Trying to imagine how a CT thinks.
John Canal
imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
The medical evidence. Humes, Boswell & Finck were either total morons or
part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
evidence...now, what's next?
How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
from the front? Ok, the shooter used explosive bullets. Good, we're on a
roll here...more LN B/S debunked. What's next...this is easy.
They get easier as we go through them and this one especially is a
laugher--most witnesses heard only three shots. And, what's the point
there?......can an LN spell s-i-l-e-n-c-e-r-s?
How about the account LNs keep blabbering about that reasons, just because
LHO was hired at the TSBD in September, and, from the end of October or so
(Jerry Bruno's report to the WH) until roughly two weeks before the
assassination, the MC would have most likely traveled through DP (at a
pretty good clip) on Main Street heading East towards the Woman's Center,
LHO coudn't have been part of a conspiracy...either as a patsy or shooter?
No problem there. The conspiracy had planned to have LHO move wherever he
was needed...as logical as that sounds to us CTs, if that sounds silly to
LNs, there's the back up debunker: the conspiracy had other patsies and/or
shooters waiting along other possible routes. The bottom line is that the
conspirators simply got a litle lucky...so what in most military
operations there's always the eleent of luck. Anyway, hat takes care of
that LN sillyness. This is a real walk in the park.
And so on.
But, after debunking the LN's best shots, let's put them on the run with
absolute proof there was a conspiracy. How about the irrefutable,
inarguable, slam-dunk evidence there was a shot at 285 that's so easily
seen in the Z-film? Good grief, who DOESN'T see the evidence for that?
And, so what if ITEK (and God knows how many others) missed seeing
that....it [the ev. of a 285 shot] practically jumps out at you...ITEK was
obviously p/o the cover-up anyway.
Not that any more proof of a conspiracy is needed, but look at how the
profile of JFK's head/scalp in the cowlick area bunches up AFTER the
312/313 hit....talk about case closed! So what if such a hit doesn't
reconcile with the autopsy or the goofy B/S some LN idiots propose that
the pressure Jackie put on the back of his head with her hand caused the
bunching up there?????.....we've already taken care of the medical
evidence (see above), and, as for Jackie putting pressure on the back of
his head affecting anything,....anyone that's not blind can tell from
pictures she wasn't strong enough to do that. Geesh!
And for those LN nitpickers who ask for evidence that someone besides LHO
was behind the conspiracy, that's a piece of cake too. Cripes, Marcello
admitted it.
And so on.
Something tells me I shouldn't hit the "Post Message" button. Oh shit, I
guess I'd better duck.
Ah, saved...my trusty webtv is due to go on the blink for a few weeks
anyway.
:-)
John Canal
jbarge
> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
them down.
But I'll go along.
> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>
> The medical evidence. Humes, Boswell & Finck were either total morons or
> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
> evidence...now, what's next?
For example they didn't track the alleged path from the bullet through
JFK's neck.
They didn't put together the "exit" wound in the front of the throat
with the entrance wound in the neck (or the back, or the shoulder, or
whereever it was) until the NEXT DAY.
In fact, some have alleged the bullet hit JFK in the middle of the
back between the shoulder blades.
Well, a photo from the autopsy ought to take of that!
So we scroll over to the surviving photos and find one of JFK's back.
Oh wait....they're holding up JFK's body to show the back neck/
shoulder entrance wound....but they're also holding a ruler along his
spine.....neatly blocking the view of where the CT-ers had alleged an
entrance wound....
Well, shoot....that would've taken care of that allegation.
Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
Got that?
Well, surely they tracked the wound by dissecting and sectioning the
brain - that'll take care of any conspiracy allegations.
Whoops.....they didn't do that either.
Again, they botched the autopsy....not the CT-ers.
Blame them.
> How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
> behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
> from the front? Ok, the shooter used explosive bullets. Good, we're on a
> roll here...more LN B/S debunked. What's next...this is easy.
> They get easier as we go through them and this one especially is a
> laugher--most witnesses heard only three shots. And, what's the point
> there?......can an LN spell s-i-l-e-n-c-e-r-s?
> How about the account LNs keep blabbering about that reasons, just because
> LHO was hired at the TSBD in September, and, from the end of October or so
> (Jerry Bruno's report to the WH) until roughly two weeks before the
> assassination, the MC would have most likely traveled through DP (at a
> pretty good clip) on Main Street heading East towards the Woman's Center,
> LHO coudn't have been part of a conspiracy...either as a patsy or shooter?
advance by a rifle shot from an office building) a conspiracy doesn't
have a time table.
It is "on the go" to take advantage of circumstances.
Got that? There's no need to force events.
This is easy - keep 'em coming.
> No problem there. The conspiracy had planned to have LHO move wherever he
> was needed...as logical as that sounds to us CTs, if that sounds silly to
> LNs, there's the back up debunker: the conspiracy had other patsies and/or
> shooters waiting along other possible routes. The bottom line is that the
> conspirators simply got a litle lucky...so what in most military
> operations there's always the eleent of luck. Anyway, hat takes care of
> that LN sillyness. This is a real walk in the park.
cancellation of the motorcade several weeks before Dallas.
You fail to mention the Tampa Bay assassination threat (reported in
the local paper after Dallas).
So those other assassination threats and possible plots are not from
the CT-ers.
Nice try to insinuate that all CT-ers believe wacky theories (surely
some do) but essentially this is a failure.
> And so on.
>
> But, after debunking the LN's best shots, let's put them on the run with
> absolute proof there was a conspiracy. How about the irrefutable,
> inarguable, slam-dunk evidence there was a shot at 285 that's so easily
> seen in the Z-film? Good grief, who DOESN'T see the evidence for that?
> And, so what if ITEK (and God knows how many others) missed seeing
> that....it [the ev. of a 285 shot] practically jumps out at you...ITEK was
> obviously p/o the cover-up anyway.
> Not that any more proof of a conspiracy is needed, but look at how the
> profile of JFK's head/scalp in the cowlick area bunches up AFTER the
> 312/313 hit....talk about case closed! So what if such a hit doesn't
> reconcile with the autopsy or the goofy B/S some LN idiots propose that
> the pressure Jackie put on the back of his head with her hand caused the
> bunching up there?????.....we've already taken care of the medical
> evidence (see above), and, as for Jackie putting pressure on the back of
> his head affecting anything,....anyone that's not blind can tell from
> pictures she wasn't strong enough to do that. Geesh!
> And for those LN nitpickers who ask for evidence that someone besides LHO
> was behind the conspiracy, that's a piece of cake too. Cripes, Marcello
> admitted it.
Let's ignore wealthy, ruthless, motivated mob bosses - they're really
tomato salesmen.
And the fact that Carlos Marcello's gang knew Oswald, knew his family,
employed his uncle, had many connections with Jack Ruby, that means
he's innocent!
> And so on.
Amen.
Spiffy_one
Isn't speculation a wonderful thing? It allows one to escape reality.
Anthony Marsh
> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
>
> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>
> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
> evidence...now, what's next?
>
Incorrect assumptions. It is not a case of either/or. It is a case of
BOTH/AND. They were BOTH morons AND also part of a government cover-up.
