Does Anybody Know What Pat Speer Believes About Kennedy's Torso Wounds?
John McAdams
He refuses to tell me.
So I'm hoping somebody here knows.
I frankly find his website unreadable, and am not convinced I would
know what he believes if I read it, but maybe somebody here has read
it and actually knows what he believes about Kennedy's torso wounds.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
>
>
>He refuses to tell me.
>
>So I'm hoping somebody here knows.
>
>I frankly find his website unreadable, and am not convinced I would
>know what he believes if I read it, but maybe somebody here has read
>it and actually knows what he believes about Kennedy's torso wounds.
I've told you this before. He thinks the throat wound was caused by the bullet
that hit JFK in the BOH and exited there (throat). Yes, he thinks the autopsy
docs missed seeing a hole in the thick base of the skull after they removed the
brain.
Go figure.
But one of the reasons ridiculous theories like his are concocted in the first
place is because Dr. Fisher in a sense dubbed Humes a dunce when he reported
that he [Humes] didn't know the EOP from the cowlick and was mistaken about the
occipital bone being fragmented. That myth was perpetuated by Fisher's
co-authors and associates on the Rockefeller Comission and HSCA....and by you.
As far as the back wound goes--I presume he thinks the bullet didn't transit the
body because it was a misfire, dud, or was only a partially filled
(gunpowder)...I'm not sure, some wacky theory like that.
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Stugrad98
long and tedious, perhaps. Which is why I asked him several months
ago. The thread is here:
-Stu
pjsp...@aol.com
What a childish little thread, John. My website is unreadable? Overly
convoluted in parts, perhaps. And overly scientific in others, maybe.
But someone reading my webpage will have no trouble figuring out where
I stand. Unlike your website...in which you present the Artwohl
exhibit to show that the back wound location used by the HSCA was
incorrect, and then pretend it is nevertheless consistent with the
HSCA's back wound location. What?
To be fair, I know you know next to nothing about the medical evidence
and that it isn't entirely your fault, seeing as you at one time had
the likes of Artwohl and Zimmerman blowing smoke in your direction.
But they both disappeared from the scene rather than admit they were
wrong. And now you're all alone.
Here is a slide I made in which I used Zimmerman's own exhibits to
show that the back wound location he proposed was not at C7, but at
C5. Enjoy.
http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
WhiskyJoe
> Does Anybody Know What Pat Speer Believes About
> Kennedy's Torso Wounds?
Well, the last I heard from Fetzer at the Education
Forum, no one can tell what Pat Speer really believes.
Like Joshua Thompson, it appears that Pat Speer is
some sort of disinformation agent, likely a LNer,
like Thompson and myself. Each week, more and more
are being caught in Fetzer's net. I think David Lifton
may next. It will be interesting to see.
John McAdams
Well . . . he just posted a mass of prose from his web site.
I'm gathering that he thinks a bullet hit JFK in the back, but went
nowhere.
And another bullet his him in the head and exited the throat.
That was Tink Thompson's theory, but you have to torture the medical
evidence severely to reach that conclusion.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
Do you understand how bizarre it is when you flatly refuse to tell us
what you believe?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
I'd like to see you document exactly WHEN Tink believed that. It was one
of the first theories advanced and came from misinformation from the
doctors.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
cdddraftsman
> On 1/17/2010 8:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
> >> To say his stuff is unreadable I think is going too far. It is a bit
> >> long and tedious, perhaps. Which is why I asked him several months
> >> ago. The thread is here:
>
>
> > Well . . . he just posted a mass of prose from his web site.
>
> > I'm gathering that he thinks a bullet hit JFK in the back, but went
> > nowhere.
>
> > And another bullet his him in the head and exited the throat.
>
> > That was Tink Thompson's theory, but you have to torture the medical
> > evidence severely to reach that conclusion.
>
> I'd like to see you document exactly WHEN Tink believed that. It was one
> of the first theories advanced and came from misinformation from the
> doctors.
>
>
Which is also indicative that the Dr.'s ....
* Were incorrect about any confabulated BoH wound that CTer's have put
in their mouths by misleading and leading questions and would of took
x-ray eye's see since JFK was never turned over and lay supine on the
examination table the entire time while at PH .
Deceit and deception by the research community by 'Emphasizing
preliminary information'.
* At least .John has the virtue of being correct 99.0% of the time ,
telling the unpleasent truth that there are things known , unknown and
what may never be known .
CT Apologists insist in telling half truths are better than admitting
there will always be unknowable aspects in this large a case when in
fact that admitting this produces cracks in the facade and the entire
rotten structure that conspiracy is undergirded by comes tumbling
down . This keeps CT Apologists from ever admitting wrong doing ,
hardly ever criticising each other were it really matters (LIKE
GETTING THEIR ACT TOGETHER BY STATING ONE UNIFIED THEORY !) This
notion terrifies this ad hoc , leaderless mobocracy who at once
believe's LHO is innocent but can't articulate 'Who Killed JFK'
without killing 'The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg'
CTer's "Raise non-essential issues"
* CTer's are blind to these distinctions , lump worthless (weight of
evidence) with pitchfork rapidity onto a evidence table that long ago
collapsed , overburdened by a mountain of useless trivia .
Research community guilty of 'Emphasizing eyewitness testimony'
without corrobborating physical evidence and when defeated years ago
trying to convince the knowledgable committed to a campaign of
deception at any cost . Losing what little respect they had from LNer
opponents we became the enemy to confused thinking .
* .John knows how and when to discard all those anchors CTer's are
festooned with like items of personal adornment that they're proud to
drag around year in year out .
CTer camp guilty of 'Recycling discredited evidence repeatedly' over
and over again !
* The CT Rodeo foists meaningless opinion on readers as fact ,
insinuating sinister conotations at every turn until *They* are more
confused than their targeted audience who are bewildered at best .
John Locke corralled the CT Rodeo correctly when he questioned : "How
Conspiracy" Apologists' "convince their readers" in the worlds largest
'Conspiracy of Deceit' ever recorded :
1 Sell emotion first
2 Scare reader away from primary documents
3 Distort evidence
4 Emphasize eyewitness testimony
5 Emphasize unsworn witnesses
6 Raise non-essential issues
7 Omit complete context of the evidence
8 Promote yourself to expert
9 Don't solicit the other side of the story
10 Accuse the defenseless
11 Emphasize preliminary information
12 Recycle discredited evidence repeatedly
You'll notice each and every CTer has a specialty when it comes to
there particular brand of bs : Tomnln uses and abuses 'evidence and
testimony' that 'Omits the complete context of the evidence' . AAMOF
it's rumored he's excised the word 'context' out of all dictionarys in
his household , runs scared and fearful anytime anyone mentions the
very first thing reputable historians try to glean from documents ,
reacting to the word 'context' like it was a four letter word , like a
'werewolf' would react to wolfbane' or a 'full Moon' . If it wasn't
for his coal fired Nike tennis shoes we could elucidate a responce
from him but to be truthful I think we'll interview a authentic grassy
knoll assassin first .
Pretty dark 'Doom and Gloom' indictment against this loose knit self
promoted research community . Why they call themselves a 'comminity'
is also in question , even a mob has leader , ever hear of a
conspiracy leader in the research community ? My best guess is that
when criminal indictments appear charging a 'conspiracy' and a 'cover-
up' in JFK's death , this leaderless community will slither back out
of town as quickly as it appeared or maybe I'm wrong , there will be a
leader emerging someday that unites this fractured and fragmentated
band of rabble from a "thousand broken pieces" into something that it
always could of been at it's best :
An antique hollow suit of armor that someone kicked down a very long
flight of stairs .
tl
pjsp...@aol.com
> On Jan 18, 2:18 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1/17/2010 8:00 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Jan 2010 11:38:17 -0500, Stugrad98<wexte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> To say his stuff is unreadable I think is going too far. It is a bit
> > >> long and tedious, perhaps. Which is why I asked him several months
> > >> ago. The thread is here:
>
> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
>
> > > Well . . . he just posted a mass of prose from his web site.
>
> > > I'm gathering that he thinks a bullet hit JFK in the back, but went
> > > nowhere.
>
> > > And another bullet his him in the head and exited the throat.
>
> > > That was Tink Thompson's theory, but you have to torture the medical
> > > evidence severely to reach that conclusion.
>
> > I'd like to see you document exactly WHEN Tink believed that. It was one
> > of the first theories advanced and came from misinformation from the
> > doctors.
>
> Which is also indicative that the Dr.'s ....
>
> * Were incorrect about any confabulated BoH wound that CTer's have put
> in their mouths by misleading and leading questions and would of took
> x-ray eye's see since JFK was never turned over and lay supine on the
> examination table the entire time while at PH .
draftsman, you do realize the irony of your bringing this up in a thread
designed as an attack on me, don't you? I have pushed that the Parkland
witnesses were wrong in more detail than any LNer, past or present.
McAdams at one time even lavished me with praise for my treatment of this
issue. Are you ignorant of this, or are you really trying to discredit my
research with an argument I helped create?
>
> Deceit and deception by the research community by 'Emphasizing
> preliminary information'.
>
> * At least .John has the virtue of being correct 99.0% of the time ,
> telling the unpleasent truth that there are things known , unknown and
> what may never be known .
>
> CT Apologists insist in telling half truths are better than admitting
> there will always be unknowable aspects in this large a case when in
> fact that admitting this produces cracks in the facade and the entire
> rotten structure that conspiracy is undergirded by comes tumbling
> down . This keeps CT Apologists from ever admitting wrong doing ,
> hardly ever criticising each other were it really matters (LIKE
> GETTING THEIR ACT TOGETHER BY STATING ONE UNIFIED THEORY !) This
> notion terrifies this ad hoc , leaderless mobocracy who at once
> believe's LHO is innocent but can't articulate 'Who Killed JFK'
> without killing 'The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg'
OK, so if you have the answers, PLEASE tell us at what level the bullet
exited Kennedy's throat?
John Canal
>Which is also indicative that the Dr.'s ....
>
>* Were incorrect about any confabulated BoH wound that CTer's have put
>in their mouths by misleading and leading questions and would of took
>x-ray eye's see since JFK was never turned over and lay supine on the
>examination table the entire time while at PH.
What is most likely, scenario A or scenario B???????
Scenario A:
1. There was no BOH wound meaning literally dozens of credible witnesses, not
only at PH, but also at Bethesda were lying or hallucinting about seeing a BOH
wound and/or cerebellum.
Scenario B:
1. The bullet from the SN fragmented the rear skull as well as blowing out skull
from the top/right/front.
2. Some of the BOH skull fragments were dislodged creating gaps between
them...but all of them remained adhered to the BOH scalp.
3. The BOH scalp had about a three inch tear extending vertically from the
bullet hole to the right of the EOP....the sharp edges of one or two of the
dislodged BOH skull fragments probably caused the tear.
4. When he was transferred from the limo the loose BOH fragments were probably
dislodged even further when someone surely hurriedly grabbed his BOH to keep it
from falling back.
5. Because he was on his back for the next several hours, blood and loose brain
matter gravitated towards and out between the gaps between the loose BOH skull
fragments and the scalp tear there....making the BOH wound appear to be worse
than it actually was.
6.Besides the PH eyewitnesses who saw a BOH wound, 10 (INCLUDING TWO
NEUROSURGEONS) accurately said or testified they saw cerebellum which would have
been virtually impossile if there had been no BOH wound.
7. At Bethesda, someone, probably Burkley (wielding the power of a Navy admiral
as well as the power of being the Kennedy's personal physician--with an office
in the WH), bad idea or good idea,.........thought it was in the best interests
of the country not to photograph (when the body first arrived) or even later
vividly describe a BOH wound for fear that such a wound could be interpreted or
misinterpreted as proof of a frontal shot.
8. Boswell did, consistent with his finally enlightening ARRB testimony,
"smooth/push back" into place the rear scalp with the adhered BOH skull pieces
BEFORE the skull x-rays.
9. Once the scalp was reflected and loose skull pieces came out, the huge
top/rght/front blown-out area was extended all the way back to the base of his
ear....consistent, again, with Boswell's ARRB drawings and testimony.
10. After the main portion of the autopsy was completed, CONSISTENT WITH THE
TESTIMONY OF EVERYONE INVOLVED, the autopsists assisted the morticians as they
stretched and sutured the scalp to close up the openings in his head...in
preparation for an open-casket funeral. And, that's precisely why, as seen in
the BOH photos, the autopsist is holding a handfull of scalp over the
top/right/front area where the bone and much of the scalp had been missing
(blown into DP).....it's also why the entry appears to be 5 inches or so above
the hairline when photos of the entry in the skull show it to be only a little
above the EOP (which, typically is only 2.5 inches or so above the hairline).
The stretched scalp probably also explains why the entry in the scalp is so
elliptical and the hole in the skull was "almost round".
11. Stringer, who did not leave the morgue untill 3:15 AM or so, was not playing
ping-pong in the breakroom all that time and was taking pictures....ones that
anyone above the 5th grade can tell from the inventory of autopsy photos were
the ones showing a virtually undamaged BOH scalp.
12. The notion that Stringer was taking pictures all night is consistent with
the testimony and/or statements of several witnesses, including General McHugh
and Burkley himself.
13. None of the autopsists ever tried to say that the BOH photos, which were
obviously taken during the task of closing up the holes in his head in
preparation for an open-casket funeral, reflected the status of the BOH when the
body was first received.
14. In spite of no. 13, Lifton, Horne ### AND ### the "hard-line LNs, assume the
BOH photos were taken near to when the body was first receied at Betheda....with
the Liftonites wrongly assumng sinister surgery was done to repair the BOH scalp
in order to "hide" a BOH wound....and the hard-line LNs just as wrongly assuming
those BOH photos prove dozens of credible PH and Bethesda BOH wound and 11 total
cerebellum witnesses were lying or hallucinating about what they saw, re. the
BOH and/or cerebellum.
15. Humes was NOT lying or hallucinating when he said:
A. The BOH skull was fragmented to the extent pieces of skull fell out when they
reflected the scalp.
B. They saw cerebellum when the body was first received, meaning there must have
been a BOH wound.
C. The large wound extended into the occipital.
16. Boswell was not lying when he testified:
A. That there a tear in the scalp that extended from the occipital forward.
B. That the bone in the BOH was missing all the way down to the base of the ear
when the BOH photos were taken...which is consistent to his skull drawings.
C. That he was truthful when he testified that a piece of skull came loose with
the top portion of the entry in it, which is consistent with his face sheet
drawings.
Finck was not wrong when he said he saw a portion of a crater in the
skull...meaning the bone above half the entry had come loose by the time he
arrived.
ENOUGH
#######################################
If you chose scenario 2 as the most unlikely one, then would you tell me what
step, or which steps (1-16), is (or are) more unbelievable than the absolutely
rdiculous and far-fetched notion that 25 or so PH and Bethesda BOH
wound/cerebellum witnesses, including two neurosurgeons, two FBI agents, Secret
Service Agents, and the autopsists, were lying or hallucinating about what they
saw.
Thanks.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
cdddraftsman
>
>
> draftsman, you do realize the irony of your bringing this up in a thread
> designed as an attack on me, don't you? I have pushed that the Parkland
> witnesses were wrong in more detail than any LNer, past or present.
> McAdams at one time even lavished me with praise for my treatment of this
> issue. Are you ignorant of this, or are you really trying to discredit my
> research with an argument I helped create?
>
>
I'm not familiar with any testimony or evidence that you "helped
create" .
If it wan't stolen from someone else first I wouldn't have recognised
it at all .
tl
pjsp...@aol.com
Nonsense, tl, I know you greatly admire, if nothing else, my work
ethic. In chapter 19, I have a long section on the Parkland witnesses,
and why I think they were wrong. I was the first person, as far as I
know, to push that the rotation of the President's body, beyond
showing that the witnesses could not even have seen the wound they
describe, was a leading cause for their confusion.
pjsp...@aol.com
thought it was further to the back. It's that simple. The rotation of
an object leads to confusion over the exact position of the object.
This is well known to experts in the field of cognitive psychology,
and is often discussed in their periodicals.
As far as why your option 2 doesn't strike me as credible...
1. Clark and the Parkland witnesses did not see a large defect missing
scalp and skull where it is in the photos.
2. They did see a defect matching this description about two inches
further back on the head.
3. They did not describe torn scalp on the boh as in your scenario,
but missing scalp and bone.
