head at which point when pealing back the scalp lots
>>>of pieces of fractured skull came loose. This is what allowed him to
>>>remove the brain with little or no sawing. According to Finck, the skull
>>>fragments came loose from the right side and top, not the right rear.
>>>
>>>So lets assume that during scalp reflection to remove the brain, they
>>>fully opened the Zapruder gate on the right side; removed whatever heavly
>>>fractured right frontal bone was left under the scalp; removed the 10 cm
>>>fragment on the top left shown on the face sheet; and removed the several
>>>6 cm long loose bone fragments in the cowlick area and above the right ear
>>>that are shown on the face sheet and lateral.
>>>
>>>Based on those assumptions, do you think that Humes could have removed the
>>>brain through the wide open right side as implied by Finck?
>>>
>>>BTW, have you seen Larry Sturdivan's recent comments in the report of his
>>>archives visit as to the appearance of the underside of the brain and how
>>>the injuries suggest an approach from the rear in severing the spinal
>>>cord.?
>>>
>>>Brian
>
>
>
garag...@gmail.com
That's like calling someone a left-handed southpaw.
The parietal bone IS lateral, although it meets its mate topside. DotJohn
insists that the top of the skull was severly damaged.
So are you suggesting dotJohn was wrong, and that the 'corrected' autopsy
report shouldn't instead say, "chiefly involving only the LOWER PORTION OF
THE RIGHT PARIETAL BONE, cha cha cha"?
Gary
Brian Kelleher
As clearly demonstrated by the head x-rays and BOH photos
>The two things do not mirror each other
>perfectly. There were heaving fractures in the occipital bone.
Yes the x-rays show that both sides of the occiptal bone had
fractures, but there is no indication of any significant bone
displacement along these fracture lines that would result in
corresponding scalp lacerations consistent with what we see in the Z
film and BOH photos
But that is besides the point. We have been discussing the 5-inch
diameter exit defect in the skull and the corresponding area of
lacerated scalp and associated flaps as opposed to the area where the
skull is simply fractured. There is very close correlation between the
area of scalp lacerations and the exit defect in the skull as depicted
by Dox. In addition, there are corresponding scalp lacerations for
either side of the gate on the right side and a laceration along the
upper right side of the forehead that indicates disruption of the
right frontal bone forward of the coronal suture.
>Have you
>ever considered the possibility that the scalp was stitched back
>together for some of the autopsy photos?
No. I have read all the arguments for medical coverup and do not find
them at all compeling. This particular variation of the theme sounds
very far fetched.
Brian
Brian Kelleher
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Ok Paul, here is one for John McAdams to enjoy.
Lets dissect one of your favorite citations on the rearward extent of
the defect as an example of an obvious flaw in the way you are
interpreting the medical evidence regarding the question at hand
>
REPORT OF G.M. MCDONNEL, M.D., The findings and interpretation of the
skull films are:
1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion
of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of
the right frontal bone.
You harp on the fact that McDONNELL says "nearly complete loss of the
right parietal bone," and insist that this statement extends the
defect back to the occiptal bone irrespective of what we can see for
ourselves in the lateral x-rays.
What you seletively choose to ignore, however, is the fact that your
hero Dr McDonnel has technically misidentified the posterior parietal
bone as the occipital bone as evidence by the following subsequent
statements.
4. A metallic fragment on the outer table of the RIGHT OCCIPITAL
BONE 9.6 cm. above the mid portion of the external occipital
protuberance (EOP), 1 cm. above the metallic fragment is a depressed
fracture from which stellate type fractures "radiate" into both
occipital bones, the right parietal bone and the right temporal bone.
These are vividly and convincingly displayed in the enhanced images,
specifically the "anteroposterior" (AP) projection of the skull. The
metallic fragment in this projection is nearly spherical in contour.
7. There is elevation of the galea medial and lateral, as well as
anteriorly, to the depressed fracture in the RIGHT OCCIPITAL BONE. A
small metallic fragment l]es roedial to the fracture site between the
galea and the outer table of the skull.
Any fool can look at the lateral x-ray and see that the FPP's cowlick
entry and the underlying lead fragment are located in posterior
parietal bone, not occipital bone.
So Paul, in light of your complaints on how I interpret Humes
description of the defect, please explain why the very distinguished
Dr. McDonnel, who you have taken very seriously in posts on this site,
identified the posterior parietal bone as the occiptal bone?
This is one of those that I do not expect a reply to.
Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Brian Kelleher
I think the piece we see dangling above/behind the right ear in the
right profile autopsy photo is right side parietal that articulates
with and sits atop the door we see open in the Zapruder film. I say
that because the door is clearly shut in the right side profile photo
and lateral x-ray. Looking at the BOH photos, it looks to me that the
door is ajar and one of the Drs is holding the dangling fragment back
in place as opposed to pulling the scalp forward.
I know not of a single individual, however, that shares that opinion
which is nothing new.
Brian
Brian Kelleher
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Lateral parietal bone!"
>
>That's like calling someone a left-handed southpaw.
>
>The parietal bone IS lateral, although it meets its mate topside.
>
True and that is exactly why even those in the medical profession are
apt to confuse the medical terminology that applies to the top of the
BOH (cowlick area). The cowlick area is on the posterior portion of
the skull rather than the parietal or side
My original point was that the posterior portion of the parietal bone
(cowlick area) is commonly refered to as the occiptal region or even
the occiptal bone. I just provided Paul Seaton a good example of how
even highly qualified MDs such as yourself commonly mis-define this
particular area of the BOH:
Here it is again
REPORT OF G.M. MCDONNEL, M.D., The findings and interpretation of the
skull films are:
4. A metallic fragment on the outer table of the right OCCIPITAL
BONE 9.6 cm. above the mid portion of the external occipital
protuberance (EOP), 1 cm. above the metallic fragment is a depressed
fracture from which stellate type fractures "radiate" into both
occipital bones, the right parietal bone and the right temporal bone.
These are vividly and convincingly displayed in the enhanced images,
specifically the "anteroposterior" (AP) projection of the skull. The
metallic fragment in this projection is nearly spherical in contour.
7. There is elevation of the galea medial and lateral, as well as
anteriorly, to the depressed fracture in the right OCCIPITAL BONE. A
small metallic fragment l]es roedial to the fracture site between the
galea and the outer table of the skull.
Clearly the FPP's cowlick entry and immediately underlying 6 mm
bullet fragment lies in posterior parietal bone, yet the FPP's
distinguished Dr. McDonnell calls it not mearly occipital region as
did Humes, but "occipital bone."
But of course the Parkland Drs you, Paul Seaton et al constantly cite
as BOH defect witnesses were much too qualified to have made such a
silly mistake.
Thanks for helping me make my point
Brian
Paul Seaton
[..]
>
> Ok Paul, here is one for John McAdams to enjoy.
>
> Lets dissect one of your favorite citations on the rearward extent of
> the defect as an example of an obvious flaw in the way you are
> interpreting the medical evidence regarding the question at hand
> >
> REPORT OF G.M. MCDONNEL, M.D., The findings and interpretation of the
> skull films are:
> 1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone, the upper portion
> of the right temporal bone, and a portion of the posterior aspect of
> the right frontal bone.
>
> You harp on the fact that McDONNELL says "nearly complete loss of the
> right parietal bone," and insist that this statement extends the
> defect back to the occiptal bone irrespective of what we can see for
> ourselves in the lateral x-rays.