Morons are usually put in charge of cover-ups.
> How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
> behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
> from the front? Ok, the shooter used explosive bullets. Good, we're on a
> roll here...more LN B/S debunked. What's next...this is easy.
>
No such argument was advanced. No one said anything about finding or not
finding bullet fragments behind JFK. An explosive bullet is not the only
solution. Dr. Eugene McCarthy demonstrated a glycerine bullet that would
enter, but not exit. Millions of suicides and executions at close range
with a revolver enter and do not exit.
> They get easier as we go through them and this one especially is a
> laugher--most witnesses heard only three shots. And, what's the point
> there?......can an LN spell s-i-l-e-n-c-e-r-s?
>
The grassy knoll shot did not use a silencer. Most of the speculation
about a silencer involves other shots from behind.
> How about the account LNs keep blabbering about that reasons, just because
> LHO was hired at the TSBD in September, and, from the end of October or so
> (Jerry Bruno's report to the WH) until roughly two weeks before the
> assassination, the MC would have most likely traveled through DP (at a
> pretty good clip) on Main Street heading East towards the Woman's Center,
> LHO coudn't have been part of a conspiracy...either as a patsy or shooter?
> No problem there. The conspiracy had planned to have LHO move wherever he
> was needed...as logical as that sounds to us CTs, if that sounds silly to
> LNs, there's the back up debunker: the conspiracy had other patsies and/or
> shooters waiting along other possible routes. The bottom line is that the
> conspirators simply got a litle lucky...so what in most military
> operations there's always the eleent of luck. Anyway, hat takes care of
> that LN sillyness. This is a real walk in the park.
>
SO maybe the grassy knoll shooter worked there and was set up as a patsy?
> And so on.
>
> But, after debunking the LN's best shots, let's put them on the run with
> absolute proof there was a conspiracy. How about the irrefutable,
> inarguable, slam-dunk evidence there was a shot at 285 that's so easily
> seen in the Z-film? Good grief, who DOESN'T see the evidence for that?
> And, so what if ITEK (and God knows how many others) missed seeing
> that....it [the ev. of a 285 shot] practically jumps out at you...ITEK was
> obviously p/o the cover-up anyway.
>
> Not that any more proof of a conspiracy is needed, but look at how the
> profile of JFK's head/scalp in the cowlick area bunches up AFTER the
> 312/313 hit....talk about case closed! So what if such a hit doesn't
> reconcile with the autopsy or the goofy B/S some LN idiots propose that
The autopsy does not reconcile with the evidence.
John Canal
jbarge says...
>
>On Jan 26, 12:16=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
>> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
>Well, in truth, you're going to set up a bunch of straw men and knock
>them down.
>But I'll go along.
>> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>>
>> The medical evidence. Humes, Boswell & Finck were either total morons or
>> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
>> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
>> evidence...now, what's next?
>It's not the CT-ers fault that the autopsy was performed so poorly.
But, in the end they reported two hits from above and behind...which means
the "frontal shot" CTs need to dismiss that I guess because the autopsists
were idiots, fake doctors, or in on a cover up....and then move on to
trashing the next piece of evidence. IOW, what proof do you have that that
they were any of those things? None needed, right?
>For example they didn't track the alleged path from the bullet through
>JFK's neck.
In the end they concluded that a bullet entered his back and exitd his
throat and took pictures of both wounds. What proof do you have that they
were wrong? None, right....but none needed..just go on to trashing the
next piece of evidence, right?
>They didn't put together the "exit" wound in the front of the throat
>with the entrance wound in the neck (or the back, or the shoulder, or
>whereever it was) until the NEXT DAY.
That's debatable...it could have been earlier.
>In fact, some have alleged the bullet hit JFK in the middle of the
>back between the shoulder blades.
>Well, a photo from the autopsy ought to take of that!
>So we scroll over to the surviving photos and find one of JFK's back.
>Oh wait....they're holding up JFK's body to show the back neck/
>shoulder entrance wound....but they're also holding a ruler along his
>spine.....neatly blocking the view of where the CT-ers had alleged an
>entrance wound....
So, what marks for being good conspiators would you give them if they were
hiding something and you figured out they were...from a picture they took?
How about an "F". That makes sense.
So if they misreported when they said there was a bullet that hit him in
the back and exited his throat, you can disiss that, right...bcause they
were hiding something with the ruler when they photographed it?
>>Well, shoot....that would've taken care of that allegation.
>Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
>But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
>inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
>Got that?
How about a four inch error? And I can tell you've just glossed over the
medical evidence thoroughly enough to come to your CT cnclusions. There
are more red flags out there than you can shake a stick at that shows the
Clark Panel and HSCA were wrong about the autopsists making that error.
>Well, surely they tracked the wound by dissecting and sectioning the
>brain - that'll take care of any conspiracy allegations.
>Whoops.....they didn't do that either.
So when they examined the brain and found a through and through laceration
extending from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the fronal
lobe, you have no idea what caused that laceration? They didn't breadloaf
cut his brain out of sensitivity for the fact he was the President of the
United States. So anyway, you've dismissed their conclusion that nly one
bullet it him in the head and it entered in the back of his head, based on
them not breadloaf cutting the brain? I guess that's proof enough for you.
>Again, they botched the autopsy....not the CT-ers.
The main question is, did they botch the bottom line--two hits to JFK from
above and behind? Do you have proof they botched that or not? Are you
guessing? Smells like a conspiracy to you though...good, move onto the
next evidence to trash.
>Blame them.
The autopsy was effective enough to determine the cause of death...if you
can prove otherwise let's hear it.
>> How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
>> behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
>> from the front? Ok, the shooter used explosive bullets. Good, we're on a
>> roll here...more LN B/S debunked. What's next...this is easy.
I'm sorry...did you answer that question?
>Who said LHO's rifle wasn't fired?
Not me.
>> They get easier as we go through them and this one especially is a
>> laugher--most witnesses heard only three shots. And, what's the point
>> there?......can an LN spell s-i-l-e-n-c-e-r-s?
>Ummmmm, the 4th shot was recorded on the dictabelt.
So there was a silencer used? You don't question the dictabelt evdence
even though it was seriously questioned by experts?
>> How about the account LNs keep blabbering about that reasons, just becaus=
>e
>> LHO was hired at the TSBD in September, and, from the end of October or s=
>o
>> (Jerry Bruno's report to the WH) until roughly two weeks before the
>> assassination, the MC would have most likely traveled through DP (at a
>> pretty good clip) on Main Street heading East towards the Woman's Center,
>> LHO coudn't have been part of a conspiracy...either as a patsy or shooter=
>?
>According to Joseph Milteer (who predicted JFK's death 2 weeks in
>advance by a rifle shot from an office building) a conspiracy doesn't
>have a time table.
Well that's it...the conspiracy just got lucky that their patsy or
shooter, LHO happened to work where the MC passed? Ya right.
>It is "on the go" to take advantage of circumstances.
>Got that? There's no need to force events.
>This is easy - keep 'em coming.