4. Scalp is not stretched four inches to cover up holes in the head
during an autopsy, and no one present at the autopsy said they did any
such thing.
5. Autopsy photos are not taken during reconstruction, and no one
present at the autopsy said they did any such thing.
6. The red shape in the cowlick you think was the entrance wound, only
pulled up higher on the head, does not resemble in size or description
the entrance wound described in the autopsy report, and in subsequent
reports and testimony.
7. This wound was also 4 or more inches away from the hairline, an
impossibility if it was the entrance wound by the EOP. (Oh yeah,
that's right you think the scalp was stretched up all the way.
This is what makes sense to me:
http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg
When the HSCA forensic pathology panel showed Dr. James Humes a photo
displaying what they believed was the actual entrance hole on the back
of the head, the small oval shape in the cowlick, Dr. Humes, who’d led
the autopsy of President Kennedy and had repeatedly asserted that the
hole was near the President’s hairline, responded “I don’t know what
that is. Number one, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp
to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the
skull at any point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me
clotted blood…it certainly was not any wound of entrance.” While Dr.
Humes’ irritation was spurred no doubt by the Clark Panel’s decision
to change the location of the entrance hole, when one compares the
HSCA drawing of the autopsy photo to the original autopsy photo,
there’s reason for us all to be irritated, even outraged.
One source of anger comes from looking at the mark in the cowlick,
which was repeatedly re-drawn to look more like a bullet entrance by
medical artist Ida Dox, at the request of pathology panel spokesman
Dr. Michael Baden. At a 2003 conference on the assassination, Dr.
Randy Robertson showed the audience a 5-9-78 memo from Baden to Dox
found in the National Archives. This memo was a photocopy of a page
from Dr. Spitz's book Medicolegal Investigation of Death, with a
drawing of a typical entrance wound. Beside the drawing, Dr. Baden had
written "Ida, you can do much better." Apparently, Dox's early
versions of the "bullet hole" were still too close to the original
photo, and made the "bullet hole" appear more like the “clotted blood”
Dr. Humes described, than the bullet hole Dr. Baden wanted to be
there.
This proved to be a big problem..for Humes. HSCA counsel Andy Purdy
told the ARRB that, after Humes made his comments, Dr. Charles Petty
took him outside and yelled at him. And that was just the beginning.
In his book Real Answers, HSCA Counsel Gary Cornwell admits that, as a
result of Humes' failure to agree with the new and improved entrance
location, he was all set to treat Humes as a hostile witness and
aggressively question him on the witness stand about his many mistakes
and inconsistencies. Cornwell explains that a still unnamed doctor
warned Humes of this plan. Still, his plan was susccessful. A year
after Dr. Humes called the supposed entrance in the cowlick "clotted
blood" he testified that he had been mistaken and that he now thought
it was the entrance wound described in the autopsy report.
That Humes was pressured into acting as though he'd changed his
opinion, when he never really had, is demonstrated by the strange fact
that by 1992 he’d changed his mind back.
The other two autopsists never even pretended to change their minds.
Humes’ colleague from the autopsy, Dr. Boswell, never wavered in his
opinion that the entrance location was in the general area of the
brain matter low on the skull. Not surprisingly, he was never called
before the committee. The third autopsist, Dr. Finck, was interviewed
by the medical panel on March 11 and 12, 1978 and put under tremendous
pressure to change his interpretation of the entrance wound's location
and agree with the panel that the real wound was in the cowlick.
Apparently they felt that Finck, as a forensic pathologist, would be
more understanding of their plight, and more agreeable to their points
of view. In any event, in a section of the interview conveniently left
of the official transcript, and only found on the tape, Dr. Weston
kept asking Finck if it was possible there'd been some sort of
transcription error when the autopsists reported that the wound was
near the EOP. Finck admitted that yes, it was possible. Dr. Baden then
pounced and told Finck that the wound in the cowlick in the photos was
determined to be 15 mm by 6 mm--the same size of the wound measured at
autopsy. He also told Finck that the x-rays showed an entrance wound
exactly where the mark is in the cowlick. (Neither of these assertions
was true or repeated in the the panel's final report.) Baden then
remarked that everything mentioned in the autopsy report pointed to
the wound being in the cowlick. (This is absolute nonsense.) At this
point, Dr. Wecht and Dr. Petty disavowed Weston's and Baden's "cross-
examination" and "badgering" of Finck. Ultimately, Finck held firm and
said he believed the wound was as measured at autopsy, and beneath the
white glob of matter in the autopsy photos. No surprise, he was also
never called before the committee. Radiologist John Ebersole, autopsy
photographer John Stringer, and Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman,
who also claimed to have seen the small wound low on Kennedy's skull,
were also not called before the committee. This means that Dr. Humes
was the ONLY autopsy witness or participant to say the cowlick mark in
the photos was the entrance wound, and he said so exactly ONCE, while
under duress, in the ONLY testimony of an autopsy witness before the
committee, and rapidly retracted it afterward.
But that's not the only reason to believe the autopsy's description of
the entrance wound was correct, and that the Clark Panel and HSCA's
proposed entrance "dried blood" of some sort. When one considers that
the hole described in the autopsy report is 15 mm x 6 mm, a
proportion of 2 ½ x 1, and that Humes' handwritten version of the
report further notes that this entrance was "tangential to the surface
of the scalp", and then considers that the hole or clotted blood in
the cowlick is almost round, and is, at most, 1 x 1 ½, and a through
and through hole, then it should be clear that the shape in the
cowlick is not the entrance wound described by the doctors. When one
considers further that NOT ONE witness of the dozens interviewed who
saw the President after the assassination in Dallas and Bethesda
recalled seeing an entrance wound in this cowlick location, moreover,
this fact should be startlingly clear. Crystal.
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>On Jan 23, 8:20=A0pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 6:58=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > draftsman, you do realize the irony of your bringing this up in a threa=
>d
>> > designed as an attack on me, don't you? I have pushed that the Parkland
>> > witnesses were wrong in more detail than any LNer, past or present.
>is
>> > issue. Are you ignorant of this, or are you really trying to discredit =
>my
>> > research with an argument I helped create?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with any testimony or evidence that you "helped
>> create" .
>>
>> If it wan't stolen from someone else first I wouldn't have recognised
>> it at all .
>>
>> tl
>
>Nonsense, tl,
I'll tell you what's "NONSENSE", Pat---it's that, IMO, you flat ignore
certain facts that debunk your theories but simply keep keep repeating
these silly theories.......I guess hoping that the repetition will
eventually make them plausible?
NOW HEAR THIS: HUMES TESTIFIED IN MARCH, 64, THAT THEY SAW CEREBELLUM WHEN
THE BODY WAS FIRST RECEIVED.........FOR EMPHASIS HERE IT IS AGAIN: HUMES
TESTIFIED IN MARCH, 64, THAT THEY SAW CEREBELLUM WHEN THE BODY WAS FIRST
RECEIVED.
It's important to note that when he said that, he switched out the words,
"a severely lacerated falx cerebri" from the autopsy report with the
words, "a severely lacerated flocculus cerebri".....Pat, THE FLOCCULUS IS
PART OF THE CEREBELLUM!!!!!!!! It's obvious to anyone who's not oblivious
to reality that he was cryptically and innocuously sending everyone a
message.....and that message was that the Parkland Hospital docs who said
they saw a BOH wound and/or cerebellum weren't lying, mistaken, or
hallucinating!!!!!!!
Is that clear enough Pat? Let me know if it's not.
Also, Several other EYEwitnesses at Bethesda testified or said they saw a
BOH wound including Secret Service and FBI agents...what else do you have
to know to delete that B/S from your website about the PH docs not being
in a position to see a BOH wound?
And if you think like McAdams that the PH docs got the top of the head
wound mixed up with a BOH wound, there were 10 PH eyewitnesses, includig
two ### NEUROSURGEONS ###, who said they saw cerebellum....WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN AN IMPOSSIBILITY IF THERE HAD BEEN NO BOH WOUND!
Geesh!
John Canal
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
I know you greatly admire, if nothing else, my work
>ethic. In chapter 19, I have a long section on the Parkland witnesses,
>and why I think they were wrong. I was the first person, as far as I
>know, to push that the rotation of the President's body, beyond
>showing that the witnesses could not even have seen the wound they
>describe, was a leading cause for their confusion.
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Rotation? Any chance that some day you'll learn to just say things in
plain English?
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
<TOP POST>
Pat, I won't debate with you, IMO, you're virtually unconvincable, no
matter what. Case in point is F8, we've told you a kazillion times that
the right front bone flap prominently seen in the BOH photos, with your
orientation of F8, sticks stright up out of his head like a shark's dorsal
fin. Moreover, your orientation has the ruler being held vertically and
they were measuring how far the entry was from midline
HORIZONTALL!!!!...that's why the entry is 2.5 cm HORIZONTALLY (as in "to
the right of the EOP") from the end of the ruler with the correct
orintation!
If you'd just orientate it correctly and superimpose a photo of a good
model skull over JFK's skull in F8 you'd see that the entry in F8 is 2.5
cm from the edge of the ruler (the edge being at midline), and a little
above the EOP. I know you'll say you've already done that and it didn't
come out....and I don't think you're a liar, but I'd like to see you post
a graphic demonstrating how you performed it....heck you might have made a
slight mistake.
Then your theory that the bullet entered the BOH and went through the
thick floor of the skull to exit the throat really shouldn't be dignified
with any argument, nevertheless, when I asked you if you thought Humes et
al. missed seeing a hole in the skull floor when they removed the brain,
you said they did....well that takes the cake, doesn't it?
Now, what's your explanation for 10 PH eyewinesses plus Humes saying
cerebellum was seen...if there was no BOH wound?
As far as Humes and others getting confused when they saw the BOH photos
and were asked about the high red splotch being the entry, there's a
reason for that confusion...that photo was taken after the rear scalp had
been worked on and they recalled the entry being near the EOP on the body
(as F8 shows it to be)...so they couldn't understand how itgot so high up.
They just didn't recall that the BOH photos were taken after the scalp was
worked on....and you can bet Baden et al. didn't mention the possibility
it was taken late.
Paul, I know you don't agree that what Chad, Larry, and myself (and
evidently Dr. Rahn and even Baden et al. are calling the entry "IS" the
entry, but just for argument's sake, let's say we're correct. Okay, with
you playing along, if F8 shows the [our] entry where it does near the EOP
(which is typically 2.5 inches above the hairline), then what's the only
plausible explanation for the red splotch (IF that's the entry) in the BOH
photos being 5 inches above the hairline??.....can't that explanation be
that they stretched the scalp from the EOP to the hairline by 2.5 to 3.0
inches? I know it sounds far-fetched, butthe fact is they said they
stretched it and local morticians say they could have tretched it 3
inches...and that's why the hair texture below the EOP in the photos looks
different than above the EOP...thinner.
And, Pat, if you don't think the BOH photos were taken late, what's your
explanation for why Stringer stayed until about 3:15 AM...to help carry
the casket?
And what's your explanation for several witnesses saying they took
pictures throughout the procedure? And, if Stringer was taking photos
after midnight (when the reconstruction was going on), you tell me which
ones you think he could have taken...how about it...pick some.
And if the scalp wasn't stretched what's your explanation for why the
autopsist in the BOH photos has a handful of hair over a part of the skull
where the skull and most of the hair was blown out from?
Answer the questions please without rhetoric, mistaken information and
links to your website.
John Canal
*******************************
>of the head, the small oval shape in the cowlick, Dr. Humes, who=92d led
>the autopsy of President Kennedy and had repeatedly asserted that the
>hole was near the President=92s hairline, responded =93I don=92t know what
>that is. Number one, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp
>to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the
>skull at any point. I don=92t know what that is. It could be to me
>clotted blood=85it certainly was not any wound of entrance.=94 While Dr.
>Humes=92 irritation was spurred no doubt by the Clark Panel=92s decision
>to change the location of the entrance hole, when one compares the
>HSCA drawing of the autopsy photo to the original autopsy photo,
>there=92s reason for us all to be irritated, even outraged.
>
>One source of anger comes from looking at the mark in the cowlick,
>which was repeatedly re-drawn to look more like a bullet entrance by
>medical artist Ida Dox, at the request of pathology panel spokesman
>Dr. Michael Baden. At a 2003 conference on the assassination, Dr.
>Randy Robertson showed the audience a 5-9-78 memo from Baden to Dox
>found in the National Archives. This memo was a photocopy of a page
>from Dr. Spitz's book Medicolegal Investigation of Death, with a
>drawing of a typical entrance wound. Beside the drawing, Dr. Baden had
>written "Ida, you can do much better." Apparently, Dox's early
>versions of the "bullet hole" were still too close to the original
>photo, and made the "bullet hole" appear more like the =93clotted blood=94
>Dr. Humes described, than the bullet hole Dr. Baden wanted to be
>there.
>
>This proved to be a big problem..for Humes. HSCA counsel Andy Purdy
>told the ARRB that, after Humes made his comments, Dr. Charles Petty
>took him outside and yelled at him. And that was just the beginning.
>In his book Real Answers, HSCA Counsel Gary Cornwell admits that, as a
>result of Humes' failure to agree with the new and improved entrance
>location, he was all set to treat Humes as a hostile witness and
>aggressively question him on the witness stand about his many mistakes
>and inconsistencies. Cornwell explains that a still unnamed doctor
>warned Humes of this plan. Still, his plan was susccessful. A year
>after Dr. Humes called the supposed entrance in the cowlick "clotted
>blood" he testified that he had been mistaken and that he now thought
>it was the entrance wound described in the autopsy report.
>
>That Humes was pressured into acting as though he'd changed his
>opinion, when he never really had, is demonstrated by the strange fact
>that by 1992 he=92d changed his mind back.
>
>The other two autopsists never even pretended to change their minds.
>Humes=92 colleague from the autopsy, Dr. Boswell, never wavered in his
>proportion of 2 =BD x 1, and that Humes' handwritten version of the
>report further notes that this entrance was "tangential to the surface
>of the scalp", and then considers that the hole or clotted blood in
>the cowlick is almost round, and is, at most, 1 x 1 =BD, and a through
>and through hole, then it should be clear that the shape in the
>cowlick is not the entrance wound described by the doctors. When one
>considers further that NOT ONE witness of the dozens interviewed who
>saw the President after the assassination in Dallas and Bethesda
>recalled seeing an entrance wound in this cowlick location, moreover,
>this fact should be startlingly clear. Crystal.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Jan 23, 6:20=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Cdddraftsman says this and Speer agrees:
>>
>> >Which is also indicative that the Dr.'s ....
>>
>> >* Were incorrect about any confabulated BoH wound that CTer's have put
>> >in their mouths by misleading and leading questions and would of took
>> >x-ray eye's see since JFK was never turned over and lay supine on the
>> >examination table the entire time while at PH.
>>
>> What is most likely, scenario A or scenario B???????
>>
>> Scenario A:
>>
>> 1. There was no BOH wound meaning literally dozens of credible witnesses,=
> not
>> only at PH, but also at Bethesda were lying or hallucinting about seeing =
>a BOH
>> wound and/or cerebellum.
>>
>> Scenario B:
>>
>> 1. The bullet from the SN fragmented the rear skull as well as blowing ou=
>t skull
>> from the top/right/front.
>>
>> 2. Some of the BOH skull fragments were dislodged creating gaps between
>> them...but all of them remained adhered to the BOH scalp.
>>
>> 3. The BOH scalp had about a three inch tear extending vertically from th=
>e
>> bullet hole to the right of the EOP....the sharp edges of one or two of t=
>he
>> dislodged BOH skull fragments probably caused the tear.
>>
>> 4. When he was transferred from the limo the loose BOH fragments were pro=
>bably
>> dislodged even further when someone surely hurriedly grabbed his BOH to k=
>eep it
>> from falling back.
>>
>> 5. Because he was on his back for the next several hours, blood and loose=
> brain
>> matter gravitated towards and out between the gaps between the loose BOH =
>skull
>> fragments and the scalp tear there....making the BOH wound appear to be w=
>orse
>> than it actually was.
>>
>> 6.Besides the PH eyewitnesses who saw a BOH wound, 10 (INCLUDING TWO
>> NEUROSURGEONS) accurately said or testified they saw cerebellum which wou=
>ld have
>> been virtually impossile if there had been no BOH wound.