You mean, irrespective of what you believe *you* can see for yourself in
the lateral x-rays. Don't drag me into this.
>
> What you seletively choose to ignore, however, is the fact that your
> hero Dr McDonnel has technically misidentified the posterior parietal
> bone as the occipital bone as evidence by the following subsequent
> statements.
I really do not believe that McDonnel was unable to tell parietal from
occipital bone, Brian - especially considering that the lamboid is visible
in the AP & lateral x-rays.
Indeed, anyone who can see " thickening of the medial and superior aspects
of the mucoperiosteal margin of the left frontal sinus" (see McDonnel's
report) is clearly more of an anatomist than either you or I.
So we are left with the admittedly puzzling question, why does McDonnel
describe the 'cowlick' entry as being in occipital bone, when he clearly
knows damn well it isn't ? The answer, I think, lies in an effort to
avoid flatly contradicting the autopsy report, which descibed an entry *in
occipital bone*.
In any case, should we be in any doubt about McDonnel's meaning, we have
only to turn to the Clark Panel :
." With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the
traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of
the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the
vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind ".
( Exactly as McDonnel described - fragmentation / loss of calvarium back
to the lamboid. ).
And of course if the skull fragmentation did not go back at least so far,
it would have been impossible to (surgically) remove the brain with no
sawing of the skull. "it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to
remove the brain if so much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/Dox.htm
--
Paul Seaton
Brian Kelleher
<N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
I like Larry Aguilar's point, that there is a tendency among doctors
to equate the parietal bone with strictly its lateral and superior
aspects based on its latin derivation.
>
>In any case, should we be in any doubt about McDonnel's meaning, we have
>only to turn to the Clark Panel :
>
>." With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the
>traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of
>the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the
>vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind ".
>
>( Exactly as McDonnel described - fragmentation / loss of calvarium back
>to the lamboid. ).
Paul, in your opinion does the lateral x-ray show loss of calvarion
back to the lamdoid?
>
>And of course if the skull fragmentation did not go back at least so far,
>it would have been impossible to (surgically) remove the brain with no
>sawing of the skull. "it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to
>remove the brain if so much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
Paul, in a standard autopsy brain removal procedure how much if any of
the occiptial bone is removed (meausred in inches from the EOP) and
the top?
Given the state of the top and right side of the president's head,
don't you think it possible that Humes removed the brain through the
right side?
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/Dox.htm
paul seaton
[..]
>
> Paul, in your opinion does the lateral x-ray show loss of calvarion
> back to the lamdoid?
It shows FRAGMENTATION of the skull back to the lamboid (give or take).
It shows actual LOSS of skull anterior to the 'cowlick'.
>>
>>And of course if the skull fragmentation did not go back at least so far,
>>it would have been impossible to (surgically) remove the brain with no
>>sawing of the skull. "it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to
>>remove the brain if so much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
>
> Paul, in a standard autopsy brain removal procedure how much if any of
> the occiptial bone is removed (meausred in inches from the EOP) and
> the top?
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/Dox.htm#brnrem
"After reflecting the temporalis muscle tie a string around the skull about
1 inch above the imaginary line drawn between the inion, external auditory
meatus, and the nasion. Mark this circumferential line with a pencil. This
line indicates the proper level for cutting with the Stryker saw. A cut any
higher than this presents a problem in trying to get your fingers under the
temporal lobes of the brain."
The actual level of the cut recommended is shown here :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/vermont.jpg
I'll leave it to you to count the inches :-)
>
> Given the state of the top and right side of the president's head,
> don't you think it possible that Humes removed the brain through the
> right side?
Brian, he has to *disconnect* the brain from the tentorium. He cannot
possibly do this through the defect shown in the Dox drawing.
Here's a diagram :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
Even granting this ( which is impossible) , the brain is simply too big to
yank out through that hole, without ripping it to shreds.
Paul Seaton
Brian Kelleher
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Ok, looks about 2 inches above the EOP and an inch below the top of
the lamdoid, assuming the skull is in the anatomic position which it
appears to be. So there was a just a couple of extra inches of
cavarium along the rear of the head in comparison to a standard
autopsy. And there was a great deal more bone out on the right side
along the temporal lobe than in a standard autopsy.
>
>
>>
>> Given the state of the top and right side of the president's head,
>> don't you think it possible that Humes removed the brain through the
>> right side?
>
>Brian, he has to *disconnect* the brain from the tentorium. He cannot
>possibly do this through the defect shown in the Dox drawing.
First of all it is possible that the explosive force of the bullet had
already disconnected the brian from the tentorium.
Second, my understanding it that in the routine autopsy the tentorium
is accessed from the underside of the brain by putting ones fingers
under the temproal lobes and lifting it up not the from the rear.
Thridly, I am not aware of anyone who claims Humes removed the brain
through the defect shown in the Dox drawing. That defect represents
the condition of the skull pre-autopsy/scalp reflection. Humes
specifically stated that he was able to remove the brain without
sawing because when he tried to reflect the scalp, numerous pieces of
bone came loose with it. According to Finck, Humes told hime that the
loose pieces came off the top of the head and off the right side of
the head. We know from the Z-film and some of the autopsy photos that
the entire right lateral parietal bone was loose all the way down to
temporal bone. There is also evidence that a good deal of the
remaining frontal bone came loose and that a 10 cm fragment on the
top left side came loose.
If you are saying that the Dox drawing shows too much of the rear
skull intact to remove the brain, you are dead wrong. You do not need
to remove any occiptal bone to remove the brain.
>
>Here's a diagram :
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
The occiptal bone is not in the way if that is what you are trying to
demonstrate here.
>
>Even granting this ( which is impossible) , the brain is simply too big to
>yank out through that hole, without ripping it to shreds.
You seem to be avoiding the question.
Lets try again. Do you think that Humes could have removed the brain
through the right side assuming the following: (1) the occipital bone
was completely intact; (2) the posterior parietal bone was intact to
within an inch of the lamdoid; (3) the frontal bone was out to the
hairline on the right side of the head; (4) the right pariental bone
was out down to the junction of the temporal bone (5) most of the top
of the left parietal bone was out?
>
>Paul Seaton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/Dox.htm
>>
>>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Interesting idea. How does it accomplish this with the skull in that
area being intact at that point in that area so low in the head, and the
brain being intact in that area? Has anyone considered the idea that the
moving of the body on and off the plane could be the mechanism?
> Second, my understanding it that in the routine autopsy the tentorium
> is accessed from the underside of the brain by putting ones fingers
> under the temproal lobes and lifting it up not the from the rear.
>
> Thridly, I am not aware of anyone who claims Humes removed the brain
> through the defect shown in the Dox drawing. That defect represents
> the condition of the skull pre-autopsy/scalp reflection. Humes
> specifically stated that he was able to remove the brain without
> sawing because when he tried to reflect the scalp, numerous pieces of
> bone came loose with it. According to Finck, Humes told hime that the
> loose pieces came off the top of the head and off the right side of
> the head. We know from the Z-film and some of the autopsy photos that
> the entire right lateral parietal bone was loose all the way down to
> temporal bone. There is also evidence that a good deal of the
> remaining frontal bone came loose and that a 10 cm fragment on the
> top left side came loose.
>
Pretty damn close. Can you figure out where a 10 cm fragment would have
been located? Can you diagram it?
> If you are saying that the Dox drawing shows too much of the rear
> skull intact to remove the brain, you are dead wrong. You do not need
> to remove any occiptal bone to remove the brain.