>> No problem there. The conspiracy had planned to have LHO move wherever he
>> was needed...as logical as that sounds to us CTs, if that sounds silly to
>> LNs, there's the back up debunker: the conspiracy had other patsies and/o=
>r
>> shooters waiting along other possible routes. The bottom line is that the
>> conspirators simply got a litle lucky...so what in most military
>> operations there's always the eleent of luck. Anyway, hat takes care of
>> that LN sillyness. This is a real walk in the park.
>You fail to mention the Chicago assassination threat that forced the
>cancellation of the motorcade several weeks before Dallas.
>You fail to mention the Tampa Bay assassination threat (reported in
>the local paper after Dallas).
>So those other assassination threats and possible plots are not from
>the CT-ers.
I'm glad you said, "possible" plots. Ever heard of hard evidence? Got any
that says LHO didn't act alone?
>Nice try to insinuate that all CT-ers believe wacky theories (surely
>some do) but essentially this is a failure.
If we've heard 100 different conspiracy theories and ***IF*** there was a
conspiracy (which there wasn't), only one could possibly be
correct...right? So if you were to pick a favorite, your chances would be
pretty good it didn't happen that way.
>> And so on.
>>
>> But, after debunking the LN's best shots, let's put them on the run with
>> absolute proof there was a conspiracy. How about the irrefutable,
>> inarguable, slam-dunk evidence there was a shot at 285 that's so easily
>> seen in the Z-film? Good grief, who DOESN'T see the evidence for that?
>> And, so what if ITEK (and God knows how many others) missed seeing
>> that....it [the ev. of a 285 shot] practically jumps out at you...ITEK wa=
>s
>> obviously p/o the cover-up anyway.
>Huh?
>> Not that any more proof of a conspiracy is needed, but look at how the
>> profile of JFK's head/scalp in the cowlick area bunches up AFTER the
>> 312/313 hit....talk about case closed! So what if such a hit doesn't
>> reconcile with the autopsy or the goofy B/S some LN idiots propose that
>> the pressure Jackie put on the back of his head with her hand caused the
>> bunching up there?????.....we've already taken care of the medical
>> evidence (see above), and, as for Jackie putting pressure on the back of
>> his head affecting anything,....anyone that's not blind can tell from
>> pictures she wasn't strong enough to do that. Geesh!
>You must be refering to something I am unaware of.
>> And for those LN nitpickers who ask for evidence that someone besides LHO
>> was behind the conspiracy, that's a piece of cake too. Cripes, Marcello
>> admitted it.
>You're on to something with this.
>Let's ignore wealthy, ruthless, motivated mob bosses - they're really
>tomato salesmen.
>And the fact that Carlos Marcello's gang knew Oswald, knew his family,
>employed his uncle, had many connections with Jack Ruby, that means
>he's innocent!
>> And so on.
>Amen.
There's the proof "you" need there was a conspiracy.
John Canal
John Canal
>Isn't speculation a wonderful thing? It allows one to escape >reality.
I didn't know the CTs had a motto?.
JC
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
>
> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>
> The medical evidence. Humes, Boswell & Finck were either total morons or
> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
> evidence...now, what's next?
That is simply untrue. In fact, once he had retired from the military,
Boswell was very candid about damage to the back of the head that totally
contradicted Humes' report to the WC.
He also contradicted Hume when in his original drawing from 1963, proving
that the damage extended well into the upper rear of the head. You can see
more about this in the following video, which includes important
statements that Humes made to the ARRB (be sure to click on the high
quality option),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
> How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
> behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
> from the front?
That's a poor argument.
The windshield and seats caught fragments that resulted from the bullet
shattering. But as in most gunshot wounds, the bullet from the second
headshot probably didn't fragmentize.
And if it had, there was nothing to the rear of the President that would
have caught the pieces.
> Ok, the shooter used explosive bullets.
Ever notice that your own conspiracy "theories" are infinitely easier to
debunk than the real ones:-)
> Good, we're on a
> roll here...more LN B/S debunked. What's next...this is easy.
>
> They get easier as we go through them and this one especially is a
> laugher--most witnesses heard only three shots. And, what's the point
> there?......can an LN spell s-i-l-e-n-c-e-r-s?
Silencers were commonly used by the mafia. The only problem with them and
especially the homemade devices mafiosos commonly used was that they were
not always stable. Even the slightest misalignment could cause shots to go
wildly off course.
Causing things like umm..... bullets to hit the pavement instead of the
President?
>
> How about the account LNs keep blabbering about
> that reasons, just because
> LHO was hired at the TSBD in September, and, from the end of October or so
> (Jerry Bruno's report to the WH) until roughly two weeks before the
> assassination, the MC would have most likely traveled through DP (at a
> pretty good clip) on Main Street heading East towards the Woman's Center,
> LHO coudn't have been part of a conspiracy...either as a patsy or shooter?
Yes, I think there is also a "theory" that JFK was killed so he wouldn't
tell us about UFO's.
Unfortunately, the absurdity of one goofy theory does not corrobrate
another.
> No problem there. The conspiracy had planned to have LHO move wherever he
> was needed...
Finally!!
A bit of good sense. Yes, killers do have a nasty habit of going to
where their intended victims are.
> as logical as that sounds to us CTs, if that sounds silly to
> LNs,
This is amazing!
Are you actually trying to ridicule the idea that JFK's killers would
have tried to shoot him elsewhere if he hadn't passed in front of the
depository??
What exactly, were their alternatives:-)
> there's the back up debunker: the conspiracy had other patsies and/or
> shooters waiting along other possible routes.
> The bottom line is that the
> conspirators simply got a litle lucky...so what in most military
> operations there's always the eleent of luck. Anyway, hat takes care of
> that LN sillyness. This is a real walk in the park.
John, every now and then I look in (with horror) at A.C.J. and believe
me, I know what a stupid argument looks like.
But your endless attempts at ridicule are about as lame as the goofiest of
the "forged Zfilm" theories or badgeman.
What you have to understand is, that it DOESN'T MATTER that some people
cook up silly theories about the JFK case.
If you want to sell your theory that this attack was carried out by a
solitary assassin, you need to address the most compelling evidence, not
the silliest.
And you have totally evaded everything I told you about the nature of the
gunshots, which proves that they could not have all been fired by Oswald.
As long as you continue to dodge this evidence, you have no right to
ridicule anything or anybody.
Robert Harris
jfk...@gmail.com
First you need to define how a WC apologist thinks. There was no
actual investigation as the WC only dealt with info as it pertained to
LHO acting alone. Therefore, an apologist is unable to think outside
of the box.
David Von Pein
>>> "The autopsy does not reconcile with the evidence." <<<
The autopsy IS the evidence (re. JFK's body anyway).
And that autopsy verified without a shred of a doubt that JFK was struck
by two bullets....and both bullets came from "above and behind" the
President.
Conspiracy theorists who continue to ignore (or skew) that most basic of
autopsy conclusions concerning JFK's murder are living in a dream world of
unprovable and unsupportable "fake" this and "covered up" that.
Conspiracy theorists WILL continue to ignore (and skew) that most basic
and irrevocably-true of findings re. JFK's death, however. What else could
we expect from the Grodens and Lanes and Stones of the world? They and
their ilk are in this "conspiracy" thing too deeply to claw their way back
to reality now.