>>
>> 7. At Bethesda, someone, probably Burkley (wielding the power of a Navy a=
>dmiral
>> as well as the power of being the Kennedy's personal physician--with an o=
>ffice
>> in the WH), bad idea or good idea,.........thought it was in the best int=
>erests
>> of the country not to photograph (when the body first arrived) or even la=
>ter
>> vividly describe a BOH wound for fear that such a wound could be interpre=
>ted or
>> misinterpreted as proof of a frontal shot.
>>
>> 8. Boswell did, consistent with his finally enlightening ARRB testimony,
>> "smooth/push back" into place the rear scalp with the adhered BOH skull p=
>ieces
>> BEFORE the skull x-rays.
>>
>> 9. Once the scalp was reflected and loose skull pieces came out, the huge
>> top/rght/front blown-out area was extended all the way back to the base o=
>f his
>> ear....consistent, again, with Boswell's ARRB drawings and testimony.
>>
>> 10. After the main portion of the autopsy was completed, CONSISTENT WITH =
>THE
>> TESTIMONY OF EVERYONE INVOLVED, the autopsists assisted the morticians as=
> they
>> stretched and sutured the scalp to close up the openings in his head...in
>> preparation for an open-casket funeral. And, that's precisely why, as see=
>n in
>> the BOH photos, the autopsist is holding a handfull of scalp over the
>> top/right/front area where the bone and much of the scalp had been missin=
>g
>> (blown into DP).....it's also why the entry appears to be 5 inches or so =
>above
>> the hairline when photos of the entry in the skull show it to be only a l=
>ittle
>> above the EOP (which, typically is only 2.5 inches or so above the hairli=
>ne).
>> The stretched scalp probably also explains why the entry in the scalp is =
>so
>> elliptical and the hole in the skull was "almost round".
>>
>> 11. Stringer, who did not leave the morgue untill 3:15 AM or so, was not =
>playing
>> ping-pong in the breakroom all that time and was taking pictures....ones =
>that
>> anyone above the 5th grade can tell from the inventory of autopsy photos =
>were
>> the ones showing a virtually undamaged BOH scalp.
>>
>> 12. The notion that Stringer was taking pictures all night is consistent =
>with
>> the testimony and/or statements of several witnesses, including General M=
>cHugh
>> and Burkley himself.
>>
>> 13. None of the autopsists ever tried to say that the BOH photos, which w=
>ere
>> obviously taken during the task of closing up the holes in his head in
>> preparation for an open-casket funeral, reflected the status of the BOH w=
>hen the
>> body was first received.
>>
>> 14. In spite of no. 13, Lifton, Horne ### AND ### the "hard-line LNs, ass=
>ume the
>> BOH photos were taken near to when the body was first receied at Betheda.=
>...with
>> the Liftonites wrongly assumng sinister surgery was done to repair the BO=
>H scalp
>> in order to "hide" a BOH wound....and the hard-line LNs just as wrongly a=
>ssuming
>> those BOH photos prove dozens of credible PH and Bethesda BOH wound and 1=
>1 total
>> cerebellum witnesses were lying or hallucinating about what they saw, re.=
> the
>> BOH and/or cerebellum.
>>
>> 15. Humes was NOT lying or hallucinating when he said:
>>
>> A. The BOH skull was fragmented to the extent pieces of skull fell out wh=
>en they
>> reflected the scalp.
>>
>> B. They saw cerebellum when the body was first received, meaning there mu=
>st have
>> been a BOH wound.
>>
>> C. The large wound extended into the occipital.
>>
>> 16. Boswell was not lying when he testified:
>>
>> A. That there a tear in the scalp that extended from the occipital forwar=
>d.
>>
>> B. That the bone in the BOH was missing all the way down to the base of t=
>he ear
>> when the BOH photos were taken...which is consistent to his skull drawing=
>s.
>>
>> C. That he was truthful when he testified that a piece of skull came loos=
>e with
>> the top portion of the entry in it, which is consistent with his face she=
>et
>> drawings.
>>
>> Finck was not wrong when he said he saw a portion of a crater in the
>> skull...meaning the bone above half the entry had come loose by the time =
>he
>> arrived.
>>
>> ENOUGH
>>
>> #######################################
>>
>> If you chose scenario 2 as the most unlikely one, then would you tell me =
>what
>> step, or which steps (1-16), is (or are) more unbelievable than the absol=
>utely
>> rdiculous and far-fetched notion that 25 or so PH and Bethesda BOH
>> wound/cerebellum witnesses, including two neurosurgeons, two FBI agents, =
>Secret
>> Service Agents, and the autopsists, were lying or hallucinating about wha=
>t they
>> saw.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
pjsp...@aol.com
Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
Humes. He was probably right when he saw cerebellum...leaking from the
small hole by the EOP. Yeah, that's right, the hole with the
transversal laceration and tunnel, tangential to the scalp, and
heading right to left on the back of the head. THAT hole is
undoubtedly the hole I see on F8, and not the cowlick entrance on the
boh photo. If not, what IS that hole on F8?
As far as your interpretation of F8, part 4 of my video series
comprises a number of tests/proofs which indicate the photo is of the
back of Kennedy's head. Neither you nor any other person of the belief
F8 is of the forehead have countered any of these arguments. The
drainage hole argument in particular needs to be countered before
anyone should seriously consider that F8 shows the forehead.
What you need to do is:
1. Place a round object on a table.
2. Photograph a model skull on the table with the round shape in the
background, at such an angle that the round shape matches the location
and shape of the drainage hole in F8.
3. See if the angle of the forehead to the camera makes any sense
whatsoever.
http://www.patspeer.com/thelightfromabove.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/Ifatfirst2.jpg
As far as why Stringer would have been there til 3:00 if he wasn't
taking pictures... Uhhh, I don't know. But it seems quite likely
considering this was the most important photo shoot of his life that
he'd hang around till the end, just in case he was needed. He took
photos at the beginning. He took photos when they rolled the body over
and inspected the wounds. He took photos when they opened up the
skull. And he (supposedly) took photos after they performed the Y
incision and opened up the chest. It seems likely from this that he
was told to stick around in case they found the missing bullet in the
body, or some such thing... If I'd been in charge, I'd certainly have
kept him around.
Now, seriously, John. Doesn't it make a lot more sense that a pocket
of witnesses, feeding off and reinforcing each other's memories,
recalled the exact wound location incorrectly, and were off by two
inches or so, than that they somehow DID NOT see the large defect on
top of the head, and only saw the small entrance wound on the back of
the head? Because that's what you're claiming, right/ That the
Parkland doctors saw the entrance but not the exit? Even though Dr.
Clark said the large wound he saw was missing both scalp and bone, and
that is how the autopsy doctors described the large defect on top of
the head?
And then of course there's this..
http://www.patspeer.com/aboveor.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/eyeof.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg
What are the odds of there being a dark round shape on the boh photos
exactly where the autopsy doctors said there was a bullet entrance,
and that this round shape would directly overlay a transversal tunnel
on the back of the head on F8 when properly interpreted, if it doesn't
represent the bullet entrance described at autopsy, and confirmed by
the doctors in the 1966 inventory of the photos?
Or do you think it was a coincidence the HSCA FPP lightened this shape
in their drawings, and cut this shape off the close-up of the area
near the EOP shown the autopsy doctors?
http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/hscafig15.jpg
On Jan 24, 7:53 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <29c5b571-0785-436c-8130-829390c82...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
> ...
>
> read more »
Herbert Blenner
> John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>
> Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
> Humes. He was probably right when he saw cerebellum...leaking from the
> small hole by the EOP. Yeah, that's right, the hole with the
> transversal laceration and tunnel, tangential to the scalp, and
> heading right to left on the back of the head.
Humes described the long axis of the 15 X 6 mm bullet hole in
accordance with the long axis of the body. This orientation makes the
laceration longitudinal.
> THAT hole is
> undoubtedly the hole I see on F8, and not the cowlick entrance on the
> boh photo. If not, what IS that hole on F8?
>
> As far as your interpretation of F8, part 4 of my video series
> comprises a number of tests/proofs which indicate the photo is of the
> back of Kennedy's head. Neither you nor any other person of the belief
> F8 is of the forehead have countered any of these arguments. The
> drainage hole argument in particular needs to be countered before
> anyone should seriously consider that F8 shows the forehead.
>
What you need to do is:
A. Explain the elliptical arc with beveling on the surface nearer the
camera.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/ellipticalbevel.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/fittedellipse.jpg
B. Account for the fifty-degree angle of incidence calculated from the
inverse cosine of the ratio of minor axis divided by the major axis of
the fitted ellipse.
C. Explain why the forensic analysts have ignored the shape of the
beveled arc.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>
> Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
> Humes. He was probably right when he saw cerebellum...leaking from the
> small hole by the EOP. Yeah, that's right, the hole with the
No, the HSCA analysis shows it is a dab of tissue on top of the hair,
not brain matter oozing out of an entrance hole.
> transversal laceration and tunnel, tangential to the scalp, and
> heading right to left on the back of the head. THAT hole is
> undoubtedly the hole I see on F8, and not the cowlick entrance on the
> boh photo. If not, what IS that hole on F8?
>
> As far as your interpretation of F8, part 4 of my video series
> comprises a number of tests/proofs which indicate the photo is of the
> back of Kennedy's head. Neither you nor any other person of the belief
That is ridiculous. You'd have them reflecting the scalp sideways to
remove the brain. That method doesn't work.
> F8 is of the forehead have countered any of these arguments. The
I have, every day. Dr. Lawrence Angel diagrammed the X-rays showing the
semi-circular defect above the right eye. That is how F8 must be
oriented so that the semi-circular defect is above the right eye, not in
the back of the head. Thus it shows frontal bone.
> drainage hole argument in particular needs to be countered before
> anyone should seriously consider that F8 shows the forehead.
>
No, it needs to be ignored. Because it includes a false assumption about
how the photograph was taken.
>> read more �
>
>
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>
>Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
>Humes.
Sure, you just think he didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, missed
seeing a bullet hole in the floor of the skull, missed the obvious wound
track from the back wound to the throatwound, (re. your F8 orientation)
measured the distance the entry was to the right of the EOP with the ruler
held vertical, and was wrong about the large wound extending into the
occipital....other then that you think he was spot on. Don't feed me your
B/S, Pat, it's insulting my intelligence when you think I'm stupid enough
to fall for it...I know the medical evidence...sell your sillyness to
those that don't and are naive enough to buy into it.
And the last thing I'm about to do is read more of your B/S on your website.
John Canal
**********************************
>On Jan 24, 7:53=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <29c5b571-0785-436c-8130-829390c82...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> Pat, I won't debate with you, IMO, you're virtually unconvincable, no
>> matter what. Case in point is F8, we've told you a kazillion times that
>> the right front bone flap prominently seen in the BOH photos, with your
>> orientation of F8, sticks stright up out of his head like a shark's dorsa=
>l
>> fin. Moreover, your orientation has the ruler being held vertically and
>> they were measuring how far the entry was from midline
>> HORIZONTALL!!!!...that's why the entry is 2.5 cm HORIZONTALLY (as in "to
>> the right of the EOP") from the end of the ruler with the correct
>> orintation!
>>
>> If you'd just orientate it correctly and superimpose a photo of a good
>> model skull over JFK's skull in F8 you'd see that the entry in F8 is 2.5
>> cm from the edge of the ruler (the edge being at midline), and a little
>> above the EOP. I know you'll say you've already done that and it didn't
>> come out....and I don't think you're a liar, but I'd like to see you post
>> a graphic demonstrating how you performed it....heck you might have made =
>a
>> slight mistake.
>>
>> Then your theory that the bullet entered the BOH and went through the
>> thick floor of the skull to exit the throat really shouldn't be dignified
>> with any argument, nevertheless, when I asked you if you thought Humes et
>> al. missed seeing a hole in the skull floor when they removed the brain,
>> you said they did....well that takes the cake, doesn't it?
>>
>> Now, what's your explanation for 10 PH eyewinesses plus Humes saying
>> cerebellum was seen...if there was no BOH wound?
>>
>> As far as Humes and others getting confused when they saw the BOH photos
>> and were asked about the high red splotch being the entry, there's a
>> reason for that confusion...that photo was taken after the rear scalp had
>> been worked on and they recalled the entry being near the EOP on the body
>> (as F8 shows it to be)...so they couldn't understand how itgot so high up=
>.
>> They just didn't recall that the BOH photos were taken after the scalp wa=
>s
>> worked on....and you can bet Baden et al. didn't mention the possibility
>> it was taken late.
>>
>> Paul, I know you don't agree that what Chad, Larry, and myself (and
>> evidently Dr. Rahn and even Baden et al. are calling the entry "IS" the
>> entry, but just for argument's sake, let's say we're correct. Okay, with
>> you playing along, if F8 shows the [our] entry where it does near the EOP
>> (which is typically 2.5 inches above the hairline), then what's the only
>> plausible explanation for the red splotch (IF that's the entry) in the BO=
>H
>> photos being 5 inches above the hairline??.....can't that explanation be
>> that they stretched the scalp from the EOP to the hairline by 2.5 to 3.0
>> inches? I know it sounds far-fetched, butthe fact is they said they
>> stretched it and local morticians say they could have tretched it 3
>> inches...and that's why the hair texture below the EOP in the photos look=
>s
>> different than above the EOP...thinner.
>>
>> And, Pat, if you don't think the BOH photos were taken late, what's your
>> explanation for why Stringer stayed until about 3:15 AM...to help carry
>> the casket?
>>
>> And what's your explanation for several witnesses saying they took
>> pictures throughout the procedure? And, if Stringer was taking photos
>> after midnight (when the reconstruction was going on), you tell me which
>> ones you think he could have taken...how about it...pick some.
>>
>> And if the scalp wasn't stretched what's your explanation for why the
>> autopsist in the BOH photos has a handful of hair over a part of the skul=
>> >of the head, the small oval shape in the cowlick, Dr. Humes, who=3D92d l=
>ed
>> >the autopsy of President Kennedy and had repeatedly asserted that the
>> >hole was near the President=3D92s hairline, responded =3D93I don=3D92t k=
>now what
>> >that is. =A0Number one, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp
>> >to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the
>> >skull at any point. =A0I don=3D92t know what that is. =A0It could be to =
>me
>> >clotted blood=3D85it certainly was not any wound of entrance.=3D94 =A0Wh=
>ile Dr.
>> >Humes=3D92 irritation was spurred no doubt by the Clark Panel=3D92s deci=
>sion
>> >to change the location of the entrance hole, when one compares the
>> >HSCA drawing of the autopsy photo to the original autopsy photo,
>> >there=3D92s reason for us all to be irritated, even outraged.
>>
>> >One source of anger comes from looking at the mark in the cowlick,
>> >which was repeatedly re-drawn to look more like a bullet entrance by
>> >medical artist Ida Dox, at the request of pathology panel spokesman
>> >Dr. Michael Baden. At a 2003 conference on the assassination, Dr.
>> >Randy Robertson showed the audience a 5-9-78 memo from Baden to Dox
>> >found in the National Archives. This memo was a photocopy of =A0a page
>> >from Dr. Spitz's book Medicolegal Investigation of Death, with a
>> >drawing of a typical entrance wound. Beside the drawing, Dr. Baden had
>> >written "Ida, you can do much better." Apparently, Dox's early
>> >versions of the "bullet hole" were still too close to the original
>> >photo, and made the "bullet hole" appear more like the =3D93clotted bloo=
>d=3D94
>> >Dr. Humes described, than the bullet hole Dr. Baden wanted to be
>> >there.
>>
>> >This proved to be a big problem..for Humes. HSCA counsel Andy Purdy
>> >told the ARRB that, after Humes made his comments, =A0Dr. Charles Petty
>> >took him outside and yelled at him. And that was just the beginning.
>> >In his book Real Answers, HSCA Counsel Gary Cornwell admits that, as a
>> >result of Humes' failure to agree with the new and improved entrance
>> >location, he was all set to treat Humes as a hostile witness and
>> >aggressively question him on the witness stand about his many mistakes
>> >and inconsistencies. Cornwell explains that a still unnamed doctor
>> >warned Humes of this plan. Still, his plan was susccessful. A year
>> >after Dr. Humes called the supposed entrance in the cowlick "clotted
>> >blood" he testified that he had been mistaken and that he now thought
>> >it was the entrance wound described in the autopsy report.