>
>>Here's a diagram :
>>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
>
>
> The occiptal bone is not in the way if that is what you are trying to
> demonstrate here.
>
>>Even granting this ( which is impossible) , the brain is simply too big to
>>yank out through that hole, without ripping it to shreds.
>
>
> You seem to be avoiding the question.
>
> Lets try again. Do you think that Humes could have removed the brain
> through the right side assuming the following: (1) the occipital bone
> was completely intact; (2) the posterior parietal bone was intact to
> within an inch of the lamdoid; (3) the frontal bone was out to the
> hairline on the right side of the head; (4) the right pariental bone
> was out down to the junction of the temporal bone (5) most of the top
> of the left parietal bone was out?
>
>>Paul Seaton
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/Dox.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Brian Kelleher
It seems to me that all it would take is enough upward/torward movement of
the brain as a whole. Larry sturdivan seems to believe that tentorium tore
right off the occiptal bone since I see no sign of a severed tentorium
along the margins of what he is interpeting to be the canal for the right
lateral sinus.
>
>> Second, my understanding it that in the routine autopsy the tentorium
>> is accessed from the underside of the brain by putting ones fingers
>> under the temproal lobes and lifting it up not the from the rear.
>>
>> Thridly, I am not aware of anyone who claims Humes removed the brain
>> through the defect shown in the Dox drawing. That defect represents
>> the condition of the skull pre-autopsy/scalp reflection. Humes
>> specifically stated that he was able to remove the brain without
>> sawing because when he tried to reflect the scalp, numerous pieces of
>> bone came loose with it. According to Finck, Humes told hime that the
>> loose pieces came off the top of the head and off the right side of
>> the head. We know from the Z-film and some of the autopsy photos that
>> the entire right lateral parietal bone was loose all the way down to
>> temporal bone. There is also evidence that a good deal of the
>> remaining frontal bone came loose and that a 10 cm fragment on the
>> top left side came loose.
>>
>
>Pretty damn close. Can you figure out where a 10 cm fragment would have
>been located? Can you diagram it?
I will simply refer you here to Boswell's face sheet drawing and
associated ARRB testimony. A 10 mm fragment is also referenced in the
autopsy report. Based on Boswell rough sketch, this piece comprises approx
the entire left side of the vertex.
Paul Seaton
This picture shows the 'Dox' defect & the position of the tentorium, in
side view :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
There is clearly no way to surgically cut away the tentorium with the
entire left cerebral hemisphere still in place - and what is more, there
is no need to try. The same illustration shows the relative sizes of the
'Dox' defect & the remaining brain, at least on the left. Now, it is
perfectly obvious that the 'Dox' drawing does not ( indeed CANNOT)
represent the actual skull defect Humes & co were faced with. Here is
Boswell's representation of what they *were* faced with :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/piks/rydberg_comparo.jpg (centre
image).
Perhaps I should stress (for Tony's benefit) that the reason for all this
attention to the Dox drawing is because IT IS ( ALL OF) JOHN MCADAMS'S
EVIDENCE THAT THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS 'INTACT'.
I think it's plain enough by now that it does not ( indeed *cannot*) show
the actual extent of the skull fragmentation. In fact, it doesn't even
show the extent of the actually lost bone, particularly around the frontal
area. We can thus forget that darned drawing as evidence of anything much
on the 'BOH intact' question. This leaves dotJohn in the unenviable
position of having exactly zero officially confirmed evidence for his
sacred intact BOH. There is, of course, more than enough such evidence to
UNconfirm his strange theory.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Given the state of the top and right side of the president's head,
> >> don't you think it possible that Humes removed the brain through the
> >> right side?
> >
> >Brian, he has to *disconnect* the brain from the tentorium. He cannot
> >possibly do this through the defect shown in the Dox drawing.
>
> First of all it is possible that the explosive force of the bullet had
> already disconnected the brian from the tentorium.
Possible, but if so, we have no grounds whatever to doubt those Parkland
doctors who mentioned seeing cerebellum hanging out of the rear skull. Dot
John , of course, believes this simply could not have happened. Either
way, he can't have his 'cerebellum' cake & eat it too. If the brain was
loose, they could have seen cerebellum, end of story. John will never
admit it, of course, mainly because he's been vehemently denying the
possibility for more years than I care to remember.
>
> Second, my understanding it that in the routine autopsy the tentorium
> is accessed from the underside of the brain by putting ones fingers
> under the temproal lobes and lifting it up not the from the rear.
here's the illustration again:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
How on earth is anyone going to get their fingers through that
(relatively) tiny defect and round under the LEFT temporal lobe, Brian ?
And, granting that they have performed this miracle somehow, how on earth
are they going to get their OTHER HAND through the same (relatively) tiny
defect to cut those attachments nestling deep at the lower rear of the
brain without severing both wrists on jagged bone edge & turning the
remaining brain to mush with all that blind slicing around under there ?
As Joe Riley says, the idea is ludicrous.
>
> Thridly, I am not aware of anyone who claims Humes removed the brain
> through the defect shown in the Dox drawing.
Have you ever heard the name 'John McAdams' ?
That defect represents
> the condition of the skull pre-autopsy/scalp reflection. Humes
> specifically stated that he was able to remove the brain without
> sawing because when he tried to reflect the scalp, numerous pieces of
> bone came loose with it.
Absolutely right. Please pass this information on to John. You might try,
however, to discover such 'loose pieces' in the Dox drawing.
> According to Finck, Humes told hime that the
> loose pieces came off the top of the head and off the right side of
> the head.
QUOTE please, Brian.
You have used up all your credit on such un-sourced announcements.
We know from the Z-film and some of the autopsy photos that
> the entire right lateral parietal bone was loose all the way down to
> temporal bone. There is also evidence that a good deal of the
> remaining frontal bone came loose and that a 10 cm fragment on the
> top left side came loose.
You might like to check over the Dox drawing for anything resembling any
loose frontal bone.
>
> If you are saying that the Dox drawing shows too much of the rear
> skull intact to remove the brain, you are dead wrong. You do not need
> to remove any occiptal bone to remove the brain.
Not according to Vermont University, Joe Riley & every other text I ever
read on the subject.
"A cut any higher than this presents a problem in trying to get your
fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain."
"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so
much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
If you can find me any bona fide medical authority who is prepared to
agree with Brian Kelleher that "You do not need to remove any occiptal
[sic] bone to remove the brain" I will listen with interest. Your
personal assurances on this subject don't carry any weight. I'm sure you
realise that.
> >
> >Here's a diagram :
> >http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
>
> The occiptal bone is not in the way if that is what you are trying to
> demonstrate here.
I would ask any lurkers to just look at the illustration :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
.. while repeating Brian's words over & over. :-)
"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so
much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
> >
> >Even granting this ( which is impossible) , the brain is simply too big to
> >yank out through that hole, without ripping it to shreds.
>
> You seem to be avoiding the question.
Brian, it was me who CREATED this damn question, thankyou.
Here's Riley's answer :
"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so much
skull were left,"
>
> Lets try again. Do you think that Humes could have removed the brain
> through the right side assuming the following: (1) the occipital bone
> was completely intact; (2) the posterior parietal bone was intact to
> within an inch of the lamdoid; (3) the frontal bone was out to the
> hairline on the right side of the head; (4) the right pariental bone
> was out down to the junction of the temporal bone (5) most of the top
> of the left parietal bone was out?