John Canal
>> The medical evidence. Humes, Boswell & Finck were either total morons or
>> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
>> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
>> evidence...now, what's next?
>
>
>That is simply untrue. In fact, once he had retired from the military,
>Boswell was very candid about damage to the back of the head that totally
>contradicted Humes' report to the WC.
"Humes' report to the WC"? I was talking about the autopsy report--I didn't
think that was a "report to the WC"? But in any case, are you saying Boswell
disagreed with the "two hits from above and behind" cause of death? Robert, tell
me you didn't just say that.
>He also contradicted Hume when in his original drawing from 1963, proving
>that the damage extended well into the upper rear of the head. You can see
>more about this in the following video, which includes important
>statements that Humes made to the ARRB (be sure to click on the high
>quality option),
Yup, there was damage there...BUT NO BULLET EXIT WOUNDS!!!! Like Mantik said,
there were no holes, just fractures....which is consistent with Bos' drawings,
the x-rays, and what Humes said about when they reflected the scalp--the skull
fell apart.
>> How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
>> behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
>> from the front?
>
>That's a poor argument.
So the CT response invokes the old "My dog ate my homework" excuse. And "my"
argument is poor?
LOL.
John Canal
>Robert Harris
amand...@gmail.com
> In article <b61c95c2-893a-4eef-b74e-79046b3e6...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> jbarge says...
>
>
>
> >On Jan 26, 12:16=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
> >> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
> >Well, in truth, you're going to set up a bunch of straw men and knock
> >them down.
> >But I'll go along.
> >> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>
> >> The medical evidence. Humes, Boswell & Finck were either total morons or
> >> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
> >> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
> >> evidence...now, what's next?
> >It's not the CT-ers fault that the autopsy was performed so poorly.
>
> But, in the end they reported two hits from above and behind...which means
> the "frontal shot" CTs need to dismiss that I guess because the autopsists
> were idiots, fake doctors, or in on a cover up....and then move on to
> trashing the next piece of evidence. IOW, what proof do you have that that
> they were any of those things? None needed, right?
>
> >For example they didn't track the alleged path from the bullet through
> >JFK's neck.
>
> In the end they concluded that a bullet entered his back and exitd his
> throat and took pictures of both wounds. What proof do you have that they
> were wrong? None, right....but none needed..just go on to trashing the
> next piece of evidence, right?
Read up on the case a little please.
They identified it as a trachetomy.
It wasn't until the next day when the autopsy doctor called a Parkland
doctor and he was informed that there was a bullet wound in the front
of the neck.
Then they had to re-write the autopsy, burn the notes and voila' they
had an exit wound.
But they never tracked the path of the bullet through the body as
would happen under normal circumstances.
In actuality there's is no "proof" in the autopsy that the bullet
traveled through JFK and exited.
They didn't see it at the autopsy and they didn't record it that way.
They had to write it that way because of information received after
the autopsy.
Don't cry, though - we all make mistakes.
This isn't "trashing" the medical evidence - this is just the plain
and simple truth, by the way.
> >They didn't put together the "exit" wound in the front of the throat
> >with the entrance wound in the neck (or the back, or the shoulder, or
> >whereever it was) until the NEXT DAY.
>
> That's debatable...it could have been earlier.
They had no idea they had an exit wound in the throat.
They actually never documented the bullet traveling and exiting JFK.
We'll never have the first autopsy report results, but it appears they
were going to say the bullet entered, stopped, and fell out.
> >In fact, some have alleged the bullet hit JFK in the middle of the
> >back between the shoulder blades.
> >Well, a photo from the autopsy ought to take of that!
> >So we scroll over to the surviving photos and find one of JFK's back.
> >Oh wait....they're holding up JFK's body to show the back neck/
> >shoulder entrance wound....but they're also holding a ruler along his
> >spine.....neatly blocking the view of where the CT-ers had alleged an
> >entrance wound....
>
> So, what marks for being good conspiators would you give them if they were
> hiding something and you figured out they were...from a picture they took?
> How about an "F". That makes sense.
Who said the medical doctors were in on the conspiracy?
Maybe they were covering up their botched job.
If so - in reality, they succeeded - give 'em a B+.
The truth of the matter is:
there's a bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder blade.
an informal diagram of JFK's body has a bullet hole between the
shoulder blades (see Inquest by Epstein).
the autopsy didn't identify a throat exit wound.
the autopsy didn't track the wound through the shoulders.
the only existing photo of the back has a ruler over the back between
the shoulder blades.
Granted, maybe there's no hanky panky here, but there's nothing in the
evidence to rule out this theory.
Again, we're not trashing the evidence, but when we search for the
evidence to rule out the shoulder blade theory, we can't find it.
> So if they misreported when they said there was a bullet that hit him in
> the back and exited his throat, you can disiss that, right...bcause they
> were hiding something with the ruler when they photographed it?
spine between the shoulder blades.
What the hey kind of autopsy photo is that??
Are they hiding something?
I don't know.
But it isn't normal - something odd is going on.
I do have to repeat - they didn't originally find an exit wound in the
throat and they didn't track the bullet's path.
Unfortunately I have to run, but I will tackle the second half later.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "The autopsy does not reconcile with the evidence." <<<
>
> The autopsy IS the evidence (re. JFK's body anyway).
The autopsy evidence does not reconcile with itself. In particular,
Commander Humes documented a 4 mm by 7 mm bullet hole in the back with
its longer axis roughly parallel to the spinal column. This
information placed the bullet on an inward and roughly headward
trajectory with nearly equal velocities. However, the FPP described
the abrasion surrounding this bullet hole as a 7 mm by 10 mm wound.
They described the orientation of the abrasion's longer axis as nearly
perpendicular to the spinal column. Doctors who viewed the photographs
of this abrasion recognized a trajectory on an inward and leftward
course.
Unfortunately for the let's kick around Humes crowd, the FPP
documented features of the back wound associated with the bullet hole.
Their discussions of the tears, lacerations and suggested undermining
of tissues confirmed Humes' orientation of the bullet hole.
So the autopsy portends that one bullet strike struck President
Kennedy's back with two velocities that differed by 90 degree. No
wonder they played their shell game with the location of the back
wound. They bet that shouts of "You have moved the wound" would drown
out expositions of wound alteration.
>
> And that autopsy verified without a shred of a doubt that JFK was struck
> by two bullets....and both bullets came from "above and behind" the
> President.
You have left out the best parts, David. The autopsy showed that two
bullets going three different ways struck JFK at four discrete
locations.
>
> Conspiracy theorists who continue to ignore (or skew) that most basic of
> autopsy conclusions concerning JFK's murder are living in a dream world of
> unprovable and unsupportable "fake" this and "covered up" that.
>
> Conspiracy theorists WILL continue to ignore (and skew) that most basic
> and irrevocably-true of findings re. JFK's death, however. What else could
> we expect from the Grodens and Lanes and Stones of the world? They and
> their ilk are in this "conspiracy" thing too deeply to claw their way back
> to reality now.