>>
>> >That Humes was pressured into acting as though he'd changed his
>> >opinion, when he never really had, is demonstrated by the strange fact
>> >that by 1992 he=3D92d changed his mind back.
>>
>> >The other two autopsists never even pretended to change their minds.
>> >Humes=3D92 colleague from the autopsy, Dr. Boswell, never wavered in his
>> >opinion that the entrance location was in the general area of the
>> >brain matter low on the skull. Not surprisingly, he was never called
>> >before the committee. The third autopsist, Dr. Finck, was interviewed
>> >by the medical panel on March 11 and 12, 1978 and put under tremendous
>> >pressure to change his interpretation of the entrance wound's location
>> >and agree with the panel that the real wound was in the cowlick.
>> >Apparently they felt that Finck, as a forensic pathologist, would be
>> >more understanding of their plight, and more agreeable to their points
>> >of view. In any event, in a section of the interview conveniently left
>> >of the official transcript, and only found on the tape, Dr. Weston
>> >kept asking Finck if it was possible there'd been some sort of
>> >transcription error when the autopsists reported that the wound was
>> >near the EOP. Finck admitted that yes, it was possible. Dr. Baden then
>> >pounced and told Finck that the wound in the cowlick in the photos was
>> >determined to be 15 mm by 6 mm--the same size of the wound measured at
>> >autopsy. He also told Finck that the x-rays showed an entrance wound
>> >exactly where the mark is in the cowlick. (Neither of these assertions
>> >was true or repeated in the the panel's final report.) Baden then
>> >remarked that everything mentioned in the autopsy report pointed to
>> >the wound being in the cowlick. (This is absolute nonsense.) =A0At this
>> >point, Dr. Wecht and Dr. Petty disavowed Weston's and Baden's "cross-
>> >examination" and "badgering" of Finck. Ultimately, Finck held firm and
>> >said he believed the wound was as measured at autopsy, and beneath the
>> >white glob of matter in the autopsy photos. No surprise, he was also
>> >never called before the
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, you just proved that Humes was an idiot. What else you got?
Tell us more about his theory that the bullet went in at a 45-60 degree
angle and just stopped a couple of inches into the back.
pjsp...@aol.com
> In article <856d9928-d146-4a44-b9b2-14c6e8823...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>
>
>
> >John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>
> >Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
> >Humes.
>
> Sure, you just think he didn't know the EOP from the cowlick,
Of course, he knew the EOP from the cowlick. YOU'RE the one claiming
the red shape in the cowlick in the photos, the one Humes claimed was
dried blood, is in fact the entrance wound he measured by the EOP.
missed
> seeing a bullet hole in the floor of the skull,
I'm not claiming he missed it, but I think it's possible. The base of
the skull was undoubtedly damaged, and there is no evidence that the
blood was drained and that it was thoroughly inspected. Another
possibility--in line with the statements of Robinson and Lipsey--is
that Humes knew full well that a bullet went through the base of the
skull and exited the throat, but cut this from his report. Need I
point out that that's two more witnesses than you have for your silly
theory that the EOP entrance wound was stretched up to the level of
the cowlick entrance, and that the boh photo was taken during the
reconstruction of the skull?
missed the obvious wound
> track from the back wound to the throatwound
Obvious? Then how come Humes didn't explore this track during the
autopsy? Obvious? Then how come there was no passage through the back
muscles? Obvious? Then show it! Does the bullet enter at C7 or T1 on a
downward trajectory? If so, how did it avoid striking the first rib?
How did it avoid piercing the lung? And, if it entered higher than C7
or T-1, how come even Boswell admitted the bullet wound in the back
wound photo was around T-2?
, (re. your F8 orientation)
> measured the distance the entry was to the right of the EOP with the ruler
> held vertical,
Uggghh... Need I point out that you have no idea what was being
measured in that photo, and are just making that up?
and was wrong about the large wound extending into the
> occipital....
I never said any such thing. You, as Lifton, refuse to appreciate that
Humes and Boswell measured and studied the wound only AFTER they
peeled back the scalp and bone fell to the table? Why is this so
difficult for you guys to understand?
other then that you think he was spot on. Don't feed me your
> B/S, Pat, it's insulting my intelligence when you think I'm stupid enough
> to fall for it...
WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
you see the errors in your theory. Do you REALLY believe it's more
likely for the Parkland witnesses to fail to notice a large gaping
hole on the top of Kennedy's head, than for them to be mistaken about
its exact location, and think the large gaping hole they saw was a bit
closer to the back of the head? Because I think they were far too
competent to overlook such a wound, and to instead see the small wound
on the back of the head, presumably undiscovered before the autopsy,
and then describe it as a large gaping wound.
I know the medical evidence...sell your sillyness to
> those that don't and are naive enough to buy into it.
>
> And the last thing I'm about to do is read more of your B/S on your website.
You know your pet theory. As far as the stuff on my website, you
should study it before you embarrass yourself any further.
Yeah, I know I'm making you angry... I'm hoping I'm making you angry
enough to try and re-create F8 while taking the angle of the camera to
the drainage hole into account. Because when you do, you'll see I'm
right.
> ...
>
> read more »
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>On Jan 25, 7:38=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <856d9928-d146-4a44-b9b2-14c6e8823...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>>
>> >Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
>> >Humes.
>>
>> Sure, you just think he didn't know the EOP from the cowlick,
>
>Of course, he knew the EOP from the cowlick. YOU'RE the one claiming
>the red shape in the cowlick in the photos, the one Humes claimed was
>dried blood, is in fact the entrance wound he measured by the EOP.
Humes simply couldn't remember that the morticians stretched the scalp
causing the red splotch, which IS the entry wound in the SCALP, to be
about 5 inches above the hairline...he knew the EOP is only about 2.5
inches above the hairline.
Everybody here is afraid of the scalp stretching theory...because it
sounds far-fetched, but will anyone consult morticians to ask them what
"undermining the scalp" means...no, of course not.
Regarding the red splotch in the BOH photos, it boils down to two choices
for anyone, and there are many of us, who believe the entry was near the
EOP (which is only about 2.5 inches above the hairline).
OPTION ONE--The red splotch is not the entry. The problems with that
theory, which Sturdivan believes, are a little hard to believe, and
include:
A. The red splotch just happens, for some strange reason, to be centered
in a photo titled, "missile wound in the right occipital".
B. The ruler just happens to be along sie the red spltch.
C. The red splotch just happens to be angled to the right similar to the
entry in Rydberg's drawing, CE-388.
D. The HSCA saw an abrasion collar using stereoscopic
visualization.....since when does dried blood have an abrasion collar?
E. There is an obvious lack of any other defect in the BOH that could be
an entry wound.
OPTION TWO-The scalp from the EOP to the hairline was "undermined" and
stretched, just as Humes testified.
A. Scalp "undermining" is a special process used to "maximize" the
stretchability of the scalp....and Humes specifically said they
"undermined" the scalp. Is this another case where all those who didn't
see the body thinks the prosectors who did see it are wrong? Of course it
is.
B. They had no choice but to undermine and stretch the relatively
undamaged occipital scalp in order to have enough scalp to cover the large
top/right/front blow-out wound where scalp and bone was missing.
C. If one looks at the BOH photos they can see that the autopsist is
holing a handfull of scalp over the aforementioned area of the head where
there was supposed to be little or no scalp (according to both the autopsy
report and Humes' WC testimony). That extra scalp was produced beause the
scalp from the hairline to the EO was undermined.
D. If one looks closely at the hair texture in the photos from the EOP to
the hairline they can see the hair looks thinner. That's because it was
undermined in that area.
E. The white spot can be better explained as part of the scalp stretching
theory. The process of "undermining" the scalp requires that the top layer
(with the hair) is separated from the 4 other layers below it. It is a
delicate process because the process leaves the top layer thin and without
strength....and undoubtedly the scalp was understandably breached where
the white spot is allowing tissue or muscle to exude through. IOW, that
white spot is tissue or muscle from below the scalp's top layer.... which
is quite understandable given that they surely were in a hurry.
Again, anyone who agrees the bullet pnetrated the scalp and skull about
2.5 inches above the hairline (near the EOP) has to either say the red
splotch in the photos is not the entry or agree the scalp was undermined
and stretched. Two tough choices, but the right one is obvious, IMO.
> missed
>> seeing a bullet hole in the floor of the skull,
>
>I'm not claiming he missed it, but I think it's possible.
Sure and it's possible that Martians will land in my back yard tonight too.
>The base of
>the skull was undoubtedly damaged, and there is no evidence that the
>blood was drained and that it was thoroughly inspected. Another
>possibility--in line with the statements of Robinson and Lipsey--is
>that Humes knew full well that a bullet went through the base of the
>skull and exited the throat, but cut this from his report. Need I
>point out that that's two more witnesses than you have for your silly
>theory that the EOP entrance wound was stretched up to the level of
>the cowlick entrance, and that the boh photo was taken during the
>reconstruction of the skull?
>
>
>missed the obvious wound
>> track from the back wound to the throatwound
>
>Obvious?
Yes, obvious:
1. One bullet hole in the back.
2. One bullet hole in the front (throat).
3. Air in the tissue between the two wounds.
4. Transverse process slightly fractured.
5. Apx of the pleura bruised.
6. Apex of the lung bruised.
7. Two slits in the shirt behid the throat wound.
8. Tie nicked behind the throat wound.
Yes, obvious to anyone who's not desperate to twist the facts to support
one of a hundred conspiracy theories.
You can figure out the answers to your silly questions below...I won't
dignify them by taking my time to answer them.See above!!!
>Then how come Humes didn't explore this track during the
>autopsy? Obvious? Then how come there was no passage through the back
>muscles? Obvious? Then show it! Does the bullet enter at C7 or T1 on a
>downward trajectory? If so, how did it avoid striking the first rib?
>How did it avoid piercing the lung? And, if it entered higher than C7
>or T-1, how come even Boswell admitted the bullet wound in the back
>wound photo was around T-2?
>
>, (re. your F8 orientation)
>> measured the distance the entry was to the right of the EOP with the rule=
>r
>> held vertical,
>
>Uggghh... Need I point out that you have no idea what was being
>measured in that photo, and are just making that up?
I CHALLENGE YOU TO POST F8, WITH YOUR ORIENTATION, AND SUPERIMPOSE AT 50%
OPACITY AN IMAGE OF A MODEL SKULL ON TOP OF JFK'S SKULL.
I'LL DO THE SAME WITH THE CORRECT ORIENTATION AND THEN WELL ASK THE GROUP
WHICH ORIENTATION MAKES THE BEST SENSE...HOW ABOUT IT?
> and was wrong about the large wound extending into the
>> occipital....
>
>I never said any such thing.
Then why on earth would you suggest that Humes saw cerebellum through the
small entry wound (which itself is a little hard to see in the photos if
the red splotch is not the entry).....if humes was correct the large wound
extended into the occipital? IOW, it'd be juuuust a bit easire to see
cerebellum through a large wound that extended into the occipital than
through a small entry wound, wouldn't it?
>You, as Lifton, refuse to appreciate that
>Humes and Boswell measured and studied the wound only AFTER they
>peeled back the scalp and bone fell to the table? Why is this so
>difficult for you guys to understand?
>
>other then that you think he was spot on. Don't feed me your
>> B/S, Pat, it's insulting my intelligence when you think I'm stupid enough
>> to fall for it...
>
>WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
>you see the errors in your theory. Do you REALLY believe it's more
>likely for the Parkland witnesses to fail to notice a large gaping
>hole on the top of Kennedy's head, than for them to be mistaken about
See, you have to twist the facts just to make your silly theory work, e.g.
Why do you say the "Parkland witnesses" failed to note a parietal wound
and suggest they didn't see an occipital wound? There were PH docs that
said the wound was occipital-parietal!!!!!!!!!!
Also, why would you suggest the PH docs were wrong about seeing a BOH
wound when there were several at Bethesda who said there was a BOH
wound???????? Re. the facts, spin, spin, spin, twist, twist, twist....I
get sick of hearing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Canal
[....]
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
paul seaton
news:856d9928-d146-4a44...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
"As far as your interpretation of F8, part 4 of my video series
comprises a number of tests/proofs which indicate the photo is of the
back of Kennedy's head. Neither you nor any other person of the belief
F8 is of the forehead have countered any of these arguments. The
drainage hole argument in particular needs to be countered before
anyone should seriously consider that F8 shows the forehead."
Since I seem to be mentioned in the header, I thought I better have a look
at this thread. Two things came up. First, my answer to the F8
interpretation question :
Why do I believe that Larry Angel , consultant to the HSCA FPP, was correct
in thinking F8 shows the forehead in the foreground ?
1) On the face of it - I mean just on the basis of his job description - he
has a lot of credibility. That may not always be enough, but it puts the
presumption on his side. If you read the transcript of his interview there,
you can hear him thinking aloud. He just doesn't sound like a man trying to
push anything preconcieved.
2) Boswell's drawing , Angel's drawing ( from the x-ray) & ( ironically
enough) Mantik's drawing of the forehead outline from the AP x-ray all look
remarkably similar. All are consistent with F8 being a frontal view.
3) The assumption that F8 is indeed 'frontal' leads to an immediate
identification of the right front flap in F8. It is right where it should
be.
4) The assumption gels with the scalp being reflected down across the eyes,
as we know it was. I have seen many a weird 'interpretation' of F8 with the
scalp reflected sideways. It just didn't happen like that.
5) Many another interpretation ( see Brian Kelleher for eg) leads to the
surprising conclusion that JFK had no neck. I see no evidence to support
this POV. There are lot's of photos of JFK, sufficient to show he
definitely had a neck.
6) My own attempts to reconstruct F8 using 3D anatomical software. This was
a project undergone simultaneously with a similar project by Larry
Sturdivan - Larry used real skulls, & one by John Canal, using ( i recall )
a 'medical' ( artificial ) skull. In my case, the only orientation that
came anything close to reproducing F8 was one that came *very* close to
replicating F8. If I am forced to I will try to dig out some of the
graphics. The foreground bone was, surprise surprse, frontal. The most
remarkable conclusion , to me, however, ( and I speak as someone who DOES
NOT BELIEVE THE ENTRY WAS AT THE EOP ) was that the apparent 'notch'
tentatively id'd by Humes in those photos as being 'the entry' WAS INDEED
just about exactly 1" to the right & slightly above the EOP. Consequently I
can say that the discovery was more or less 'against my own interests'.
(Almost) needless to say, Larry's ( independent ) reconstructions turned out
to more or less exactly mimic my own. John's too. Frontal. Every time. In
fact I can say that I have NEVER seen ANY recreation of F8 that presupposes
anything else that isn't so full of holes it can be categorically dismissed
after about 20 seconds consideration, either because it presupposes JFK had
no neck, or no ear, or ( wholesale this one ) virtually no remaining right
side of his whole head.
I am not really tempted to re-examine the issue, because I feel I have -
over the years - addressed it to death. I have searched Pat Speare's web
site for the 'word' 'F8', found 2 references, checked them out, and found
nothing aside from an argument based on the *lighting* (!!) of F8 . ( A
sort of 'well if it was frontal it wouldn't be lit from there..' argument,
which, given that there is no a priori certainty about the exact orientation
of JFK's head when the photos were taken, didn't feel it was very
educational. )
And now we come to the other issue. Something which kind of took me aback
when I discovered it.
I also found on Pat Speare's website , much to my surprise, a jpg which I
myself created , about 10 years ago - involving some vertebrae, - that Mr
Speare seems to have lifted wholesale from my website. ( Can't say I recall
him ever stooping to TELL ME he had done so. )
Here's the image :
http://www.patspeer.com/wrestling.jpg/wrestling-full.jpg
Here's the page it's on :
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter19:wrestlingoverhistory
Spear pontificates :
"By lifting T1 to C7 & C7 to C6 Seaton has misrepresented the level of the
back wound in comparison to the throat wound"
...making me sound for all the world as if I were part of some global back
wound misplacement conspiracy.
Spear conveniently leaves out the annotation I put next to the damn picture
where it appears on my website that :
"This diagram - at right - does not use JFK's own xray. I don't know of one
that shows the vertebrae. So this is a guide merely to where one might
expect to find T1 'on average'.)"
Here's the page :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/kennedy_graphics2.htm
I really can't say I have any respect for any individual who uses a graphic
of mine *without informing me or asking permission* , leaves off the
annotation which explains quite clearly it's just a ball park estimate , &
proceeds to spin me as 'misprepresenting' evidence.