He COULD have done so, Brian. But it would have been one hell of a sliced
up mess by the time he finally yanked it out of there. And so would his
fingers. The question is, could he have been criminally stupid enough to
even make the attempt ? Given - going with your hypothesis for the moment
- that a few minutes work with a saw would have obviated all these
enormous problems, why even try ?
"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so
much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
The Dox drawing not only omits the missing frontal bone, blown out in
Dealey Plaza, but also severely underestimates the scale of the right
front flap, and completely omits the right rear skull fragmentation noted
by the Clark & HSCA radiologists.
It almost amazes me that you are prepared to imagine almost any ludicrous
'brain removal' scenario in order to salvage the credibility of what is
universally admitted (by now..) to be a pretty inaccurate schematic
drawing.... but after getting to grips with your incredible 'no skull
cavity' interpretation of F8 , my amazement threshold has gone up several
notches :-)
--
Paul Seaton
tomnln
Specifically, his depiction of JFK's Back Wound 6" Below the Shoulders?
If that isn't enough, how about JFK's personal Physician's Affidavit?
"Level of the 6th Thorasic Vertibre"
"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:48hbj19bfl0f318jt...@4ax.com...
John Canal
Brian,
Sorry to butt in, but I have two questions for you if you don't mind.
Keeping in mind the following:
1. That you agree that pieces of bone came loose when they reflected the
scalp.
2. A large transverse fracture can be seen on the lateral emanating from
the area of the EOP.
3. The prosectors testified that bone was missing all the way down to near
the EOP.
4. If, just about everyone (including several who have seen the originals)
on the planet except yourself and one or two others (the others are
CTers), have F8 orientated correctly, that photo shows bone missing down
to the area of the EOP.
......what exactly is your basis for concluding that the occipital bone
was intact when they removed the brain?
Now, knowing you, and presuming your position is and will remain in
cement, let me ask one last question. Here it is:
If your request to see the originals is granted, and upon seeing those
uncropped and very clear photos, you realize and agree that you've been
misorientating F8 and also agree F8 shows the bone is indeed missing all
the way down to near the EOP.......will you tell Paul that, in all
liklihood, he's been right all along about how the prosectors removed the
brain?
John C.
tomnln
Specifically, his depiction of JFK's Back Wound 6" Below the Shoulders?
If that isn't enough, how about JFK's personal Physician's Affidavit?
"Level of the 6th Thorasic Vertibre"
"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:48hbj19bfl0f318jt...@4ax.com...
Brian Kelleher
wrote:
>[.....]
>
>Brian,
>
>Sorry to butt in, but I have two questions for you if you don't mind.
>
>Keeping in mind the following:
>
>1. That you agree that pieces of bone came loose when they reflected the
>scalp.
According to the autopsy report, there was a 5-inch diameter defect in
the skull on the top right side of the head and corresponding tears in
and distruption to the scalp within this area. Over the front half of
this 5-inch diameter area, the skull was blown completely out of the
head. Over the rear half of this 5-inch diameter area, the skull was
fragmented, displaced and loose but still partly attached to the torn
and disrupted scalp. We see this clearly in the lateral x-ray and
right profile autopsy photo.
Beyond the perimeter of this 5-inch diam defect in the skull, the
scalp was intact except for a laceration along the top right side of
the forehead at the hairline where the frontal bone portion of the
skull cap was apparantly loose. There were also lacerations associated
with the sides of the door on the right side of the head where we know
a large piece of parietal was loose.
Once incisions were made in the coronal plane to reflect the scalp in
areas where the bone was still in place but fractured, additional
pieces came loose on the top and right side. According to Humes, some
of the pieces adhered to the reflected scalp, some fell to the table,
and some fell into the cranial cavity. At the point the brain was
removed, almost the entire skull cap was off.
>
>2. A large transverse fracture can be seen on the lateral emanating from
>the area of the EOP.
Correct, but there is not significant displacement of the bone along
this fracture and no corresponding scalp laceration along this
fracture.
>
>3. The prosectors testified that bone was missing all the way down to near
>the EOP.
How can the bone be missing. You just referenced the fact that the
lateral x-ray shows that the bone that you now say was missing had a
transverse fracture running through it. The prosectors testified that
the back of the head was intact.
It is true that Boswell, 30 years after the fact, told the ARRB that
upon arrival at the morgue the skull was missing all the way down to
the EOP. So what. The statement and related diagram he prepared has no
evidentiary value whatsoever. You, Paul et al, think it has
evidentary value, but it definately does not.
>
>4. If, just about everyone (including several who have seen the originals)
>on the planet except yourself and one or two others (the others are
>CTers), have F8 orientated correctly, that photo shows bone missing down
>to the area of the EOP.
First of all that statement assumes your interpreation of F-8 is
correct and the FPP's, Larry's Joe Durnavich's is not.
Secondly, nothwithstanding conventional wisdom, my interpretion of F-8
sits on solid ground as far as the medical evidence goes, while the
FPP's et al's is based on factoids.
>
>......what exactly is your basis for concluding that the occipital bone
>was intact when they removed the brain?
The autopsy record (including photos and x-rays) and related testimony
of HBF before the WC tell me the back of the head (occitpal bone) was
intact at the time the brain was removed. Finck's letter report and
associated testinomy to HSCA and ARRB confirm this. My conclusions
area consistent with the conclusions of the WC, Clark Panel and HSCA,
Ryberg drawing and Dox drawing.
>
>Now, knowing you, and presuming your position is and will remain in
>cement, let me ask one last question. Here it is:
>
>If your request to see the originals is granted, and upon seeing those
>uncropped and very clear photos, you realize and agree that you've been
>misorientating F8 and also agree F8 shows the bone is indeed missing all
>the way down to near the EOP.......will you tell Paul that, in all
>liklihood, he's been right all along about how the prosectors removed the
>brain?
If I am lucky enough to get to see them, you may rest assured that I
will give you an objective and honest opinion.
As far as Paul being correct on the brain removal, I do not see how
F-8 has anthing to do with the way they removed the brain.
Paul Seaton has long been operating under the false assumption that
severing the tentorium is done from the rear of the head when in fact
it is not. Hume had access to the mid under surface of the brain from
the right side irrespective of whether the upper right occiptal bone
was in or out. All Humes had to do to sever the tentorium was lift and
slice.
>
>John C.
>
Brian Kelleher
>Exactly how accurate was Boswell's "Face Sheet"?
Accurtate enough for the purpose of lapproximately locating the wounds
and verifying the info provided in the autopsy report.
>
>Specifically, his depiction of JFK's Back Wound 6" Below the Shoulders?
You must be looking at a different face sheet drawing.
>
>If that isn't enough, how about JFK's personal Physician's Affidavit?
No significant evidentiary value IMO
Brian Kelleher
<N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
In a standard autopys procedure the tentorium is severed with both
cerebral hemispheres in place.
http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/060103.htm
Boswell's depiction of the exit defect prepared 30 years after the
fact conflcts with the autopsy record and is not appropirately used as
a supplement to the autopsy report.
With the amount of skull mssing on the right side, Humes could have
slid his entire hand under the brain and lfted it up.
>And, granting that they have performed this miracle somehow, how on earth
>are they going to get their OTHER HAND through the same (relatively) tiny
>defect to cut those attachments nestling deep at the lower rear of the
>brain without severing both wrists on jagged bone edge & turning the
>remaining brain to mush with all that blind slicing around under there ?
According to Larry Sturdivan evidence of such slicing around can be
seen in the photos of the brain.