Those who deny the relationships between the measurements of an
elliptical or oval bullet hole and the components of the striking
velocity are living in an unreal world. In particular, the direction
of the major axis coincides with the tangential component of the
striking velocity while the tangential speed divided by the normal
speed equals the trigonometric tangent of the incidence angle between
the trajectory of the bullet and the perpendicular to the entry site.
These two relationships are fundamental to a forensic analysis.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "The autopsy does not reconcile with the evidence."<<<
>
> The autopsy IS the evidence (re. JFK's body anyway).
>
No, it is NOT the evidence. It is the lie.
> And that autopsy verified without a shred of a doubt that JFK was struck
> by two bullets....and both bullets came from "above and behind" the
> President.
>
No such thing. They didn't even know about the throat wound and didn't
notice the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone. Humes mistook a dab
of tissue near the hairline for an entrance wound.
> Conspiracy theorists who continue to ignore (or skew) that most basic of
> autopsy conclusions concerning JFK's murder are living in a dream world of
> unprovable and unsupportable "fake" this and "covered up" that.
>
YOU are living in a dream world where everything is perfect and no one
ever does anything wrong. 90% of the public knows better.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<gljbf...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
>> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
>>
>> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>>
>> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
>> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
>> evidence...now, what's next?
>
>
> That is simply untrue. In fact, once he had retired from the military,
> Boswell was very candid about damage to the back of the head that totally
> contradicted Humes' report to the WC.
>
Boswell also lied about the location of the back wound, yet you believe
him.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<b61c95c2-893a-4eef...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> jbarge says...
>> On Jan 26, 12:16=A0am, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
>>> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
>> Well, in truth, you're going to set up a bunch of straw men and knock
>> them down.
>> But I'll go along.
>>> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>>>
>>> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
>>> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
>>> evidence...now, what's next?
>> It's not the CT-ers fault that the autopsy was performed so poorly.
>
> But, in the end they reported two hits from above and behind...which means
> the "frontal shot" CTs need to dismiss that I guess because the autopsists
> were idiots, fake doctors, or in on a cover up....and then move on to
> trashing the next piece of evidence. IOW, what proof do you have that that
> they were any of those things? None needed, right?
>
Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed the case has pointed out the
many errors of the autopsy doctors. Stop denying that simple fact.
>> For example they didn't track the alleged path from the bullet through
>> JFK's neck.
>
> In the end they concluded that a bullet entered his back and exitd his
> throat and took pictures of both wounds. What proof do you have that they
> were wrong? None, right....but none needed..just go on to trashing the
> next piece of evidence, right?
>
Concluded? The wrote "presumably."
>> They didn't put together the "exit" wound in the front of the throat
>> with the entrance wound in the neck (or the back, or the shoulder, or
>> whereever it was) until the NEXT DAY.
>
> That's debatable...it could have been earlier.
>
Pure nonsense. They didn't even know about the throat wound until Dr.
Perry told them.
>> In fact, some have alleged the bullet hit JFK in the middle of the
>> back between the shoulder blades.
>> Well, a photo from the autopsy ought to take of that!
>> So we scroll over to the surviving photos and find one of JFK's back.
>> Oh wait....they're holding up JFK's body to show the back neck/
>> shoulder entrance wound....but they're also holding a ruler along his
>> spine.....neatly blocking the view of where the CT-ers had alleged an
>> entrance wound....
>
> So, what marks for being good conspiators would you give them if they were
> hiding something and you figured out they were...from a picture they took?
> How about an "F". That makes sense.
>
Even the best conspirators make simple mistakes. Putting the tape the
wrong way on the door. Wearing the same shoes for multiple breakins.
> So if they misreported when they said there was a bullet that hit him in
> the back and exited his throat, you can disiss that, right...bcause they
> were hiding something with the ruler when they photographed it?
>
>>> Well, shoot....that would've taken care of that allegation.
>> Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
>> But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
>> inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
>> Got that?
>
> How about a four inch error? And I can tell you've just glossed over the
> medical evidence thoroughly enough to come to your CT cnclusions. There
> are more red flags out there than you can shake a stick at that shows the
> Clark Panel and HSCA were wrong about the autopsists making that error.
>
You are the only being in this universe who thinks the entrance wound
was near the EOP.
Wrong. The actual conspiracy could be a joint effort, just like the
plots against Castro.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 26, 12:16 am, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
>> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
> Well, in truth, you're going to set up a bunch of straw men and knock
> them down.
> But I'll go along.
>> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>>
>> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
>> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
>> evidence...now, what's next?
> It's not the CT-ers fault that the autopsy was performed so poorly.
> For example they didn't track the alleged path from the bullet through
> JFK's neck.
> They didn't put together the "exit" wound in the front of the throat
> with the entrance wound in the neck (or the back, or the shoulder, or
> whereever it was) until the NEXT DAY.
> In fact, some have alleged the bullet hit JFK in the middle of the
> back between the shoulder blades.
> Well, a photo from the autopsy ought to take of that!
> So we scroll over to the surviving photos and find one of JFK's back.
> Oh wait....they're holding up JFK's body to show the back neck/
> shoulder entrance wound....but they're also holding a ruler along his
> spine.....neatly blocking the view of where the CT-ers had alleged an
> entrance wound....
Name just one who alleged that. It may be the only one. You are
misrepresenting.
> Well, shoot....that would've taken care of that allegation.
> Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
> But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
> inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
> Got that?
They said 4 inches, not 5.
> Well, surely they tracked the wound by dissecting and sectioning the
> brain - that'll take care of any conspiracy allegations.
> Whoops.....they didn't do that either.
WHoops. Yes, they did. But then the brain disappeared.
amand...@gmail.com
> jbarge says...
>
> >On Jan 26, 12:16=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
> >But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
> >inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
> >Got that?
>
> How about a four inch error? And I can tell you've just glossed over the
> medical evidence thoroughly enough to come to your CT cnclusions. There
> are more red flags out there than you can shake a stick at that shows the
> Clark Panel and HSCA were wrong about the autopsists making that error.
unreasonable and making up stuff out of whole cloth.
Now, the CT-ers might very be wrong, but they're not just making up
stuff as they go along.
With the autopsy, there's a lot of problems.
For example - with this 4 inch error, well, if they made that mistake
what other mistakes were made?
Ahhhhh - but other experts say they didn't make that error.
Now we have experts arguing with each other.
I'm forced to conclude, if the experts don't agree, that the evidence
is inconclusive.
> >Well, surely they tracked the wound by dissecting and sectioning the
> >brain - that'll take care of any conspiracy allegations.
> >Whoops.....they didn't do that either.
>
> So when they examined the brain and found a through and through laceration
> extending from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the fronal
> lobe, you have no idea what caused that laceration? They didn't breadloaf
> cut his brain out of sensitivity for the fact he was the President of the
> United States. So anyway, you've dismissed their conclusion that nly one
> bullet it him in the head and it entered in the back of his head, based on
> them not breadloaf cutting the brain? I guess that's proof enough for you.
proposing a conspiracy.
I'm not proposing the theories are true - just is it reasonable to
ponder them.
Suppose the shot that caused the above laceration destroyed the
evidence of a prior shot to the head?
Only a sectioning of the brain can give a definitive answer.