Consequently Mr Spear, I would ask you EITHER to insert the annotation above
, ie that " Paul Seaton has clearly stated, on his website, for about the
last ten years, in plain English, that this diagram that I , Pat Spear ,
have so egregiously stolen & misrepresented without so much as bothering to
inform him , does not use JFK's own xray. It is, was & always will be
merely a guide merely to where one might expect to find T1 'on average'.)"
AND ALSO to include a statement to the effect that you apologise for
accusing ME of 'misrepresenting' evidence ( when in fact it was YOU who was
misrepresenting what was clearly stated on my website) OR
REMOVE THAT IMAGE FROM YOUR WEBSITE PRONTO.
I have spent many a happy hour here arguing with people of all shades of
opinion. I may disagree with their views but in just about all cases come
away not doubting their sincerity or good faith.
Just about all cases, Mr Spear.
paul s
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:856d9928-d146-4a44...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://www.patspeer.com/thelightfromabove.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/Ifatfirst2.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/hscafig15.jpg
> read more �
pjsp...@aol.com
> In article <07969763-237d-493e-a15c-8638b7822...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
John, is it your contention the Parkland doctors saw an entrance on
the back of the head, or an exit on the back of the head? Because you
can't have it both ways. If you think they saw an entrance on the back
of the head, then why did essentially NONE of them see the large exit
missing both scalp and skull seen on the Z-film and autopsy photos?
And if you think they saw an exit, well, where did this shot come
from, and why was there no missing skull on the back of the head on
the x-rays?
Caeruleo
<07969763-237d-493e...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
> you see the errors in your theory. Do you REALLY believe it's more
> likely for the Parkland witnesses to fail to notice a large gaping
> hole on the top of Kennedy's head, than for them to be mistaken about
> its exact location, and think the large gaping hole they saw was a bit
> closer to the back of the head?
Actually, yes. One can clearly see in the Z-film large open flaps of
scalp forward of JFK's right ear following the head shot. These flaps
were obviously closed by the time he was brought into Parkland, most
likely by Jackie. The doctors at Parkland did not probe inside his head
since they were not doing an autopsy of a body, but trying to save a
living person's life. Naturally the mass of scalp and thick hair would
to some extent obscure the large hole in his skull. But you might wish
to read the Parkland testimony more carefully; there was indeed some
degree of acknowledgement that one hemisphere of the head was
extensively damaged from front to back, or "stem to stern," as Dr.
Giesecke put it. Most of them were merely seeing the most rearward
portion of the large hole.
> Because I think they were far too
> competent to overlook such a wound, and to instead see the small wound
> on the back of the head, presumably undiscovered before the autopsy,
> and then describe it as a large gaping wound.
That's also a bit misleading. Careful reading of the autopsy report and
of the statements of all autopsy witnesses reveals that there was
acknowledgement of the same rearward portion of the hole in his skull
that was seen at Parkland, plus the descriptions of the majority of the
hole being forward of that. At the autopsy they were at liberty to
examine the whole head carefully, which they were not at Parkland. At
Parkland, for example, they wouldn't dare pull back the scalp to see
more of the hole, for the obvious reason that such a thing wasn't their
function, as stated above. At Parkland it was a futile lifesaving
attempt, not an autopsy. Naturally they'd see less of the overall
damage.
The Parkland statements and the autopsy statements are not nearly as
inconsistent as they are often made out to be. The people at Parkland
merely saw only part of the damage, whereas the people at the autopsy
saw all of it.
tomnln
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo1-91200...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> In article<07969763-237d-493e...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>>
>> On Jan 25, 7:38=A0pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article<856d9928-d146-4a44-b9b2-14c6e8823...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>>>
>>>> Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
>>>> Humes.
>>>
>>> Sure, you just think he didn't know the EOP from the cowlick,
>>
>> Of course, he knew the EOP from the cowlick. YOU'RE the one claiming
>> the red shape in the cowlick in the photos, the one Humes claimed was
>> dried blood, is in fact the entrance wound he measured by the EOP.
>
> Humes simply couldn't remember that the morticians stretched the scalp
> causing the red splotch, which IS the entry wound in the SCALP, to be
> about 5 inches above the hairline...he knew the EOP is only about 2.5
> inches above the hairline.
>
Ludicrous. So now you blame the morticians. The scalp can not be
stretched 4 inches.
> Everybody here is afraid of the scalp stretching theory...because it
> sounds far-fetched, but will anyone consult morticians to ask them what
> "undermining the scalp" means...no, of course not.
>
Not far fetched. Impossible.
> Regarding the red splotch in the BOH photos, it boils down to two choices
> for anyone, and there are many of us, who believe the entry was near the
> EOP (which is only about 2.5 inches above the hairline).
>
Yeah, many of you. What you got, like 4 of you now? Even Humes, Boswell,
and Finck bailed out on you.
> OPTION ONE--The red splotch is not the entry. The problems with that
> theory, which Sturdivan believes, are a little hard to believe, and
> include:
>
> A. The red splotch just happens, for some strange reason, to be centered
> in a photo titled, "missile wound in the right occipital".
>
A caption to a photo is not a fact.
> B. The ruler just happens to be along sie the red spltch.
>
The ruler was long enough to be next to many things.
The proper way to document a head wound is to shave the hair around it.
No shaved hair on Kennedy's head means no wound in the back of the head.
> C. The red splotch just happens to be angled to the right similar to the
> entry in Rydberg's drawing, CE-388.
>
Phony as a three-dollar bill.
> D. The HSCA saw an abrasion collar using stereoscopic
> visualization.....since when does dried blood have an abrasion collar?
>
Nonsense.
You cite the HSCA then you call them liars.
> E. There is an obvious lack of any other defect in the BOH that could be
> an entry wound.
>
Because there was no entry wound in the back of the head.
pjsp...@aol.com
> In article
> <07969763-237d-493e-a15c-8638b7822...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
> > you see the errors in your theory. Do you REALLY believe it's more
> > likely for the Parkland witnesses to fail to notice a large gaping
> > hole on the top of Kennedy's head, than for them to be mistaken about
> > its exact location, and think the large gaping hole they saw was a bit
> > closer to the back of the head?
>
> Actually, yes. One can clearly see in the Z-film large open flaps of
> scalp forward of JFK's right ear following the head shot. These flaps
> were obviously closed by the time he was brought into Parkland, most
> likely by Jackie. The doctors at Parkland did not probe inside his head
> since they were not doing an autopsy of a body, but trying to save a
> living person's life. Naturally the mass of scalp and thick hair would
> to some extent obscure the large hole in his skull. But you might wish
> to read the Parkland testimony more carefully; there was indeed some
> degree of acknowledgement that one hemisphere of the head was
> extensively damaged from front to back, or "stem to stern," as Dr.
> Giesecke put it. Most of them were merely seeing the most rearward
> portion of the large hole.
Clark described a large wound missing scalp and bone. The autopsy doctors
described a large wound missing scalp and bone--the large defect on top of
the head. Are you really trying to pretend Clark saw a DIFFERENT large
wound missing scalp and bone, only on the back of the head? Because the
autopsy doctors saw no such wound on the back of the head... As far as
Giesecke, he was the only one to describe a large hole, and there is no
record of him doing so prior to his testimony months later. And he said
then that he thought it was the left side of the head. And besides, his
description of a wound on the front of the head, if taken seriously,
destroys the fantasy the wound on the front of the head played peek-a-boo
and was not seen in Dallas. Or are you proposing that Giesecke, who only
saw the wound for a second, and did not study it like Clark, was more
accurate than those actually attending Kennedy, and inspecting his wounds?
>
> > Because I think they were far too
> > competent to overlook such a wound, and to instead see the small wound
> > on the back of the head, presumably undiscovered before the autopsy,
> > and then describe it as a large gaping wound.
>
> That's also a bit misleading. Careful reading of the autopsy report and
> of the statements of all autopsy witnesses reveals that there was
> acknowledgement of the same rearward portion of the hole in his skull
> that was seen at Parkland, plus the descriptions of the majority of the
> hole being forward of that. At the autopsy they were at liberty to
> examine the whole head carefully, which they were not at Parkland. At
> Parkland, for example, they wouldn't dare pull back the scalp to see
> more of the hole, for the obvious reason that such a thing wasn't their
> function, as stated above. At Parkland it was a futile lifesaving
> attempt, not an autopsy. Naturally they'd see less of the overall
> damage.
Wait, you seem to be making the same mistake as Lifton, and confusing
statements made about the skull after the scalp was pulled back and skull
fell to the table with statements about he state of the head when first
viewed. Clark said the large defect he saw was missing scalp and bone. The
x-rays demonstrate that no bone was missing from the back of the head at
the beginning of the autopsy in Bethesda. Not only was virtually no scalp
missing on the back of the head at this time, the autopsy protocol
describes the scalp lacerations, and NONE of them were on the back of the
head. So the bone flap peek-a-boo proposed by far too many CTs is either
nonsense, or the autopsy doctors lied. You can't have it both ways..
> The Parkland statements and the autopsy statements are not nearly as
> inconsistent as they are often made out to be. The people at Parkland
> merely saw only part of the damage, whereas the people at the autopsy
> saw all of it.
Yes, you are correct...but they can only be considered consistent if you
accept that the Parkland witnesses were off by a few inches in their
approximation of the head wound location. Otherwise, they are miles apart.
Caeruleo
<07969763-237d-493e...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
> you see the errors in your theory.
Btw, I should have said this in my earlier response, but to describe Paul
Seaton, of all people, as "smart" is definitely an understatement. The
man is simply brilliant, and I hardly say that merely because he leans
more or less the direction I do, towards a single shooter. Instead it is
because he has made some of the most perceptive and lucid comments I have
ever seen here. as have Barb J. (who is most definitely a CT) and Herbert
Blenner (who is also a CT, I think :P), and James O. (the precise spelling
of his last name I am ashamed to not recall at this moment, who is also a
clear CT).
Hmmm, I've named more CTs (I think) than LNs for the posters here I most
respect.
In spite of the fact that I'm 100% convinced that there was only one
shooter, 99% convinced that the shooter was LHO, and 98% convinced that
not one other human knew in advance what the single shooter was about to
do.
Go figure.
:P
Oh wait, it's not rocket science, it merely means that I am vastly more
objective than the vast majority of both CTs and LNs.
Correct, everyone?
Lol.
(Someone, anyone, feel free to disagree. I love it when ppl disagree with
me, but only when they express solid, logical reasons for disagreement.
When they go for childish, immature, ad hominem attacks, however, unworthy
of a human adult, this usually results in me never reading their articles
again.)
pjsp...@aol.com
wrote:
> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:856d9928-d146-4a44...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> "As far as your interpretation of F8, part 4 of my video series
> comprises a number of tests/proofs which indicate the photo is of the
> back of Kennedy's head. Neither you nor any other person of the belief
> F8 is of the forehead have countered any of these arguments. The
> drainage hole argument in particular needs to be countered before
> anyone should seriously consider that F8 shows the forehead."
>
> Since I seem to be mentioned in the header, I thought I better have a look
> at this thread. Two things came up. First, my answer to the F8
> interpretation question :
>
> Why do I believe that Larry Angel , consultant to the HSCA FPP, was correct
> in thinking F8 shows the forehead in the foreground ?
> 1) On the face of it - I mean just on the basis of his job description - he
> has a lot of credibility. That may not always be enough, but it puts the
> presumption on his side. If you read the transcript of his interview there,
> you can hear him thinking aloud. He just doesn't sound like a man trying to
> push anything preconcieved.
Angel was clearly winging it, if you excuse the pun. I once exchanged a
few emails with Sturdivan about Angel. Sturdivan failed to realize that
Angel, to whom he had deferred, claimed the bullet exited from Kennedy's
forehead, where he placed the semi-circular beveled exit. After that,
Sturdivan told me he no longer thought the HSCA's beveled exit was a
bullet wound. The HSCA also failed to defer to Angel. He told them the
large bone fragment was in front of the coronal suture, and Baden depicted
it behind the coronal suture on the Dox Drawings.
> 2) Boswell's drawing , Angel's drawing ( from the x-ray) & ( ironically
> enough) Mantik's drawing of the forehead outline from the AP x-ray all look
> remarkably similar. All are consistent with F8 being a frontal view.
> 3) The assumption that F8 is indeed 'frontal' leads to an immediate
> identification of the right front flap in F8. It is right where it should
> be.
Mantik, who has viewed the autopsy materials more than any other doctor,
has long insisted F8 was taken from behind Kennedy, and shows the back of
his head.
> 4) The assumption gels with the scalp being reflected down across the eyes,
> as we know it was.
We know no such thing. In most cases, the scalp is reflected over the
eyes, but it is also reflected back. No scalp is reflected back in F8.
Since the right side of Kennedy's head was shattered, and the left side
intact, the brain could be removed without the normal procedure of
removing the skull cap. Jenkins and O'Connor, the autopsy assistants
normally tasked with removing the brain, both told Livingstone the scalp
was reflected to the left.
http://www.patspeer.com/reflections.jpg
I have seen many a weird 'interpretation' of F8 with the
> scalp reflected sideways. It just didn't happen like that.
Wrong.
> 5) Many another interpretation ( see Brian Kelleher for eg) leads to the
> surprising conclusion that JFK had no neck. I see no evidence to support
> this POV. There are lot's of photos of JFK, sufficient to show he
> definitely had a neck.
Non-sequitur. One of the reasons people like me feel sure the photo
was taken from behind is the presence of neck lines on the photo.
> 6) My own attempts to reconstruct F8 using 3D anatomical software. This was
> a project undergone simultaneously with a similar project by Larry
> Sturdivan - Larry used real skulls, & one by John Canal, using (i recall)
> a 'medical' ( artificial ) skull. In my case, the only orientation that
> came anything close to reproducing F8 was one that came *very* close to
> replicating F8. If I am forced to I will try to dig out some of the
> graphics. The foreground bone was, surprise surprse, frontal. The most
> remarkable conclusion , to me, however, ( and I speak as someone who DOES
> NOT BELIEVE THE ENTRY WAS AT THE EOP ) was that the apparent 'notch'
> tentatively id'd by Humes in those photos as being 'the entry' WAS INDEED
> just about exactly 1" to the right & slightly above the EOP. Consequently I
> can say that the discovery was more or less 'against my own interests'.
> (Almost) needless to say, Larry's ( independent ) reconstructions turned out
> to more or less exactly mimic my own. John's too. Frontal. Every time. In
> fact I can say that I have NEVER seen ANY recreation of F8 that presupposes
> anything else that isn't so full of holes it can be categorically dismissed
> after about 20 seconds consideration, either because it presupposes JFK had
> no neck, or no ear, or ( wholesale this one ) virtually no remaining right
> side of his whole head.
Wrong again. Does your recreation accurately simulate the angle of the
camera to the drainage hole? No? Then the hole you think is the entrance
is almost certainly the jugular foramen--a hole on the base of the skull.
>
> I am not really tempted to re-examine the issue, because I feel I have -
> over the years - addressed it to death. I have searched Pat Speare's web
> site for the 'word' 'F8', found 2 references, checked them out, and found
> nothing aside from an argument based on the *lighting* (!!) of F8 . (A
> sort of 'well if it was frontal it wouldn't be lit from there..' argument,
> which, given that there is no a priori certainty about the exact orientation
> of JFK's head when the photos were taken, didn't feel it was very
> educational. )
>
Ridiculous. I have a whole clearly labeled chapter on F8--which I mostly
call the Mystery Photo, which includes multiple slides demonstrating
beyond any reasonable doubt the photo was taken from behind...EXACTLY as
claimed by the autopsy doctors in their 1966 inventory. I also have a
video series on my website and on youtube. Feel free to get educated.
> And now we come to the other issue. Something which kind of took me aback
> when I discovered it.
>
> I also found on Pat Speare's website , much to my surprise, a jpg which I
> myself created , about 10 years ago - involving some vertebrae, - that Mr
> Speare seems to have lifted wholesale from my website. ( Can't say I recall
> him ever stooping to TELL ME he had done so. )
My website is designed to be an educational website. It is free to the
public. All images posted on the internet are fair game, as far as I'm
concerned, as long as I'm not charging for them. This allows me to screen
capture images that are clearly deceptive, e.g. McAdams' Artwohl exhibit,
and demonstrate their deception, without concern that someone will hide
behind copyright law to conceal their deception. In your case, I "stole"
your image to contrast it with Zimmerman's image, to show how LNs--who
many neutral people incorrectly assume to be mere defenders of the Warren
Commission, are really LNTs, people with their own pet theories, who are
no more consistent than CTs. A quick look at any anatomy book would show
you your image is wrong, and yet you never took the time to fix it. Why
not? Because it helps sell the single- bullet theory to those not witting
of your deception? If not, I apologize for assuming as much.