>
>As Joe Riley says, the idea is ludicrous.
>
>>
>> Thridly, I am not aware of anyone who claims Humes removed the brain
>> through the defect shown in the Dox drawing.
>
>Have you ever heard the name 'John McAdams' ?
>
>That defect represents
>> the condition of the skull pre-autopsy/scalp reflection. Humes
>> specifically stated that he was able to remove the brain without
>> sawing because when he tried to reflect the scalp, numerous pieces of
>> bone came loose with it.
>
>Absolutely right. Please pass this information on to John. You might try,
>however, to discover such 'loose pieces' in the Dox drawing.
The objective of the Dox drawing was to show the approximate
dimensions of the 5-inch diameter exit defect in the skull; not the
extent of the radiating fractures
>
>
>> According to Finck, Humes told hime that the
>> loose pieces came off the top of the head and off the right side of
>> the head.
>
>QUOTE please, Brian.
>You have used up all your credit on such un-sourced announcements.
Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?
Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the
top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was
about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The
fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the
skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even
have had any sawing to do.
Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of
the head to remove the brain intact?
Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an
intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the
calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent
of the fractures and damage to the skull.
Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone
that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?
Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.
>
>
>We know from the Z-film and some of the autopsy photos that
>> the entire right lateral parietal bone was loose all the way down to
>> temporal bone. There is also evidence that a good deal of the
>> remaining frontal bone came loose and that a 10 cm fragment on the
>> top left side came loose.
>
>You might like to check over the Dox drawing for anything resembling any
>loose frontal bone.
The evidence of loose frontal bone is the laceration running along the
top of the right forehead along the hairline. The x-rays are not very
helpful with respect to the state of the frontal bone apparantely due
to air shadowing
>
>>
>> If you are saying that the Dox drawing shows too much of the rear
>> skull intact to remove the brain, you are dead wrong. You do not need
>> to remove any occiptal bone to remove the brain.
>
>Not according to Vermont University, Joe Riley & every other text I ever
>read on the subject.
>
>"A cut any higher than this presents a problem in trying to get your
>fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain."
How does the presence of the occiptal bone effect one's ability to
extend fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain? It obviously
does not.
>
>"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so
>much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
That statement is in reference to the Dox drawing and is irelevant.
>
>
>If you can find me any bona fide medical authority who is prepared to
>agree with Brian Kelleher that "You do not need to remove any occiptal
>[sic] bone to remove the brain" I will listen with interest. Your
>personal assurances on this subject don't carry any weight. I'm sure you
>realise that.
The record show this is exactly what Humes did.
>
>> >
>> >Here's a diagram :
>> >http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
>>
>> The occiptal bone is not in the way if that is what you are trying to
>> demonstrate here.
>
>I would ask any lurkers to just look at the illustration :
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/tentorium.jpg
>.. while repeating Brian's words over & over. :-)
>
>"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so
>much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
Judge for yourself whethe the presence of the occipital bone
influences the ability to sever the tentorium using standard autopsy
procdures
>
http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/060103.htm
>> >
>> >Even granting this ( which is impossible) , the brain is simply too big to
>> >yank out through that hole, without ripping it to shreds.
>>
>> You seem to be avoiding the question.
>
>Brian, it was me who CREATED this damn question, thankyou.
>
>Here's Riley's answer :
>
>"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so much
>skull were left,"
>
>>
>> Lets try again. Do you think that Humes could have removed the brain
>> through the right side assuming the following: (1) the occipital bone
>> was completely intact; (2) the posterior parietal bone was intact to
>> within an inch of the lamdoid; (3) the frontal bone was out to the
>> hairline on the right side of the head; (4) the right pariental bone
>> was out down to the junction of the temporal bone (5) most of the top
>> of the left parietal bone was out?
>
>He COULD have done so, Brian. But it would have been one hell of a sliced
>up mess by the time he finally yanked it out of there. And so would his
>fingers. The question is, could he have been criminally stupid enough to
>even make the attempt ? Given - going with your hypothesis for the moment
>- that a few minutes work with a saw would have obviated all these
>enormous problems, why even try ?
Even in a standard autopsy procedure, just the top inch or two of the
occiptal bone is removed and that is out of convience, not necessity.
>
>"it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so
>much skull were left," (Joe Riley)
>
>The Dox drawing not only omits the missing frontal bone, blown out in
>Dealey Plaza, but also severely underestimates the scale of the right
>front flap, and completely omits the right rear skull fragmentation noted
>by the Clark & HSCA radiologists.
Like it or not, the Dox drawing accurately depicts the location of the
5-inch diameter exit defect seen in the lateral skull x-ray and
described in the autopsy report; no more no less.
John Canal
>>If your request to see the originals is granted, and upon seeing those
>>uncropped and very clear photos, you realize and agree that you've been
>>misorientating F8 and also agree F8 shows the bone is indeed missing all
>>the way down to near the EOP.......will you tell Paul that, in all
>>liklihood, he's been right all along about how the prosectors removed the
>>brain?
>
>If I am lucky enough to get to see them, you may rest assured that I
>will give you an objective and honest opinion.
Great...then, if you do get a chance to look at them, all this arguing
with you about the entry location and whether or not the occipital bone
was intact after the scalp was reflected should be over....and you'll be
admitting you've been wrong.
>As far as Paul being correct on the brain removal, I do not see how
>F-8 has anthing to do with the way they removed the brain.
Duh...if you see a photograph that shows there was no bone above the EOP
after the brain had been removed...you can bet there was no bone there
before the brain was removed....unless you think they somehow took out the
brain through the much smaller opening and then ripped pieces of his rear
skull out. :-)
John C.
Anthony Marsh
> On 25 Sep 2005 00:49:25 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>[.....]
>>
>>Brian,
>>
>>Sorry to butt in, but I have two questions for you if you don't mind.
>>
>>Keeping in mind the following:
>>
>>1. That you agree that pieces of bone came loose when they reflected the
>>scalp.
>
>
> According to the autopsy report, there was a 5-inch diameter defect in
> the skull on the top right side of the head and corresponding tears in
> and distruption to the scalp within this area. Over the front half of
Excuse me, but exactly where in the autopsy report do you see it stated
that the defect was 5 inches in diameter?
Here is a text copy of the autopsy report and it says nothing about a
5-inch diameter defect.
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
This is one of the problems with debating these things on the Internet.
People like you make statements like that and no one corrects it so a
myth becomes a fact.
Anthony Marsh
> Exactly how accurate was Boswell's "Face Sheet"?
>
> Specifically, his depiction of JFK's Back Wound 6" Below the Shoulders?
>
> If that isn't enough, how about JFK's personal Physician's Affidavit?
>
> "Level of the 6th Thorasic Vertibre"
>
>
>
I really don't know what to do about you. I don't mind your spelling
errors. And I don't mind your typos. But I do mind when you pretend to
quote someone and you get it wrong.
In the death certificate Burkley said, "about the level of the third
thoracic vertebra."
3rd, not 6th. Even Burkley was not stupid enough to think it was the 6th.
BTW, the wound was not 6 inches below the shoulders. It was about 6
inches below the top of the shirt collar. The shirt collar was ABOVE the
shoulders. That is the way that most men wear their shirts.
Brian Kelleher
>
>Attached you will find the Official Face Sheet showing the back wound WELL
>below the shoulders.
>
>see below.
>
>"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:hojdj1lq6i5flsb79...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Sep 2005 00:46:14 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly how accurate was Boswell's "Face Sheet"?