Maybe they didn't do it out of respect - but the fact is, they didn't
do it.
It wasn't the CT-ers.
And I note that they're already accused of making a 4 inch error with
the entrance wound to the skull.
How do I know if they made another 4 inch error, this one with the
above laceration?
Hey, it's just a question, but it isn't unreasonable to propose.
> >Again, they botched the autopsy....not the CT-ers.
>
> The main question is, did they botch the bottom line--two hits to JFK from
> above and behind? Do you have proof they botched that or not?
Pretty much.
They botched it.
I'm not saying conspiracy is proved by it.
I'm calling into question the validity of their findings.
Are you
> guessing? Smells like a conspiracy to you though...good, move onto the
> next evidence to trash.
It isn't "trashing" to point out facts.
> >Blame them.
>
> The autopsy was effective enough to determine the cause of death...if you
> can prove otherwise let's hear it.
They botched the autopsy.
They made mistakes.
They didn't follow proper procedures.
They didn't properly document both bullet paths.
Their findings of specific trajectories, entrances, and exits are
subject to question.
They destroyed the photos that would have helped prove their findings.
I'm sorry that their incompetence has led to generatations of
conspiracy theories.
I don't hear nearly as many conspiracy theories about the other
assassinations, though of course there are a few.
But it's their fault, essentially, and that's not "trashing".
> >> How about the LNs claim that, because no bullet fragments were found
> >> behind JFK there couldn't have been a shot that hit him that was fired
> >> from the front? Ok, the shooter used explosive bullets. Good, we're on a
> >> roll here...more LN B/S debunked. What's next...this is easy.
>
> I'm sorry...did you answer that question?
I have no specific opinion about the bullet fragments.
Since I don't know anything about it I don't speak on it.
What a concept.
But I will tell you this - I won't believe in or propose something
that flies in the face of evidence.
> >Who said LHO's rifle wasn't fired?
>
> Not me.
> >> They get easier as we go through them and this one especially is a
> >> laugher--most witnesses heard only three shots. And, what's the point
> >> there?......can an LN spell s-i-l-e-n-c-e-r-s?
> >Ummmmm, the 4th shot was recorded on the dictabelt.
>
> So there was a silencer used? You don't question the dictabelt evdence
> even though it was seriously questioned by experts?
Harry Truman said an expert was someone who wouldn't admit they were
wrong because then they wouldn't be an expert anymore.
You brought up a silencer.
I brought up that the 1978 investigation found a dictabelt recording
with a 4th shot on it.
Who needs a silencer?
Stalemate.
> >> How about the account LNs keep blabbering about that reasons, just becaus=
> >e
> >> LHO was hired at the TSBD in September, and, from the end of October or s=
> >o
> >> (Jerry Bruno's report to the WH) until roughly two weeks before the
> >> assassination, the MC would have most likely traveled through DP (at a
> >> pretty good clip) on Main Street heading East towards the Woman's Center,
> >> LHO coudn't have been part of a conspiracy...either as a patsy or shooter=
> >?
> >According to Joseph Milteer (who predicted JFK's death 2 weeks in
> >advance by a rifle shot from an office building) a conspiracy doesn't
> >have a time table.
>
> Well that's it...the conspiracy just got lucky that their patsy or
> shooter, LHO happened to work where the MC passed? Ya right.
succeed then one that tries to "force" events.
I try not to ask questions, because the answer is always glib but I
will try this one:
Does luck ever happen?
>
> >> No problem there. The conspiracy had planned to have LHO move wherever he
> >> was needed...as logical as that sounds to us CTs, if that sounds silly to
> >> LNs, there's the back up debunker: the conspiracy had other patsies and/o=
> >r
> >> shooters waiting along other possible routes. The bottom line is that the
> >> conspirators simply got a litle lucky...so what in most military
> >> operations there's always the eleent of luck. Anyway, hat takes care of
> >> that LN sillyness. This is a real walk in the park.
> >You fail to mention the Chicago assassination threat that forced the
> >cancellation of the motorcade several weeks before Dallas.
> >You fail to mention the Tampa Bay assassination threat (reported in
> >the local paper after Dallas).
> >So those other assassination threats and possible plots are not from
> >the CT-ers.
>
> I'm glad you said, "possible" plots. Ever heard of hard evidence? Got any
> that says LHO didn't act alone?
A 4th shot was found on the dictabelt recording.
Warren Commissioner Boggs said in 1966 "There's no way Lee Harvey
Oswald could've shot up those people alone."
In September 1962 Carlos Marcello said he would have JFK killed "and
set up a nut to take the blame, like they do in Sicily."
The Parkland doctors eyewitness testimony to the bullet wounds (in the
back of the head and the front of the thoat).
Finally a large amount of evidence in the case has been destroyed or
manipulated.
1) the FBI note LHO left
2) the James Tague wound was originally ignored by the FBI until the
single bullet theory appeared
3) the majority of the autopsy photos
4) the photos/recordings of Oswald at the Cuban/Russian embassies
5) the license plate in the photo of Walker's residence
6) the Military Intelligence file on Hidell/Oswald
and on and on.
Again, my point isn't that there was a conspiracy.
My point is that it is perfectly legitmate to wonder if there was.
And it isn't from invalidating good evidence.
It's from the evidence right in front of our eyes.
We can disagree about what it means but nonetheless it is there.
> >Nice try to insinuate that all CT-ers believe wacky theories (surely
> >some do) but essentially this is a failure.
I stand by this.
So if you were to pick a favorite, your chances would be
> pretty good it didn't happen that way.
I won't "pick" at random, but follow the evidence, including the
evidence that implicates LHO.
>
> There's the proof "you" need there was a conspiracy.
I see no proof of a conspiracy, and never did.
But I did debunk your claim that there's no legitimate reason to
propose the questions.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 27, 12:47 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The autopsy does not reconcile with the evidence."<<<
>> The autopsy IS the evidence (re. JFK's body anyway).
>
> The autopsy evidence does not reconcile with itself. In particular,
> Commander Humes documented a 4 mm by 7 mm bullet hole in the back with
> its longer axis roughly parallel to the spinal column. This
> information placed the bullet on an inward and roughly headward
> trajectory with nearly equal velocities. However, the FPP described
> the abrasion surrounding this bullet hole as a 7 mm by 10 mm wound.
In case you haven't figured this out yet, a bullet wound is more than just
the hole. It includes the abrasion collar. The hole itself is slightly
smaller than the entire wound and may often be smaller than the diameter
of the bullet due to the skin's elasticity.
> They described the orientation of the abrasion's longer axis as nearly
> perpendicular to the spinal column. Doctors who viewed the photographs
> of this abrasion recognized a trajectory on an inward and leftward
> course.
>
> Unfortunately for the let's kick around Humes crowd, the FPP
> documented features of the back wound associated with the bullet hole.
> Their discussions of the tears, lacerations and suggested undermining
> of tissues confirmed Humes' orientation of the bullet hole.
>
> So the autopsy portends that one bullet strike struck President
> Kennedy's back with two velocities that differed by 90 degree. No
> wonder they played their shell game with the location of the back
> wound. They bet that shouts of "You have moved the wound" would drown
> out expositions of wound alteration.