>
> Here's the image :http://www.patspeer.com/wrestling.jpg/wrestling-full.jpg
> Here's the page it's on :http://www.patspeer.com/chapter19:wrestlingoverhistory
>
> Spear pontificates :
> "By lifting T1 to C7 & C7 to C6 Seaton has misrepresented the level of the
> back wound in comparison to the throat wound"
> ...making me sound for all the world as if I were part of some global back
> wound misplacement conspiracy.
>
> Spear conveniently leaves out the annotation I put next to the damn picture
> where it appears on my website that :
> "This diagram - at right - does not use JFK's own xray. I don't know of one
> that shows the vertebrae. So this is a guide merely to where one might
> expect to find T1 'on average'.)"
> Here's the page :http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/kennedy_graphics2.htm
It is a fact well documented on my website that those believing Oswald
fired the shots seem to think this belief allows them to move the back
wound as high as they'd like to make the trajectories work. If you don't
consider yourself one of those, then please tell me at what point on the
spine you believe the bullet entered Kennedy's back, whether or not you
believe the bullet descended in his body, and at what point on the spine
it exited. McAdams wouldn't tell me. Will you?
>
> I really can't say I have any respect for any individual who uses a graphic
> of mine *without informing me or asking permission* , leaves off the
> annotation which explains quite clearly it's just a ball park estimate , &
> proceeds to spin me as 'misprepresenting' evidence.
My website includes many nasty reprimands. Put together a two or three
line statement on what a jerk I am, and how you never pretended your image
was accurate, and I will add it to the section in question.
>
> Consequently Mr Spear, I would ask you EITHER to insert the annotation above
> , ie that " Paul Seaton has clearly stated, on his website, for about the
> last ten years, in plain English, that this diagram that I , Pat Spear,
> have so egregiously stolen & misrepresented without so much as bothering to
> inform him , does not use JFK's own xray. It is, was & always will be
> merely a guide merely to where one might expect to find T1 'on average'.)"
> AND ALSO to include a statement to the effect that you apologise for
> accusing ME of 'misrepresenting' evidence ( when in fact it was YOU who was
> misrepresenting what was clearly stated on my website) OR
> REMOVE THAT IMAGE FROM YOUR WEBSITE PRONTO.
So I take it you agree that your image was inaccurate and deceptive. If
not, why should I remove it when it helps disseminate the gospel truth
that the bullet descended in Kennedy's neck?
>
> I have spent many a happy hour here arguing with people of all shades of
> opinion. I may disagree with their views but in just about all cases come
> away not doubting their sincerity or good faith.
>
> Just about all cases, Mr Spear.
>
> paul s
Sorry, Paul, for ruining your day.
>
> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:856d9928-d146-4a44...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> John, it's all explained on my website. It's free.
>
> Ironically, between the two of us, I'm the far bigger defender of
> Humes. He was probably right when he saw cerebellum...leaking from the
> small hole by the EOP. Yeah, that's right, the hole with the
> transversal laceration and tunnel, tangential to the scalp, and
> heading right to left on the back of the head. THAT hole is
> undoubtedly the hole I see on F8, and not the cowlick entrance on the
> boh photo. If not, what IS that hole on F8?
>
> As far as your interpretation of F8, part 4 of my video series
> comprises a number of tests/proofs which indicate the photo is of the
> back of Kennedy's head. Neither you nor any other person of the belief
> F8 is of the forehead have countered any of these arguments. The
> drainage hole argument in particular needs to be countered before
> anyone should seriously consider that F8 shows the forehead.
>
> What you need to do is:
>
> 1. Place a round object on a table.
> 2. Photograph a model skull on the table with the round shape in the
> background, at such an angle that the round shape matches the location
> and shape of the drainage hole in F8.
> 3. See if the angle of the forehead to the camera makes any sense
> whatsoever.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/thelightfromabove.jpghttp://www.patspeer.com/Ifatfirst2.jpg
>
> As far as why Stringer would have been there til 3:00 if he wasn't
> taking pictures... Uhhh, I don't know. But it seems quite likely
> considering this was the most important photo shoot of his life that
> he'd hang around till the end, just in case he was needed. He took
> photos at the beginning. He took photos when they rolled the body over
> and inspected the wounds. He took photos when they opened up the
> skull. And he (supposedly) took photos after they performed the Y
> incision and opened up the chest. It seems likely from this that he
> was told to stick around in case they found the missing bullet in the
> body, or some such thing... If I'd been in charge, I'd certainly have
> kept him around.
>
> Now, seriously, John. Doesn't it make a lot more sense that a pocket
> of witnesses, feeding off and reinforcing each other's memories,
> recalled the exact wound location incorrectly, and were off by two
> inches or so, than that they somehow DID NOT see the large defect on
> top of the head, and only saw the small entrance wound on the back of
> the head? Because that's what you're claiming, right/ That the
> Parkland doctors saw the entrance but not the exit? Even though Dr.
> Clark said the large wound he saw was missing both scalp and bone, and
> that is how the autopsy doctors described the large defect on top of
> the head?
>
> And then of course there's this..
>
>
> What are the odds of there being a dark round shape on the boh photos
> exactly where the autopsy doctors said there was a bullet entrance,
> and that this round shape would directly overlay a transversal tunnel
> on the back of the head on F8 when properly interpreted, if it doesn't
> represent the bullet entrance described at autopsy, and confirmed by
> the doctors in the 1966 inventory of the photos?
>
> Or do you think it was a coincidence the HSCA FPP lightened this shape
> in their drawings, and cut this shape off the close-up of the area
> near the EOP shown the autopsy doctors?
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpghttp://www.patspeer.com/hscafig15.jpg
>
> On Jan 24, 7:53 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <29c5b571-0785-436c-8130-829390c82...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>
> > <TOP POST>
>
> > Pat, I won't debate with you,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 26, 8:13=A0pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>wrote:
>> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>
>> news:856d9928-d146-4a44...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>Ridiculous. I have a whole clearly labeled chapter on F8--which I mostly
>call the Mystery Photo, which includes multiple slides demonstrating
>beyond any reasonable doubt the photo was taken from behind...EXACTLY as
>claimed by the autopsy doctors in their 1966 inventory. I also have a
>video series on my website and on youtube. Feel free to get educated.
>
>> And now we come to the other issue. Something which kind of took me aback
>> when I discovered it.
>>
>> I also found on Pat Speare's website , much to my surprise, a jpg which I
>> myself created , about 10 years ago =A0- involving some vertebrae, - that Mr
>> Speare seems to have lifted wholesale from my website. ( Can't say I recall
>> him ever stooping to TELL ME he had done so. =A0)
>
>My website is designed to be an educational website. It is free to the
>public. All images posted on the internet are fair game, as far as I'm
>concerned, as long as I'm not charging for them.
No true. If Paul did the image, he owns the copyright.
>This allows me to screen
>capture images that are clearly deceptive, e.g. McAdams' Artwohl exhibit,
>and demonstrate their deception, without concern that someone will hide
>behind copyright law to conceal their deception.
I had Artwohl's permission to put the image on my site. I doubt,
however, that he cares one way or the other that you used it.
>In your case, I "stole"
>your image to contrast it with Zimmerman's image, to show how LNs--who
>many neutral people incorrectly assume to be mere defenders of the Warren
>Commission, are really LNTs, people with their own pet theories, who are
>no more consistent than CTs. A quick look at any anatomy book would show
>you your image is wrong, and yet you never took the time to fix it. Why
>not? Because it helps sell the single- bullet theory to those not witting
>of your deception? If not, I apologize for assuming as much.
>
It doesn't matter that you don't like it. It's still copyrighted.
>>
>> Here's the image :http://www.patspeer.com/wrestling.jpg/wrestling-full.jpg
>> Here's the page it's on :http://www.patspeer.com/chapter19:wrestlingoverhistory
>>
>> Spear pontificates :
>> "By lifting T1 to C7 & C7 to C6 Seaton has misrepresented the level of the
>> back wound in comparison to the throat wound"
>> ...making me sound for all the world as if I were part of some global back
>> wound misplacement conspiracy.
>>
>> Spear conveniently leaves out the annotation I put next to the damn picture
>> where it appears on my website that :
>> "This diagram - at right - does not use JFK's own xray. I don't know of one
>> that shows the vertebrae. So this is a guide merely to where one might
>> expect to find T1 'on average'.)"
>> Here's the page :http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/kennedy_graphics2.htm
>
>It is a fact well documented on my website that those believing Oswald
>fired the shots seem to think this belief allows them to move the back
>wound as high as they'd like to make the trajectories work. If you don't
>consider yourself one of those, then please tell me at what point on the
>spine you believe the bullet entered Kennedy's back, whether or not you
>believe the bullet descended in his body, and at what point on the spine
>it exited. McAdams wouldn't tell me. Will you?
>
You *really* have a hard time getting this through your head: it
exited where the photo shows it exited.
If you want something more anatomical: it exited at the third or
fourth trachial ring.
But none of this cancels Paul Seaton's copyright on the image.
>>
>> I really can't say I have any respect for any individual who uses a graphic
>> of mine *without informing me or asking permission* , leaves off the
>> annotation which explains quite clearly it's just a ball park estimate , &
>> proceeds to spin me as 'misprepresenting' evidence.
>
>My website includes many nasty reprimands. Put together a two or three
>line statement on what a jerk I am, and how you never pretended your image
>was accurate, and I will add it to the section in question.
>
I doubt Paul wants to say you are a jerk on your site, would would
like his own description property quoted.
But it's his call. You have the responsibility to be nice to him, and
persuade him to let you use his image.
He is under no obligation to persuage you.
>>
>> Consequently Mr Spear, I would ask you EITHER to insert the annotation above
>> , ie that " Paul Seaton has clearly stated, on his website, for about the
>> last ten years, in plain English, =A0that this diagram that I , Pat Spear,
>> have so egregiously stolen & misrepresented without so much as bothering to
>> inform him , =A0does not use JFK's own xray. =A0It is, was & always will be
>> merely a guide merely to where one might expect to find T1 'on average'.)"
>> AND ALSO to include a statement to the effect that you apologise for
>> accusing ME of 'misrepresenting' evidence ( when in fact it was YOU who was
>> misrepresenting what was clearly stated on my website) OR
>> REMOVE THAT IMAGE FROM YOUR WEBSITE PRONTO.
>
>So I take it you agree that your image was inaccurate and deceptive. If
>not, why should I remove it when it helps disseminate the gospel truth
>that the bullet descended in Kennedy's neck?
>
It doesn't *matter* whether you think the image was "deceptive."
I think the movie "JFK" is deceptive. That doesn't give me the right
to post the whole thing as streaming video on my site.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
1. Did you receive permission to use all the images and films that are
featured on your website?
2. At what level on the spine should one expect to find the third or
fourth tracheal ring?
My predictions:
1. Of course not. You have numerous images from conspiracy books on
your website, which you use to "debunk" them. You didn't receive
permission to use any of them.
2. Since you know there is no way a bullet descending from T-1 will
exit at the level of the spine associated with the third and fourth
tracheal ring, you will refuse to answer, thereby preserving the myth
of your expertise.
On Jan 28, 9:45 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2010 12:29:49 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
Anthony Marsh
No, Lifton is talking about the Humes comment upon SEEING the head
before any work was begun. It LOOKED to him as if there had been surgery
to the top of the head. It wasn't until I saw the autopsy photos for
myself, especially Groden's and read the comments from the nurse that I
realized why Humes thought that. He saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound by the nurse and assumed that they were left over from
surgery.
Anthony Marsh
>> enough) Mantik's drawing of the forehead outline from the AP x-ray all look
>> remarkably similar. All are consistent with F8 being a frontal view.
>> 3) The assumption that F8 is indeed 'frontal' leads to an immediate
>> identification of the right front flap in F8. It is right where it should
>> be.
>
> Mantik, who has viewed the autopsy materials more than any other doctor,
> has long insisted F8 was taken from behind Kennedy, and shows the back of
> his head.
>
>> 4) The assumption gels with the scalp being reflected down across the eyes,
>> as we know it was.
>
> We know no such thing. In most cases, the scalp is reflected over the
> eyes, but it is also reflected back. No scalp is reflected back in F8.
Of course it is reflected back. You can't see it because it is behind the
skull and our view is from the front. But if it wasn't reflected they
could not have removed the brain and the brain is clearly missing.
> Since the right side of Kennedy's head was shattered, and the left side
> intact, the brain could be removed without the normal procedure of
The left side was NOT intact.
> removing the skull cap. Jenkins and O'Connor, the autopsy assistants
> normally tasked with removing the brain, both told Livingstone the scalp
> was reflected to the left.
>
Nonsense. That's not how the brain is removed.
> http://www.patspeer.com/reflections.jpg
>
> I have seen many a weird 'interpretation' of F8 with the
>> scalp reflected sideways. It just didn't happen like that.
>
> Wrong.
>
So, does that mean you are a Liftonite?
>> 5) Many another interpretation ( see Brian Kelleher for eg) leads to the
>> surprising conclusion that JFK had no neck. I see no evidence to support
>> this POV. There are lot's of photos of JFK, sufficient to show he
>> definitely had a neck.
>
> Non-sequitur. One of the reasons people like me feel sure the photo
> was taken from behind is the presence of neck lines on the photo.
>
More nonsense.
>> 6) My own attempts to reconstruct F8 using 3D anatomical software. This was
>> a project undergone simultaneously with a similar project by Larry
>> Sturdivan - Larry used real skulls,& one by John Canal, using (i recall)
>> a 'medical' ( artificial ) skull. In my case, the only orientation that
>> came anything close to reproducing F8 was one that came *very* close to
>> replicating F8. If I am forced to I will try to dig out some of the
>> graphics. The foreground bone was, surprise surprse, frontal. The most
>> remarkable conclusion , to me, however, ( and I speak as someone who DOES
>> NOT BELIEVE THE ENTRY WAS AT THE EOP ) was that the apparent 'notch'
>> tentatively id'd by Humes in those photos as being 'the entry' WAS INDEED
>> just about exactly 1" to the right& slightly above the EOP. Consequently I
>> "By lifting T1 to C7& C7 to C6 Seaton has misrepresented the level of the
>> have so egregiously stolen& misrepresented without so much as bothering to
>> inform him , does not use JFK's own xray. It is, was& always will be
>> read more ?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <07969763-237d-493e...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
>> you see the errors in your theory.
>
> Btw, I should have said this in my earlier response, but to describe Paul
> Seaton, of all people, as "smart" is definitely an understatement. The
> man is simply brilliant, and I hardly say that merely because he leans
> more or less the direction I do, towards a single shooter. Instead it is
I don't dislike Paul Seaton as much as I worry about him. I would be
happier if he could make up his mind and clearly stay a staunch WC
defender, believing every lie in the WC. But he keeps drifting
uncomfortably towards conspiracy. Yes, he is honest enough to point out
the errors in both the WC and the HSCA. But when he starts getting close
to saying that some evidence is fake I get nervous. It's a slippery slope
as I have warned many people and they ignore to their peril. Just because
the evidence is not good or has been misused so not mean it is fake.
> because he has made some of the most perceptive and lucid comments I have
I have often pointed out where I agree with him on some matters. I am
particularly intrigued by how his understanding of the medical evidence
has changed.
> ever seen here. as have Barb J. (who is most definitely a CT) and Herbert
Yes Barb is a conspiracy believer. But in her old age she wants to be
known as a "respectable" conspiracy believer who gets along quite well
with the cover-up artists and loves to bash other conspiracy believers. If
she spent half the time pointing out the lies of the WC defenders as she
does debunking the kooky conspiracy notions she might actually get
somewhere. Witness the otherwise excellent article about the limousine she
co-authored with Thompson et al. Not satisfied with stealing my research
on the limo, she pretended not to know about. And then proceeded to steal
my files without even asking or offering to let me help with their
article. When Tink proclaimed that they published the FBI limo exam
documents for the first time anywhere, it would have taken Barb 2 seconds
to correct him and point out my articles. But no, she did not. In fact,
she went out of her way to pretend that she could find any of my files on
my Web site, even though I have linked to them every month over the past
10 years. She can't figure out how to use Google Groups and search for
Best Witness under my name as author. And when I suggested some civility
when dealing with Judyth, she'd have none of it. Instead she pretended
that I believed everything that Judyth said and was a Judyth defender,
even when I used the term Munchausen.