>>
>> Accurtate enough for the purpose of lapproximately locating the wounds
>> and verifying the info provided in the autopsy report.
>>>
>>>Specifically, his depiction of JFK's Back Wound 6" Below the Shoulders?
>>
>> You must be looking at a different face sheet drawing.
>=====================================================================
>>>If that isn't enough, how about JFK's personal Physician's Affidavit?
>>
>> No significant evidentiary value IMO
>>>
>>>"Level of the 6th Thorasic Vertibre"
>
>Let me understand this;
>The President's Personal Phsycian Admiral George Burkely's Description of
>wounds on his Patient HAS
>
>" No significant evidentiary value IMO"
Yes. He was not part of the autopsy team and never examined the back
wound for the purpose of determining its anatomic location.
Accordingly his statement about it location is either an educated
guess or hearsay and has no evidentiary value. His statment is not
appropriately used to supplment the autopsy record. I treat his
statement the same way the FPP and WC did. I ignore it.
>No Further Questions. You are Dismissed Sir.
>
>Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury, The Defende RESTS !
>=====================================================================
>\
Brian Kelleher
>Brian Kelleher wrote:
>
>> On 25 Sep 2005 00:49:25 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[.....]
>>>
>>>Brian,
>>>
>>>Sorry to butt in, but I have two questions for you if you don't mind.
>>>
>>>Keeping in mind the following:
>>>
>>>1. That you agree that pieces of bone came loose when they reflected the
>>>scalp.
>>
>>
>> According to the autopsy report, there was a 5-inch diameter defect in
>> the skull on the top right side of the head and corresponding tears in
>> and distruption to the scalp within this area. Over the front half of
>
>Excuse me, but exactly where in the autopsy report do you see it stated
>that the defect was 5 inches in diameter?
>
>Here is a text copy of the autopsy report and it says nothing about a
>5-inch diameter defect.
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>
>This is one of the problems with debating these things on the Internet.
>People like you make statements like that and no one corrects it so a
>myth becomes a fact.
13 cm is 5 inches
There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
Paul Seaton
Brian, the truth is that you are absolutely committed to an 'intact' rear
skull *because that is what you think you see in F8*. If you cannot get
the brain out of there somehow ... anyhow ... without the rear skull being
removed then you know & I know & everyone else knows that your peculiar
'cavity-free' version of F8 is definitively proven dead - even to
yourself.
Now, I sincerely applaud your willingness to actually engage in debate
about all this - contrast certain other 'rear skull intact' promoters who
habitually vanish whenever the hard questions come up - but I really can't
drum up the enthusiasm to go over all this, putative nerve-cut by putative
nerve-cut.
Here is a human head prepared for brain removal :
http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/050100.htm
Here, by way of contrast, is the defect shown in the Dox drawing :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/doxerr.jpg
You are prepared to agree that there was in fact bone loose / missing all
around this (Dox) defect, *except [god forbid!] at the rear*, and thus
that the Dox drawing is not particularly accurate, is schematic only ,
whatever. Fine. I will call it quits with that agreement.
Here's Finck :
" The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when 1 arrived. Cdr
Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp
before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary. The
opening of the large head wound, in the right ** fronto-parieto-occipital
region** , is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.(1 February 1965
SUBJECT: Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
TO: Brig. Gen.. J.M. Blumberg, MC, USA
The Director
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Washington, DC 20305)
--
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
> On 26 Sep 2005 01:04:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Kelleher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 25 Sep 2005 00:49:25 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[.....]
>>>>
>>>>Brian,
>>>>
>>>>Sorry to butt in, but I have two questions for you if you don't mind.
>>>>
>>>>Keeping in mind the following:
>>>>
>>>>1. That you agree that pieces of bone came loose when they reflected the
>>>>scalp.
>>>
>>>
>>>According to the autopsy report, there was a 5-inch diameter defect in
>>>the skull on the top right side of the head and corresponding tears in
>>>and distruption to the scalp within this area. Over the front half of
>>
>>Excuse me, but exactly where in the autopsy report do you see it stated
>>that the defect was 5 inches in diameter?
>>
>>Here is a text copy of the autopsy report and it says nothing about a
>>5-inch diameter defect.
>>
>>http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>>
>>This is one of the problems with debating these things on the Internet.
>>People like you make statements like that and no one corrects it so a
>>myth becomes a fact.
>
>
> 13 cm is 5 inches
No, but close enough. If you mean 13 cm, say 13 CM.
tomnln
> On 26 Sep 2005 00:25:27 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Attached you will find the Official Face Sheet showing the back wound WELL
>>below the shoulders.
>>
>>see below.
>>
>>"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:hojdj1lq6i5flsb79...@4ax.com...
>>> On 25 Sep 2005 00:46:14 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Exactly how accurate was Boswell's "Face Sheet"?
>>>
>>> Accurtate enough for the purpose of lapproximately locating the wounds
>>> and verifying the info provided in the autopsy report.
>>>>
>>>>Specifically, his depiction of JFK's Back Wound 6" Below the Shoulders?
>>>
>>> You must be looking at a different face sheet drawing.
>>=====================================================================
>>>>If that isn't enough, how about JFK's personal Physician's Affidavit?
>>>
>>> No significant evidentiary value IMO
>>>>
>>>>"Level of the 6th Thorasic Vertibre"
>>
>>Let me understand this;
>>The President's Personal Phsycian Admiral George Burkely's Description of
>>wounds on his Patient HAS
>>" No significant evidentiary value IMO"
>
> Yes. He was not part of the autopsy team and never examined the back
> wound for the purpose of determining its anatomic location.
> Accordingly his statement about it location is either an educated
> guess or hearsay and has no evidentiary value. His statment is not
> appropriately used to supplment the autopsy record. I treat his
> statement the same way the FPP and WC did. I ignore it.
Dr. George Burkley (U S Navy, Ret;) was in ATTENDANCE at that Autopsy Sir.
THAT gives his "Credibility" Quite a Bit More than Yurs.
Brian Kelleher
<N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brian, the truth is that you are absolutely committed to an 'intact' rear
>skull *because that is what you think you see in F8*. If you cannot get
>the brain out of there somehow ... anyhow ... without the rear skull being
>removed then you know & I know & everyone else knows that your peculiar
>'cavity-free' version of F8 is definitively proven dead - even to
>yourself.
.
Paul my F-8 interpretation has nothing to do with this subject per se.
In fact, all the credible medical evidence in the case indicates that
the occipital bone was intact except for fractures.
There are very very very few lone gunman advocates that think otherwise.
John McAdams represents conventional wisdom on the BOH, you are way out in
right field. The only significant debate among most lone gunman advocates
is whether the inshoot wound was in the cowlick area or in the occipital
bone. Surely you understand that.
>
>Now, I sincerely applaud your willingness to actually engage in debate
>about all this - contrast certain other 'rear skull intact' promoters who
>habitually vanish whenever the hard questions come up - but I really can't
>drum up the enthusiasm to go over all this, putative nerve-cut by putative
>nerve-cut.
>
>Here is a human head prepared for brain removal :
>
>http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/050100.htm
>
>Here, by way of contrast, is the defect shown in the Dox drawing :
>
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/doxerr.jpg
>
>You are prepared to agree that there was in fact bone loose / missing all
>around this (Dox) defect, *except [god forbid!] at the rear*, and thus
>that the Dox drawing is not particularly accurate, is schematic only ,
>whatever. Fine. I will call it quits with that agreement.