>
>> And that autopsy verified without a shred of a doubt that JFK was struck
>> by two bullets....and both bullets came from "above and behind" the
>> President.
>
> You have left out the best parts, David. The autopsy showed that two
> bullets going three different ways struck JFK at four discrete
> locations.
>
How so?
>> Conspiracy theorists who continue to ignore (or skew) that most basic of
>> autopsy conclusions concerning JFK's murder are living in a dream world of
>> unprovable and unsupportable "fake" this and "covered up" that.
>>
>> Conspiracy theorists WILL continue to ignore (and skew) that most basic
>> and irrevocably-true of findings re. JFK's death, however. What else could
>> we expect from the Grodens and Lanes and Stones of the world? They and
>> their ilk are in this "conspiracy" thing too deeply to claw their way back
>> to reality now.
>
> Those who deny the relationships between the measurements of an
> elliptical or oval bullet hole and the components of the striking
> velocity are living in an unreal world. In particular, the direction
> of the major axis coincides with the tangential component of the
> striking velocity while the tangential speed divided by the normal
> speed equals the trigonometric tangent of the incidence angle between
> the trajectory of the bullet and the perpendicular to the entry site.
> These two relationships are fundamental to a forensic analysis.
>
Mumbo Jumbo.
> Herbert
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 26, 10:10 pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article<b61c95c2-893a-4eef-b74e-79046b3e6...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>> jbarge says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 12:16=A0am, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Ok, to be more specific and to keep this simple, I'm just going to try to
>>>> imagine how a frontal shot CT thinks.
>>> Well, in truth, you're going to set up a bunch of straw men and knock
>>> them down.
>>> But I'll go along.
>>>> First, I'll address the best evidence the LNs have.
>>>> part of a government cover-up...so we can ignore their two hits to JFK
>>>> from behind and above finding. Super. That debuncks the medical
>>>> evidence...now, what's next?
>>> It's not the CT-ers fault that the autopsy was performed so poorly.
>> But, in the end they reported two hits from above and behind...which means
>> the "frontal shot" CTs need to dismiss that I guess because the autopsists
>> were idiots, fake doctors, or in on a cover up....and then move on to
>> trashing the next piece of evidence. IOW, what proof do you have that that
>> they were any of those things? None needed, right?
>>
>>> For example they didn't track the alleged path from the bullet through
>>> JFK's neck.
>> In the end they concluded that a bullet entered his back and exitd his
>> throat and took pictures of both wounds. What proof do you have that they
>> were wrong? None, right....but none needed..just go on to trashing the
>> next piece of evidence, right?
> Actually they didn't identify the throat wound as an exit wound.
> Read up on the case a little please.
> They identified it as a trachetomy.
> It wasn't until the next day when the autopsy doctor called a Parkland
> doctor and he was informed that there was a bullet wound in the front
> of the neck.
> Then they had to re-write the autopsy, burn the notes and voila' they
> had an exit wound.
I'll go even farther. I think there were actually two autopsy reports.
The first was more than just notes and farther along than just a draft.
Then after talking to Perry, Humes realized his mistakes and had to
completely rewrite a new autopsy report.
> But they never tracked the path of the bullet through the body as
> would happen under normal circumstances.
> In actuality there's is no "proof" in the autopsy that the bullet
> traveled through JFK and exited.
> They didn't see it at the autopsy and they didn't record it that way.
> They had to write it that way because of information received after
> the autopsy.
> Don't cry, though - we all make mistakes.
> This isn't "trashing" the medical evidence - this is just the plain
> and simple truth, by the way.
>>> They didn't put together the "exit" wound in the front of the throat
>>> with the entrance wound in the neck (or the back, or the shoulder, or
>>> whereever it was) until the NEXT DAY.
>> That's debatable...it could have been earlier.
> Sorry, see above.
> They had no idea they had an exit wound in the throat.
> They actually never documented the bullet traveling and exiting JFK.
> We'll never have the first autopsy report results, but it appears they
> were going to say the bullet entered, stopped, and fell out.
As per the S&O report on what Humes was saying during the autopsy.
>>> In fact, some have alleged the bullet hit JFK in the middle of the
>>> back between the shoulder blades.
>>> Well, a photo from the autopsy ought to take of that!
>>> So we scroll over to the surviving photos and find one of JFK's back.
>>> Oh wait....they're holding up JFK's body to show the back neck/
>>> shoulder entrance wound....but they're also holding a ruler along his
>>> spine.....neatly blocking the view of where the CT-ers had alleged an
>>> entrance wound....
>> So, what marks for being good conspiators would you give them if they were
>> hiding something and you figured out they were...from a picture they took?
>> How about an "F". That makes sense.
> Ho hum.
> Who said the medical doctors were in on the conspiracy?
This is an old CIA tactic. Create a strawman ubber conspiracy.
The fact is that it started out as a simple case of incompetence. But
then they were told it was a conspiracy and national security required
them to maintain the cover-up.
> Maybe they were covering up their botched job.
> If so - in reality, they succeeded - give 'em a B+.
> The truth of the matter is:
> there's a bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder blade.
> an informal diagram of JFK's body has a bullet hole between the
> shoulder blades (see Inquest by Epstein).
> the autopsy didn't identify a throat exit wound.
> the autopsy didn't track the wound through the shoulders.
> the only existing photo of the back has a ruler over the back between
> the shoulder blades.
The jacket shows the hole not in the middle above the spine, but 1-3/4
inches to the right of the midline. Just far enough to the right for the
angle of entry to barely hit the top of the transverse process of T-1
and fracture it, but not so close to the midline that it would of
necessity blast through the vertebra.
> Granted, maybe there's no hanky panky here, but there's nothing in the
> evidence to rule out this theory.
I can rule it out. It is a fun theory, but there was ONLY one hole in
the back and we can see it to the right of the ruler.
> Again, we're not trashing the evidence, but when we search for the
> evidence to rule out the shoulder blade theory, we can't find it.
>> So if they misreported when they said there was a bullet that hit him in
>> the back and exited his throat, you can disiss that, right...bcause they
>> were hiding something with the ruler when they photographed it?
> Take a second look at the photo of the back, with the ruler along the
> spine between the shoulder blades.
> What the hey kind of autopsy photo is that??
> Are they hiding something?
> I don't know.
I do. Finck was the one who introduced the foreign notion of actually
measuring the wounds and documenting them. The ruler is there to measure
the location and dimensions of the back wound.
> But it isn't normal - something odd is going on.
Ok, but incompetence does not equal conspiracy.
John Canal
amand...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Jan 26, 10:10=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <b61c95c2-893a-4eef-b74e-79046b3e6...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> jbarge says...
>>
>> >On Jan 26, 12:16=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
>> >But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
>> >inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
>> >Got that?
>>
>> How about a four inch error? And I can tell you've just glossed over the
>> medical evidence thoroughly enough to come to your CT cnclusions. There
>> are more red flags out there than you can shake a stick at that shows the
>> Clark Panel and HSCA were wrong about the autopsists making that error.
>Well, you were attempting to show that the CT-ers were being
>unreasonable and making up stuff out of whole cloth.