> Blenner (who is also a CT, I think :P), and James O. (the precise spelling
Herbert is indeed a lone nutter, but he doesn't want to be called a WC
defender because he believes they lied and made a lot of mistakes. But he
agrees with their basic conclusions. He just thinks that he is smarter
than everyone else in the room so he can say whatever he wants.
> of his last name I am ashamed to not recall at this moment, who is also a
> clear CT).
>
Olmstead is almost the personification of a certain type of WC defender I
have described before. Retired intelligence officer who believes Oswald
did all by himself, but secretly believes that Castro ordered it. Just
like McAdams and couple of the other right-wingers who automatically blame
everything from gravity to solar eclipses on those dirty Communists.
> Hmmm, I've named more CTs (I think) than LNs for the posters here I most
> respect.
>
Only if they are respectable, which means compromised by the cover-up,
like Gary Mack.
Anthony Marsh
> Two questions, John:
>
> 1. Did you receive permission to use all the images and films that are
> featured on your website?
I seriously doubt it. He may use photos that he found somewhere else and
not realize where they came from.
> 2. At what level on the spine should one expect to find the third or
> fourth tracheal ring?
>
Not on the spine. They are on the throat. The throat is in the front.
The spine is in the back.
> My predictions:
>
> 1. Of course not. You have numerous images from conspiracy books on
> your website, which you use to "debunk" them. You didn't receive
> permission to use any of them.
Nor does he need to. It's called fair use, to criticize.
>>>> "By lifting T1 to C7& C7 to C6 Seaton has misrepresented the level of the
>>>> have so egregiously stolen& misrepresented without so much as bothering to
>>>> inform him , =A0does not use JFK's own xray. =A0It is, was& always will be
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 1/28/2010 5:51 PM, pjspe...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > Two questions, John:
>
> > 1. Did you receive permission to use all the images and films that are
> > featured on your website?
>
> I seriously doubt it. He may use photos that he found somewhere else and
> not realize where they came from.
>
> > 2. At what level on the spine should one expect to find the third or
> > fourth tracheal ring?
>
> Not on the spine. They are on the throat. The throat is in the front.
> The spine is in the back.
>
> > My predictions:
>
> > 1. Of course not. You have numerous images from conspiracy books on
> > your website, which you use to "debunk" them. You didn't receive
> > permission to use any of them.
>
> Nor does he need to. It's called fair use, to criticize.
Which was my point, Tony. Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading
image he'd created with an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't
even present a consistent argument... and didn't ask permission for use of
his image.
Caeruleo
<46aff8f4-fece-40b4...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 1:26�pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <07969763-237d-493e-a15c-8638b7822...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �"pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> > > WRONG. I think you're smart, which is why I continue trying to help
> > > you see the errors in your theory. Do you REALLY believe it's more
> > > likely for the Parkland witnesses to fail to notice a large gaping
> > > hole on the top of Kennedy's head, than for them to be mistaken about
> > > its exact location, and think the large gaping hole they saw was a bit
> > > closer to the back of the head?
> >
> > Actually, yes. �One can clearly see in the Z-film large open flaps of
> > scalp forward of JFK's right ear following the head shot. �These flaps
> > were obviously closed by the time he was brought into Parkland, most
> > likely by Jackie. �The doctors at Parkland did not probe inside his head
> > since they were not doing an autopsy of a body, but trying to save a
> > living person's life. �Naturally the mass of scalp and thick hair would
> > to some extent obscure the large hole in his skull. �But you might wish
> > to read the Parkland testimony more carefully; there was indeed some
> > degree of acknowledgement that one hemisphere of the head was
> > extensively damaged from front to back, or "stem to stern," as Dr.
> > Giesecke put it. �Most of them were merely seeing the most rearward
> > portion of the large hole.
>
> Clark described a large wound missing scalp and bone.
Yes.
> The autopsy doctors
> described a large wound missing scalp and bone--the large defect on top of
> the head.
No. Read what the autopsy doctors said more carefully. They didn't
just say the "top" of the head. They said the wounding extended back
into the same area that Clark described. They also stated that the
damage to the skull extended forward to the right eyebrow. Neither is
that the "top" of the head.
> Are you really trying to pretend Clark saw a DIFFERENT large
> wound missing scalp and bone, only on the back of the head?
I am not "pretending" any such thing, and you obviously have not read
what I wrote very carefully at all. I am saying that the persons at the
autopsy saw the SAME wounding that Clark saw, but ALSO saw the more
FORWARD extent of the wounding that Clark DIDN'T see, because at
Parkland too much hair and scalp were covering it.
> Because the
> autopsy doctors saw no such wound on the back of the head...
Yes they did. Read what they said more carefully. They just didn't
emphasize that merely because there was MORE damage to the skull forward
of that.
> As far as
> Giesecke, he was the only one to describe a large hole,
Not exactly:
**********
Dr. BASHOUR - The President was lying on the stretcher, the head wound
was massive, the blood was dripping from the head, and at that time the
President had an endotracheal tube, and his pupils were dilated, his
eyes were staring, and they were not reactive, there was no pulsations,
his heart sounds were not present, and his extremities were cold.
**********
Admittedly he didn't say where on the head the wound was, but he did use
the word "massive." You used the word "large" above. I would opine
that "large" and "massive" are fairly synonymous. Then there's Nurse
Bowron:
**********
Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect
to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large
hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
**********
Now she indeed said it was in the back of his head, sure, but she said
it was a "large" hole, her exact word. But you said Giesecke was the
only one to describe a "large" hole (your exact word). We're already up
to two others. Let's see if I can find a third. Oh yeah, without
searching for longer than 60 seconds:
**********
Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he
was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous
movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt
and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third
of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the
President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and
then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large skull and scalp
wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more
closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and
the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue.
The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and
fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate
respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube
was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope
there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below
the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube
was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was
connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about
this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained.
**********
"The ***LARGE*** [my present emphasis] skull and scalp wound had been
previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There
seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was
fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue."
He used precisely the same word you did when you said no one else but
Giesecke described a "large" wound to the head.
Bashour, Bowman, and Carrico also say either "massive" or "large." And
that gets me only to the letter C. Twenty-six more witnesses to go,
just including WC testimony.
I guess you must have meant to say that Giesecke was the only one at
Parkland to describe damage to the head forward of the middle of the
head. But I've already given you a perfectly plausible explanation for
that, which I shall repeat yet again. At Parkland, no one was about to
peel back his hair and scalp to examine his skull while he was still
technically alive, and after he was pronounced dead, they ceased to work
on him, or examine him. The examination of his skull did not occur for
the first time until the autopsy, for obvious reasons. Only at an
autopsy would the full extent of the skull damage be discovered.
> and there is no
> record of him doing so prior to his testimony months later.
So? The vast majority of the Parkland witnesses did not give extensive
statements until they testified for the WC months later. In fact, for
practically all 552 witnesses called before the WC, their testimonies to
that commission are by far the most detailed and lengthy statements
which are ever recorded for them as having made regarding any aspect of
the assassination or related matters. And this was all still within the
first year after the assassination, when memories were still arguably
fresh. Naturally Giesecke might have been recorded for the first time
on 3-25-64 as saying the head was damaged from front to back, since
never before that had he been given the opportunity or had been recorded
as being able to expound at such length about what he saw. And btw, I
got the quote wrong; this is what he said:
"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline
to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was
entirely missing."
He seems to have confused "left" for "right," but otherwise he was quite
correct: much of the cranium was indeed missing from the browline to the
occiput.
> And he said
> then that he thought it was the left side of the head.
I know; I posted about his left/right confusion way back in 2002.
Rather obviously an innocuous example of "your other left." People do
that every day. I'm curious as to why which side of JFK's head he
claimed it to be is nearly as relevant to this discussion as the full
extent of the skull damage.
> And besides, his
> description of a wound on the front of the head, if taken seriously,
> destroys the fantasy the wound on the front of the head played peek-a-boo
> and was not seen in Dallas.
Read what he said more carefully. He said "it seemed that." He didn't
give his reason(s) why it "seemed" that way. He didn't say that he saw
the opening in the cranium himself. Perhaps he was the only one who
noticed the subtlety of the depression in JFK's skin above his eyebrow?
> Or are you proposing that Giesecke, who only
> saw the wound for a second, and did not study it like Clark, was more
> accurate than those actually attending Kennedy, and inspecting his wounds?
He seemed to have been more accurate as to the overall damage to the
skull, but that may have been to some extent an accident. Nevertheless,
none of this undermines in the slightest my essential argument, which
is, once again:
The Parkland witnesses would of course have seen only some of the damage
to the skull, since they weren't about to peel back the hair and scalp
of a technically living person whose life they were bound by duty to
save to examine the complete damage to the skull. At the autopsy they
were dealing with a dead body, an entirely different circumstance, in
which they were free to peel back the hair and scalp to see every last
bit of the damage to the skull. At Parkland, almost all of them noticed
only the most rearward damage to the skull, since that's where JFK's
hair was much thinner. At the autopsy there was no such interference:
they saw the same damage to the skull that the people at Parkland saw,
and also saw the more forward damage to the skull that the people at
Parkland didn't see.
> > > Because I think they were far too
> > > competent to overlook such a wound, and to instead see the small wound
> > > on the back of the head, presumably undiscovered before the autopsy,
> > > and then describe it as a large gaping wound.
> >
> > That's also a bit misleading. �Careful reading of the autopsy report and
> > of the statements of all autopsy witnesses reveals that there was
> > acknowledgement of the same rearward portion of the hole in his skull
> > that was seen at Parkland, plus the descriptions of the majority of the
> > hole being forward of that. �At the autopsy they were at liberty to
> > examine the whole head carefully, which they were not at Parkland. �At
> > Parkland, for example, they wouldn't dare pull back the scalp to see
> > more of the hole, for the obvious reason that such a thing wasn't their
> > function, as stated above. �At Parkland it was a futile lifesaving
> > attempt, not an autopsy. �Naturally they'd see less of the overall
> > damage.
>
> Wait, you seem to be making the same mistake as Lifton,
Feh. Equating me and Lifton in almost any sense, especially about any
medical evidence from the autopsy, is laughable.
> and confusing
> statements made about the skull after the scalp was pulled back and skull
> fell to the table with statements about he state of the head when first
> viewed.
No. I am "confusing" nothing of the sort. You are confusing what I'm
actually saying.
> Clark said the large defect he saw was missing scalp and bone.
Which it would appear to be at Parkland, exactly. You're agreeing with
me, whether you realize it or not.
> The
> x-rays demonstrate that no bone was missing from the back of the head at
> the beginning of the autopsy in Bethesda.
Missing can = detached, depending on what the viewing circumstances
were. Paul Seaton, a regular poster to this newsgroup, has been
explaining this quite plausibly for years. One portion of the upper
right posterior of the skull was severely cracked, so that it could fall
away as a hinge when he was laying on his back at Parkland, still only
barely attached, thus presenting a large opening. This crack in the
skull is clearly seen in the lateral x-ray.
> Not only was virtually no scalp
> missing
"Missing" can also = "detached" or "open."
> on the back of the head at this time, the autopsy protocol
> describes the scalp lacerations, and NONE of them were on the back of the
> head.
Oh dear, do read what the autopsy witnesses said more carefully.
> So the bone flap peek-a-boo proposed by far too many CTs is either
> nonsense,
CTers? Hrmm, both Paul and I propose it, and both of us believe the
head shot was fired from the TSBD.
> or the autopsy doctors lied. You can't have it both ways..
I'm not. I'm saying that both the Parkland witnesses and the autopsy
witnesses were primarily telling the truth.
> > The Parkland statements and the autopsy statements are not nearly as
> > inconsistent as they are often made out to be. �The people at Parkland
> > merely saw only part of the damage, whereas the people at the autopsy
> > saw all of it.
>
> Yes, you are correct...but they can only be considered consistent if you
> accept that the Parkland witnesses were off by a few inches in their
> approximation of the head wound location.
They weren't off by even a few millimeters as far as the *location*,
they were off on the *size*. At Parkland they saw only part of the
damage to the skull. At the autopsy they saw all of it, including the
same part seen at Parkland.
> Otherwise, they are miles apart.
No, they are not.
Caeruleo
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Missing can = detached, depending on what the viewing circumstances
> were. Paul Seaton, a regular poster to this newsgroup, has been
> explaining this quite plausibly for years. One portion of the upper
> right posterior of the skull was severely cracked, so that it could fall
> away as a hinge when he was laying on his back at Parkland, still only
> barely attached, thus presenting a large opening. This crack in the
> skull is clearly seen in the lateral x-ray.
Oh dear, Paul is hardly the only person who has posted here to this
effect. Barb, a CT, says the same thing. From her article in another
thread posted yesterday:
"Mantik wrote about it in Murder in Dealey Plaza .... about how on the
frontal xray, this flap (he calls it the McClelland flap) is closed so one
can't see that there is a big hole back there like seen at Parkland ...
when that bone flap was open. He referred to it as a flap that was hinged
so could be either open or closed."
pjsp...@aol.com
What you apparently fail to understand is that there was no hair and scalp
covering the wound on top of Kennedy's head that could hide the wound on
the skull from the Parkland doctors. This gaping hole is readily visible
in the autopsy photos, and x-rays. So the "Parkland doctors failed to see
the wound because the skull and scalp flaps covered it up" theory just
doesn't fly. As the autopsy doctors claimed the back of the head was
intact, and the autopsy photos and x-rays show it to be intact, moreover,
the "autopsy doctors saw the same wound on the back of the head as the
Parkland doctors" theory is also so much nonsense. Or are you trying to
tell us the color back of the head photo shows a large wound missing scalp
and bone on the back of the head, as described by Clark?
What so many fail to appreciate is that skull fell to the table as Humes
peeled back the scalp. This means the size of the wound as measured was
far larger than the size of the wound as it originally appeared at
Bethesda, and would have appeared at Parkland. Thus, the wound described
by Humes in the autopsy protocol, which stretched to the occipital region,
includes a large area covered by scalp and shattered bone on the autopsy
photos and x-rays.
John Canal
Or are you trying to
>tell us the color back of the head photo shows a large wound missing scalp
>and bone on the back of the head, as described by Clark?
Please tell us where you see the time stamp on the BOH photos. Do you see
where I'm going with that question? If the photos showing an intact BOH
scalp were taken when the body was first received, then what you asked
above would be a legitimate question....but, you have no clue when those
photos were taken so your question makes no sense whatsoever.
Stringer left around 3:15 AM and presumably he was taking pictures late as
McHugh and others stated. Look at the inventory of photographs and you
tell us which ones could possibly have been taken late. Logically,
Stringer took all the photos showing a partially repaired (by the
morticians beginning around 11:30 to midnight) scalp.
How many times do I have to remind you, in futile attempts to even slow
down a little the amount of disinformation you seem to have a propensity
to spew out, that Humes testified (it actually amounted to an admission)
in March, 64 that they saw part of the cerebellum when the body was first
received??????????.......and had they taken any photos of the BOH when the
body was first received we would undoubtedly have seen a BOH opening
through which Humes and other witnesses saw cerebellum......least we
forget, there were 11 total eyewitnesses who stated they saw
cerebellum......juuuuust a little hard to do if there had been no BOH
wound, eh?
Below you admitted the BOH skull was FRAGMENTED.......so don't you think
it's a ### TINY ### leap from there to the conclusion that there were gaps
between one or two of those BOH fragments (and a scalp tear caused by a
sharp edge of one of those fragments) ........resulting in a BOH would
that so many eyewitnesses described....,,,,,compared to the incredibly, if
not unimaginably, huge leap to the conclusion that all those Parkland and
Bethesda BOH wound eyewitnesses, that included Secret Service and FBI
Agants, neurosurgeons, and the autopsists, were lying, hallucinating, or
mistaken about what they said they saw?????
BTW, Boswell finally testified (ARRB) that the occipital scalp was torn.