>
We agree that the brain could not be removed through the opening depicted
in the Dox drawing. We do not agree on the overall condition of the
occipital bone or frontal bone at the time the president was placed on the
autopsy table. We do not agree on the extent or configuration of the scalp
lacerations either. For example you think the area of lacerated scalp
extended from the front hairline all the way down to the occiptal bone
which is a distance of about 10 inches on my head
>Here's Finck :
>
>" The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when 1 arrived. Cdr
>Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp
>before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary. The
>opening of the large head wound, in the right ** fronto-parieto-occipital
>region** , is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.(1 February 1965
>
>SUBJECT: Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
>TO: Brig. Gen.. J.M. Blumberg, MC, USA
>The Director
>Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
>Washington, DC 20305)
Ok, Finck arrives after the brain was removed. He finds the right
occipital bone and associated scalp intact except for a 6 by 9 mm
laceration that he tentatively identfies as a bullet hole. He has Humes
reflect the scalp off the occipital bone and then has Stringer take photos
of the underlying perforation in the intact occiptal bone from both sides.
According to Finck who arrived after the brain was removed the occipital
bone was intact and covered with scalp and has a bullet hole in the upprt
right side. According to Paul Seaton the occiptal bone was out down to the
level of the EOP when the brain was removed.
Who should I believe, Paul Seaton of Pierre Finck?
Tough choice..
paul seaton
> On 26 Sep 2005 20:13:19 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
> <N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Brian, the truth is that you are absolutely committed to an 'intact' rear
>>skull *because that is what you think you see in F8*. If you cannot get
>>the brain out of there somehow ... anyhow ... without the rear skull being
>>removed then you know & I know & everyone else knows that your peculiar
>>'cavity-free' version of F8 is definitively proven dead - even to
>>yourself.
> .
> Paul my F-8 interpretation has nothing to do with this subject per se.
Except that your F8 interpretation shows (iyho) the rear skull very much
intact. Since the brain was removed with no sawing , you have neccessarily
to argue that the brain was removed with the rear skull intact, no matter
what bizarre hoops you have to jump through to do that. And, of course, you
do.
> In fact, all the credible medical evidence in the case indicates that
> the occipital bone was intact except for fractures.
Brian, I have listened to you long enough to know that 'all the credible
medical evidence' is just Brian-Speak for 'all the evidence Brian chooses to
believe'.
We have Finck describing a skull defect into occipital bone, the autopsy
report describing the same, we have Boswell's ARRB skull showing the same,
we have x-rays which show the skull fragmented back to the 'vicinity of' the
lamboid ( which certainly takes in occipital bone).
Now, it may be quite painless to *you* to dismiss all this ( & of course,
much more) as not being 'credible' medical evidence - but the only common
factor I can find to all your so called 'credible' evidence is that it
supports - or at least doesn't instantly demolish - your wierd theory.
IOW, your 'credible' evidence consists of a few carefully chosen crumbs hand
picked from the vast bulk of the TOTAL evidence.
>
> There are very very very few lone gunman advocates that think otherwise.
Straw man, of course.
My point is not & never has been (specifically) that the occipital bone was
very significantly damaged.
> John McAdams represents conventional wisdom on the BOH,
Really ? Then you might give me the names of a few people here on this
newsgroup who agree with him. (Aside from your esteemed self, of course:-)
Should make interesting reading.
The 'conventional' 'BOH intact' theory in fact derives from part of the HSCA
report written by a wholly unqualified staffer who has ever since been too
ashamed of himself to admit to writing it.
> you are way out in
> right field. The only significant debate among most lone gunman advocates
> is whether the inshoot wound was in the cowlick area or in the occipital
> bone. Surely you understand that.
I don't think 'most lone gunman advocates' like to get involved in the
subject. People like Ken Rahn (perhaps sensibly) try to avoid it,arguing
that it actually doesn't matter one way or the other.
>
>>
>>Now, I sincerely applaud your willingness to actually engage in debate
>>about all this - contrast certain other 'rear skull intact' promoters who
>>habitually vanish whenever the hard questions come up - but I really can't
>>drum up the enthusiasm to go over all this, putative nerve-cut by putative
>>nerve-cut.
>>
>>Here is a human head prepared for brain removal :
>>
>>http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/050100.htm
>>
>>Here, by way of contrast, is the defect shown in the Dox drawing :
>>
>>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/doxerr.jpg
>>
>>You are prepared to agree that there was in fact bone loose / missing all
>>around this (Dox) defect, *except [god forbid!] at the rear*, and thus
>>that the Dox drawing is not particularly accurate, is schematic only ,
>>whatever. Fine. I will call it quits with that agreement.
>>
>
> We agree that the brain could not be removed through the opening depicted
> in the Dox drawing.
OK. Good. Let us transmit that thought telepathically to McA :-)
> We do not agree on the overall condition of the
> occipital bone or frontal bone at the time the president was placed on the
> autopsy table. We do not agree on the extent or configuration of the scalp
> lacerations either. For example you think the area of lacerated scalp
> extended from the front hairline all the way down to the occiptal bone
> which is a distance of about 10 inches on my head
I think the only way we are ever going to get out of this never ending
argument is to stress what we agree on.
>
>
>>Here's Finck :
>>
>>" The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when 1 arrived. Cdr
>>Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp
>>before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary. The
>>opening of the large head wound, in the right ** fronto-parieto-occipital
>>region** , is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.(1 February 1965
>>
>>SUBJECT: Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
>>TO: Brig. Gen.. J.M. Blumberg, MC, USA
>>The Director
>>Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
>>Washington, DC 20305)
>
> Ok, Finck arrives after the brain was removed. He finds the right
> occipital bone and associated scalp intact
Nope.
"The OPENING OF THE LARGE HEAD WOUND was in the ** fronto-parieto-OCCIPITAL
region** ", Brian.
Of course, I realise this is Finck on one of his non-credible days :-) ( And
that, even should it turn out to have been a credible day, you are prepared
to argue that 'fronto-parieto-OCCIPITAL region' does not neccessarily
involve occipital BONE until hell freezes over. )
except for a 6 by 9 mm
> laceration that he tentatively identfies as a bullet hole. He has Humes
> reflect the scalp off the occipital bone and then has Stringer take photos
> of the underlying perforation in the intact occiptal bone from both sides.
Except that these internal AND external photos simply do not exist outside
of your remarkable 'F8 shows no skull cavity' imagination.
>
> According to Finck who arrived after the brain was removed the occipital
> bone was intact and covered with scalp and has a bullet hole in the upprt
> right side. According to Paul Seaton the occiptal bone was out down to the
> level of the EOP when the brain was removed.
Correction :
According to BOSWELL the occiptal bone was out down to the level of the EOP
when the brain was removed.
>
> Who should I believe, Paul Seaton of Pierre Finck?
Correction :
Who should you believe? Boswell AND Pierre Finck AND Humes (see autopsy
report) AND Custer AND Jenkins AND O'Connor AND Sibert AND O'Neill , AND
Kemp Clark AND Ebersole AND Osborne AND Morgan Russell AND McDonnel AND.. ..
...ETC ETC ETC almost ad infinitum.. OR ... Pierre Finck on this
particular outling ?
>
> Tough choice..
I don't know why you think so.