Unbelievable! But a never-to-be-detered-by-the-facts Pat Speer keeps
trumpeting the same old B/S.
John Canal
>What so many fail to appreciate is that skull fell to the table as Humes
>peeled back the scalp. This means the size of the wound as measured was
>far larger than the size of the wound as it originally appeared at
>Bethesda, and would have appeared at Parkland. Thus, the wound described
>by Humes in the autopsy protocol, which stretched to the occipital region,
>includes a large area covered by scalp and shattered bone on the autopsy
>photos and x-rays.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
pjsp...@aol.com
Wow, you and Doug Horne should get together. Even if Boswell did say there
was a scalp laceration on the back of the head--which I don't recall (I
thought he said he thought the purported cowlick entry, at the top of the
head, may have been part of such a laceration, but don't recall him saying
anything about a large laceration in the occiput), we have no reason to
believe him. Both you and Horne seem to think the inconsistent and
confused recollections of 70 year olds like Boswell should trump not only
their earlier recollections and reports, but the recollections of their
colleagues, who were standing right beside them. There was NO large scalp
laceration on the back of the head. Read the autopsy report you so admire.
Your cherry-picking of Boswell is particularly strange in that he was
adamant the near EOP entry was a separate wound. He never implied there
was one giant wound playing peek-a-boo a la all too many CTs, or that
there was a separate wound playing peek-a-boo. Which suggests you think
the Parkland witnesses failed to see the large exit on top of the
head--which, as noted in the autopsy report, was only a large gaping wound
missing scalp and bone. So...you've succeeded in confusing me. In your
theory, WHICH wound did the Parkland doctors fail to note--the small wound
of entrance supposedly found at the autopsy, or the large gaping wound on
top of the head?
As if you aren't aware, the "Stringer stayed late and took back of the
head photos at the end of the autopsy" argument is pure fantasy. He never
said as much. The autopsists never said as much. It makes no sense
whatsoever, given that photos are taken to depict the condition of the
body upon arrival, and wound locations, and that photos are not normally
taken of the body during reconstruction, as it would serve no purpose. The
doctors claimed the photo showed the small bullet entrance on the back of
the head when inventorying their photos. It shows just that. WHY would
they wait till the end of the autopsy to take such a picture?
Or, I forget, are Humes and Boswell, and even Stringer, now part of some
vast conspiracy to hide the entrance wound on the back of the head? I
mean, you do think it was an entrance wound on the back of the head,
right?
Really, now, you're sounding more like a CT every day. In pointing out
your nonsense, I feel like I'm doing David Von Pein's job. Ha.
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>n,
>> >includes a large area covered by scalp and shattered bone on the autopsy
>> >photos and x-rays.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>Wow, you and Doug Horne should get together. Even if Boswell did say there
>was a scalp laceration on the back of the head--which I don't recall
Of course you don't recall...because your too busy adding more B/S to your
website to thorouhly research the medical evidence that conflicts with your
silly theories, e.g. the bullet entered the BOH, brole through the floor of the
skull and exited the throat. Good gravy, are there really posters here that read
that stuff? Even Horne or Lifton don't make up theories that ridiculous.
>(I
>thought he said he thought the purported cowlick entry, at the top of the
>head, may have been part of such a laceration, but don't recall him saying
>anything about a large laceration in the occiput), we have no reason to
>believe him.
Other than the fact (that you ignore) that Humes testified they saw
cerebellum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Both you and Horne seem to think the inconsistent and
>confused recollections of 70 year olds like Boswell should trump not only
>their earlier recollections and reports, but the recollections of their
>colleagues, who were standing right beside them. There was NO large scalp
>laceration on the back of the head. Read the autopsy report you so admire.
Did it ever occur to you that they may have been under pressure (Burkley?) to
understate the fact that there was a BOH wound? No, of course not...impossible,
right? That's why there were no pictures taken of the BOH when the body was
first received...or do you think those photos were taken when the body was first
received? Please tell me you know better than that.
No, you like the possibility literally dozens of credible eyewitnesses,
including Secret Service and FBI Agents, neurosurgeons, and the autopsists, were
wrong about seeing a BOH wound.
>Your cherry-picking of Boswell is particularly strange in that he was
>adamant the near EOP entry was a separate wound. He never implied there
>was one giant wound playing peek-a-boo a la all too many CTs, or that
>there was a separate wound playing peek-a-boo.
Gee, I thought he signed off on the autopsy report that said the large wound
extended into the ocipital? You ought to try reading that document.
>Which suggests you think
>the Parkland witnesses failed to see the large exit on top of the
>head
Your ability to figure out what I'm saying is lacking. Several PH docs said the
wound was occipital-parietal.
>which, as noted in the autopsy report, was only a large gaping wound
>missing scalp and bone. So...you've succeeded in confusing me.
And that is supposed to be difficult?
>In your
>theory, WHICH wound did the Parkland doctors fail to note--the small wound
>of entrance supposedly found at the autopsy, or the large gaping wound on
>top of the head?
READ ABOVE!!!!
>As if you aren't aware, the "Stringer stayed late and took back of the
>head photos at the end of the autopsy" argument is pure fantasy.
Bt your BOH shot that exited the throat is solid reasoning, right? God help us
all.
>He never
>said as much.
So what was he doing there until 3:15 AM or so, playing ping-pong in the break
room? Do you think witnesses like McHugh were lying when they said pictures were
being taken throughout the procedure?
And I see you evaded another question. If Stringer wasn't playing ping-pong and
was doing his job that late, which are the only photos in the inventory that he
could have taken late? You won't answer that so I will for you: all the photos
showing an intact BOH scalp.
>The autopsists never said as much.
Read the record...they didn't say in the autopsy report that they saw cerebellum
either...but later Humes did. Do you think he was lying?
>It makes no sense
>whatsoever, given that photos are taken to depict the condition of the
>body upon arrival, and wound locations, and that photos are not normally
>taken of the body during reconstruction, as it would serve no purpose.
Did it ever occur to you that they wanted to demonstrate the entry wound in a
BOH saclp that was repaired so the entry wound would stand out better? No?...I
understand...is the reasoning too complex for you?
The report said the large wound extended into the occipital...do you see any
signs of that in the BOH photos? Were they lying again?
>The
>doctors claimed the photo showed the small bullet entrance on the back of
>the head when inventorying their photos. It shows just that. WHY would
>they wait till the end of the autopsy to take such a picture?
To better demonstrate the location of the entry wound?....IOW. in photos taken
when the body was first received the small entry wound would have been obscured
by a BOH wound with brain matter exuding out of it. Why doesn't that make sense
to you? It's not rocket science and it's consistent with the notion dozens of
eyewitnesses weren't lying!
Stop with your rhetoric and address the questions.
John Canal
[...]
>Or, I forget, are Humes and Boswell, and even Stringer, now part of some
>vast conspiracy to hide the entrance wound on the back of the head? I
>mean, you do think it was an entrance wound on the back of the head,
>right?
>
>Really, now, you're sounding more like a CT every day. In pointing out
>your nonsense, I feel like I'm doing David Von Pein's job. Ha.
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
paul seaton
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[..]
"Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created with
an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a consistent
argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
This is what gets me about you, Speare.
You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it on
your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* , declaring
that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
Seems to me that by posting that image WITHOUT THE EXPLANATORY CAPTION it
is plainly YOU who is attempting to decieve re my intent in uploading it.
As to 'LNs don't even present a consistent argument' do you really think
Chad & I sat around discussing how we could best counter LN arguments,
went away & unfortunately came up with different diagrams ?
Or has the possibility occurred to your conspiracy addled mind that *I
simply wondered where T1 might be expected to be found * , found an x-ray
of a skull complete with vertebrae, & superimposed it on the post mortem
JFK left profile photo ? Or is that too damn obvious for you ?
I'll give you a couple of day to remove that image & then I will be in
touch with your web host re breach of copyright.
Had you behaved with more respect I really wouldn't bother but the
blatantly underhand way in which you have proceeded leaves me with no
desire to do you any favours.
paul s
pjsp...@aol.com
wrote:
> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> [..]
>
> "Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created with
> an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a consistent
> argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
>
> This is what gets me about you, Speare.
>
> You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
> rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it on
> your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* , declaring
> that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
>
> Seems to me that by posting that image WITHOUT THE EXPLANATORY CAPTION it
> is plainly YOU who is attempting to decieve re my intent in uploading it.
> As to 'LNs don't even present a consistent argument' do you really think
> Chad & I sat around discussing how we could best counter LN arguments,
> went away & unfortunately came up with different diagrams ?
>
> Or has the possibility occurred to your conspiracy addled mind that *I
> simply wondered where T1 might be expected to be found * , found an x-ray
> of a skull complete with vertebrae, & superimposed it on the post mortem
> JFK left profile photo ? Or is that too damn obvious for you ?
So you're saying it's purely a coincidence that you grossly
misrepresented the level of T1 in comparison to the throat wound? And
that you'd have made the same mistake should you not believe in the
single-bullet theory?
>
> I'll give you a couple of day to remove that image & then I will be in
> touch with your web host re breach of copyright.
I removed the offending caption. You are correct in that it was
misleading in that it claimed you lifted T1, when it may very well be
that you actually never took the time to figure out where T1 should
have been, and just placed it where you wanted it to be.
Anthony Marsh
>
> <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> [..]
>
> "Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created
> with an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a
> consistent argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
>
> This is what gets me about you, Speare.
>
> You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
> rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it
> on your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* ,
> declaring that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
I have a technical question for you.
Do you think that T-1 is in the same place on every person?
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b666a0b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 1/31/2010 8:26 PM, paul seaton wrote:
>>
>> <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> [..]
>>
>> "Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created
>> with an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a
>> consistent argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
>>
>> This is what gets me about you, Speare.
>>
>> You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
>> rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it
>> on your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* ,
>> declaring that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
>
> I have a technical question for you.
> Do you think that T-1 is in the same place on every person?
Relative to what ?
paul seaton
>>
>> <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> [..]
>>
>> "Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created
>> with an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a
>> consistent argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
>>
>> This is what gets me about you, Speare.
>>
>> You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
>> rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it
>> on your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* ,
>> declaring that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
>
> I have a technical question for you.
> Do you think that T-1 is in the same place on every person?
here's a nice image ( not just because our lovely model is female ) showing
the location of T1 *as seen from the back* =>
http://www.bioenergyresearch.com/images/vertebre.JPG
here's another showing T1 as above the clavicle :
paul s
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 31, 5:26 pm, "paul seaton"<paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
> wrote:
>> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> [..]
>>
>> "Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created with
>> an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a consistent
>> argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
>>
>> This is what gets me about you, Speare.
>>
>> You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
>> rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it on
>> your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* , declaring
>> that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
>>
>> Seems to me that by posting that image WITHOUT THE EXPLANATORY CAPTION it
>> is plainly YOU who is attempting to decieve re my intent in uploading it.
>> As to 'LNs don't even present a consistent argument' do you really think
>> went away& unfortunately came up with different diagrams ?
>>
>> Or has the possibility occurred to your conspiracy addled mind that *I
>> simply wondered where T1 might be expected to be found * , found an x-ray
>> JFK left profile photo ? Or is that too damn obvious for you ?
>
> So you're saying it's purely a coincidence that you grossly
> misrepresented the level of T1 in comparison to the throat wound? And
> that you'd have made the same mistake should you not believe in the
> single-bullet theory?
>>
>> touch with your web host re breach of copyright.
>
> I removed the offending caption. You are correct in that it was
> misleading in that it claimed you lifted T1, when it may very well be
> that you actually never took the time to figure out where T1 should
> have been, and just placed it where you wanted it to be.
>
Exactly where should T-1 be? Do you think it is exactly in the same
place on every person?
Do you know what the term slopped shoulders means?
pjsp...@aol.com
point? Are you gonna claim Kennedy's throat was much longer and
extended much lower on his body than other people's throats, and
that's why the HSCA thought the bullet rose within the neck??
On Feb 1, 2:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
paul seaton
Spear, I will tell you what I did.
I got hold of the JFK autopsy left profile.
I then searched around for an x-ray showing the neck vertebrae along with
a complete skull, both lateral view. It wasn't easy to find one.
Eventually I succeeded.
I then superimposed the two images, taking care ONLY to get the skull
lined up correctly with JFK's features as best I could.
At that point I noticed that the spine in the x-ray was way out of place
fore& aft. ( yes I am aware that the spine doesn't run down the middle of
the neck ). The x-ray victim obviously had one bad posture.
At that point I could have very easily photoshopped the x-rayed spine into
it's 'proper' position at the back of the neck. Had i done so, the
resulting image would have looked a lot more impressive & I wouldn't have
been leaving myself open to unfounded charges of anatomical idiocy.
I decided NOT to alter the x-ray image AT ALL on the grounds that if I did
I could be accused of manipulating the x-ray to suit some pre-concieved
agenda. So I left the spine where it was, & didn't manipulate the x-ray in
anything but scale.
The only point of the exercise was to enlighten myself as to where ( on
the JFK left profile ) T1 might reasonably be expected to be found.
I made no claims such as 'this is where T1 always is' or 'anyone who says
T1 is not here is a criminal' or 'this finally resolves the T1 question' .
I simply stated that it was a common sense exercise, & assumed that
unbiased parties would take it in the spirit in which it was given.
Then I come along years later & find the image on your website along with
your charming accusation that I was 'misrepresenting' evidence. ( of
course you didn';t bother reproducing my caption to the image because that
in itself would have made your 'misrepresentation' claim patently
ludicrous.)
In fact the only misrepresentation taking place was YOUR blatant &
apparently guilt-free misrepresentation of my intent in uploading that
damn image.
My conclusion was that whatever your objective on the very little of your
website I bothered to read , objectivity & a sense of fairness towards
other people's doubtless pitiful attempts to shed some light on minor
aspects of the JFK assassination was not particularly high on your agenda.
At that point, seeing where you were coming from, I decided that with such
an openly agenda-driven attitude , you were unlikely to have anything to
say that I would be interested in hearing , and resolved henceforth to
have as little to do with you as possible.
On the assumption that you have finally added my complete explanatory note
to the image, I have no objection to you keeping it on your website. Much
good may it do you.
paul s
pjsp...@aol.com
neck could realistically be placed at T2? No? Hmmm...that's weird...
Na. Not at all...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/art/med/skeleton.gif
On Feb 1, 2:31 pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b666a0b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > On 1/31/2010 8:26 PM, paul seaton wrote:
>
> >> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >>news:f21dd7d1-cbb8-4b2f...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> [..]
>
> >> "Seaton got upset because I compared a misleading image he'd created
> >> with an image from Zimmerman to show that LNs don't even present a
> >> consistent argument... and didn't ask permission for use of his image."
>
> >> This is what gets me about you, Speare.
>
> >> You steal an image created by me which is clearly captioned as just a
> >> rough indication of where T1 might be expected to be found, and post it
> >> on your website *without so much as informing me you had done so* ,
> >> declaring that I am trying to 'mislead' people.
>
> > I have a technical question for you.
> > Do you think that T-1 is in the same place on every person?
>
> here's a nice image ( not just because our lovely model is female ) showing
> the location of T1 *as seen from the back* =>
>
> http://www.bioenergyresearch.com/images/vertebre.JPG
>
> here's another showing T1 as above the clavicle :
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Human_skelet...
>
> paul s
Anthony Marsh
Those are drawings. My question was about real people. In fact the
location of T-1 varies from person to person and its position relative to
other parts of the body can be different from position to position. JFK's
shoulders were very high whereas someone else may have slopped shoulders.
Many reference diagrams depict T-1 in different positions relative to the
top of the shoulders. Do you think the location in the Dox diagrams was
accurate or do you think she was intentionally told to fudge it?
> paul s
>
Anthony Marsh
Very good. You may be the first person to figure out the trick in the
trick question. OK, I did not mean relative to the moon. So we can leave
that out. Then you have several choices. Relative to the clavical.
Relative to he shoulder blade. Relative to the mastoid process. Relative
to the top of the shoulders. Take your pick or try all.
Anthony Marsh
> Of course there are slight variations in human beings. What's your
> point? Are you gonna claim Kennedy's throat was much longer and
> extended much lower on his body than other people's throats, and
> that's why the HSCA thought the bullet rose within the neck??
>
I didn't say anything about his throat so don't even bring that up.
The discussion was about where is T-1.