Paul Seaton
Anthony Marsh
> Brian, the truth is that you are absolutely committed to an 'intact' rear
> skull *because that is what you think you see in F8*. If you cannot get
> the brain out of there somehow ... anyhow ... without the rear skull being
> removed then you know & I know & everyone else knows that your peculiar
> 'cavity-free' version of F8 is definitively proven dead - even to
> yourself.
>
> Now, I sincerely applaud your willingness to actually engage in debate
> about all this - contrast certain other 'rear skull intact' promoters who
> habitually vanish whenever the hard questions come up - but I really can't
> drum up the enthusiasm to go over all this, putative nerve-cut by putative
> nerve-cut.
>
> Here is a human head prepared for brain removal :
>
> http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/050100.htm
>
Thanks.
But lurkers should know that this illustration is not what the autopsy
photos show. Humes did not cut the scalp in several places. He simply
pulled the scalp down over the eyes, not as per that diagram.
> Here, by way of contrast, is the defect shown in the Dox drawing :
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/doxerr.jpg
>
> You are prepared to agree that there was in fact bone loose / missing all
> around this (Dox) defect, *except [god forbid!] at the rear*, and thus
> that the Dox drawing is not particularly accurate, is schematic only ,
> whatever. Fine. I will call it quits with that agreement.
>
> Here's Finck :
>
> " The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when 1 arrived. Cdr
> Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp
> before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary. The
> opening of the large head wound, in the right ** fronto-parieto-occipital
> region** , is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.(1 February 1965
>
> SUBJECT: Personal notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
> TO: Brig. Gen.. J.M. Blumberg, MC, USA
> The Director
> Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
> Washington, DC 20305)
>
>
--
Brian Kelleher
<paulREMO...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Brian Kelleher" <bkel...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:0mehj1104b1mgvkv7...@4ax.com...
>> On 26 Sep 2005 20:13:19 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
>> <N_Opaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Brian, the truth is that you are absolutely committed to an 'intact' rear
>>>skull *because that is what you think you see in F8*. If you cannot get
>>>the brain out of there somehow ... anyhow ... without the rear skull being
>>>removed then you know & I know & everyone else knows that your peculiar
>>>'cavity-free' version of F8 is definitively proven dead - even to
>>>yourself.
>> .
>> Paul my F-8 interpretation has nothing to do with this subject per se.
>
>Except that your F8 interpretation shows (iyho) the rear skull very much
>intact. Since the brain was removed with no sawing , you have neccessarily
>to argue that the brain was removed with the rear skull intact, no matter
>what bizarre hoops you have to jump through to do that. And, of course, you
>do.
No Paul. The brain can be removed irrespective of whether the occiptal
bone remains in place. The presence of the occipital bone does not
interfere with any element of the brain removal procedure.
>>>http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/labs/l28/050100.htm
This illustrates my point not yours. From this particular vantage point
the occiptal bone could be completely intact and simply out of the
camera's view.This photo clearly demonstates that the standard autopsy
procedure can be conducted whether or not the occiptal bone is in place.
>
>
>> In fact, all the credible medical evidence in the case indicates that
>> the occipital bone was intact except for fractures.
>
>Brian, I have listened to you long enough to know that 'all the credible
>medical evidence' is just Brian-Speak for 'all the evidence Brian chooses to
>believe'.
>We have Finck describing a skull defect into occipital bone, the autopsy
>report describing the same, we have Boswell's ARRB skull showing the same,
>we have x-rays which show the skull fragmented back to the 'vicinity of' the
>lamboid ( which certainly takes in occipital bone).
>Now, it may be quite painless to *you* to dismiss all this ( & of course,
>much more) as not being 'credible' medical evidence - but the only common
>factor I can find to all your so called 'credible' evidence is that it
>supports - or at least doesn't instantly demolish - your wierd theory.
>
>IOW, your 'credible' evidence consists of a few carefully chosen crumbs hand
>picked from the vast bulk of the TOTAL evidence.
Oh contrare
>
>
>>
>> There are very very very few lone gunman advocates that think otherwise.
>
>Straw man, of course.
>My point is not & never has been (specifically) that the occipital bone was
>very significantly damaged.
Your BOH thesis rest on a good portion of the occipital swinging open
and shut like a gate.
>
>
>> John McAdams represents conventional wisdom on the BOH,
>
>Really ? Then you might give me the names of a few people here on this
>newsgroup who agree with him. (Aside from your esteemed self, of course:-)
>Should make interesting reading.
>
>The 'conventional' 'BOH intact' theory in fact derives from part of the HSCA
>report written by a wholly unqualified staffer who has ever since been too
>ashamed of himself to admit to writing it.
This is very simple. Anyone who accepts the statement in the autopsy
report that the exit defect was 13 cm in maximum diameter and that the
autopsy x-rays and photos are authentic is by default a BOH intact
advocate. Those that argue that the exit defect was much larger than 13 cm
in greatest diameter and extended across the top right side of the head
and into the right rear quadrant of the head despite what we see in the
x-rays and photos are by default conspiracy and coverup advocates.
>
>
>> you are way out in
>> right field. The only significant debate among most lone gunman advocates
>> is whether the inshoot wound was in the cowlick area or in the occipital
>> bone. Surely you understand that.
>
>I don't think 'most lone gunman advocates' like to get involved in the
>subject. People like Ken Rahn (perhaps sensibly) try to avoid it,arguing
>that it actually doesn't matter one way or the other.
I think you are mistunderstanding Ken Rahn. Ken like most other LN'ers
simply does not beleive it matters where the rear head entry was
located in term of high or low.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>Now, I sincerely applaud your willingness to actually engage in debate
>>>about all this - contrast certain other 'rear skull intact' promoters who
>>>habitually vanish whenever the hard questions come up - but I really can't
>>>drum up the enthusiasm to go over all this, putative nerve-cut by putative
>>>nerve-cut.
>>>
>>>Here is a human head prepared for brain removal :
>>>
>>>
>>>Here, by way of contrast, is the defect shown in the Dox drawing :
>>>
>>>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/doxerr.jpg
>>>
>>>You are prepared to agree that there was in fact bone loose / missing all
>>>around this (Dox) defect, *except [god forbid!] at the rear*, and thus
>>>that the Dox drawing is not particularly accurate, is schematic only ,
>>>whatever. Fine. I will call it quits with that agreement.
>>>
>>
>> We agree that the brain could not be removed through the opening depicted
>> in the Dox drawing.
>
>OK. Good. Let us transmit that thought telepathically to McA :-)
>
>> We do not agree on the overall condition of the
>> occipital bone or frontal bone at the time the president was placed on the
>> autopsy table. We do not agree on the extent or configuration of the scalp
>> lacerations either. For example you think the area of lacerated scalp
>> extended from the front hairline all the way down to the occiptal bone
>> which is a distance of about 10 inches on my head
>
>
>I think the only way we are ever going to get out of this never ending
>argument is to stress what we agree on.
I have no particular objection to your alternate interpretation of the
evidence and find it interesting. My objection has more to do with the
manner in which you are in defending it. You are pretending that it is
common knowledge that your interpretation is the correct
interpretation when in fact it is a rather innovative interpretation
that is borderline wacky.
Yea, and it was also out to the level of the EOP at the time the
president arrived at Bethesda according to Boswell's 30 year old
memory. And also according to his 30 year old memory, he inserted a
skull fragment with a semi-circular defect that arrived from Dallas
and was x-rayed into this opening. All these statments are clearly the
results of faded memory.
Paul, in view of the obvious conflicts with the autopsy record, do you
really believe these warped-memory statemens are usable?