I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
>Now, the CT-ers might very be wrong, but they're not just making up
>stuff as they go along.
>With the autopsy, there's a lot of problems.
Who's making stuff up re. the autopsy? Me? It's the FRONTAL SHOT CTers who
insist that HB&F misreported the basc findings.
>For example - with this 4 inch error, well, if they made that mistake
>what other mistakes were made?
Thanks for making my point. You said, "If" they made an error...that's an
assumption that, if you'd bee following the latest developments is false.
So now you you take the net step, "What other mistakes"? And it goes on
and on and on.
Prove something before taking the big lea and the LNers will be impressed.
>Ahhhhh - but other experts say they didn't make that error.
>Now we have experts arguing with each other.
If you had been following the head shot threads you'd have a reasonable
explanation for that.
>I'm forced to conclude, if the experts don't agree, that the evidence
>is inconclusive.
Oh, really--how convenient...diss the medical evidence to fit n ith a
conspiracy theory, e.g. a GK shot. LOL!
>> >Well, surely they tracked the wound by dissecting and sectioning the
>> >brain - that'll take care of any conspiracy allegations.
>> >Whoops.....they didn't do that either.
>>
>> So when they examined the brain and found a through and through laceratio=
>n
>> extending from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the fronal
>> lobe, you have no idea what caused that laceration? They didn't breadloaf
>> cut his brain out of sensitivity for the fact he was the President of the
>> United States. So anyway, you've dismissed their conclusion that nly one
>> bullet it him in the head and it entered in the back of his head, based o=
>n
>> them not breadloaf cutting the brain? I guess that's proof enough for you=
>.
>Not quite - your allegation was that the CT-ers had no basis for
>proposing a conspiracy.
No nearly enough...just what they think are suspicious events.
>I'm not proposing the theories are true - just is it reasonable to
>ponder them.
Oh, OK...that's fine...ponder away, but, CTs sound silly when all that
pondering results in a theory, e.g. a GK shot.
>Suppose the shot that caused the above laceration destroyed the
>evidence of a prior shot to the head?
>Only a sectioning of the brain can give a definitive answer.
You sound new to this stuff? If there was only one entrance wound and one
exit wound in the skull, not to mention the fact that there were no bullet
fragments found behind JFK, nor any in front that were proven to come from
other than the 312 bullet.....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
out only one bullet hit him in the head. But, the assumption is, I guess,
the autopsists were wrong...so you diss their findings an move on, right?
>Maybe they didn't do it out of respect - but the fact is, they didn't
>do it.
Ok, you win...very very suspicious...but what else do you have...and I
would hope you have something else in order to make a bigger issue out of
the no-beadloaf-cutting than it was.
>It wasn't the CT-ers.
>And I note that they're already accused of making a 4 inch error with
>the entrance wound to the skull.
Huh?
>How do I know if they made another 4 inch error, this one with the
>above laceration?
When did we agree they made the first error?
>Hey, it's just a question, but it isn't unreasonable to propose.
>> >Again, they botched the autopsy....not the CT-ers.
>>
>> The main question is, did they botch the bottom line--two hits to JFK fro=
>m
>> above and behind? Do you have proof they botched that or not?
>Yeah.
>Pretty much.
>They botched it.
List all your proof they btched the two-hits-from-above-and-behind finding rght
here___________.
>I'm not saying conspiracy is proved by it.
Proved by what?
>I'm calling into question the validity of their findings.
Queston them all you want...I'm sure it makes for a great hobby...but, to
decide their findings were wrong based on whatever...is off-the-charts
sillyness, IMO.
>Are you
>> guessing? Smells like a conspiracy to you though...good, move onto the
>> next evidence to trash.
>Their incompetency calls into question the findings.
>It isn't "trashing" to point out facts.
How about proving they were incompetent...is that too much to ask for?
>> >Blame them.
>>
>> The autopsy was effective enough to determine the cause of death...if you
>> can prove otherwise let's hear it.
>Sure - read my lips.
Your lips are saying one thing but I wonder if you mind is somewhat
disconnected from them when they are moving?
>They botched the autopsy.
So the circle is complete...again!!!!!! Where's the damn proof they
botched the "two-hits-from-above-and-behind" finding?
When you get it, post it for my attention an we'll continue. In the
meantime, I don't like going in circles.
Bye.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "No, it [the autopsy of John F. Kennedy] is NOT the evidence. It is
the lie." <<<
Yeah. Right. Whatever you say, Tony.
>>> "YOU are living in a dream world where everything is perfect and no
one ever does anything wrong." <<<
And YOU are living in a dream world where apparently nobody ever does
anything RIGHT (except, of course, for Sir Anthony Marsh; he's always
right). Right?
jbarge
> In article <e18be177-3958-4727-b97f-1f1ff76a7...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> amandaba...@gmail.com says...
>
>
> >On Jan 26, 10:10=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <b61c95c2-893a-4eef-b74e-79046b3e6...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> jbarge says...
>
>>
> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
> are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
agreements.
The evidence of a frontal shot impacting JFK is a distinct issue and
deserves to be judged on its own merits.
I took your original post as a challenge to ALL conspiracy theories,
which influenced my response.
I have not taken a close look at the evidence for a frontal shot
entrance wound specifically so I will stand down on that.
> >Now, the CT-ers might very be wrong, but they're not just making up
> >stuff as they go along.
> >With the autopsy, there's a lot of problems.
>
> Who's making stuff up re. the autopsy? Me? It's the FRONTAL SHOT CTers who
> insist that HB&F misreported the basc findings.
BUT.....the autopsy doctors did NOT originally find the throat exit
wound.
They "made it up" after talking to the Parkland doctor.
Please, please, prove me wrong with this!
Seriously.
They didn't track the bullet's path through the shoulders/neck.
As for the bullet - the first shot - traversing through JFK, they
"made it up" after talking to the Parkland doctor.
Please, please prove me wrong with this!
Seriously.
> >For example - with this 4 inch error, well, if they made that mistake
> >what other mistakes were made?
>
> Thanks for making my point. You said, "If" they made an error...that's an
> assumption that, if you'd bee following the latest developments is false.
> So now you you take the net step, "What other mistakes"? And it goes on
> and on and on.
It was these "experts" in 1978 who decided they made a 4 inch error in
locating the entrance wound.
Here I come, decades after all of this craziness.
Essentially, you want me to believe you and accept your opinion about
this.
But.....you're not an expert, or are you?
If you're an expert, and not just a guy with an opinion, please fill
me in.
Otherwise, I have to lean on people who have degrees and go to school
and study these issues professionally.
And they found a four inch error.
And if the doctors made an error (yes, "if") what other mistakes did
they make?
You don't want me to ask this question - you accuse me of.....well,
something, I'm not sure what.
But I fail to see what it is that I'm guilty of, exactly.
Except not accepting your opinion with blind faith.
> Prove something before taking the big lea and the LNers will be impressed.
they didn't find a throat exit wound originally
they didn't track the bullet's path thru the neck
they've been accused by "experts" of a 4 inch mistake with the head
entrance wound
they didn't section the brain as per usual procedure
> >Ahhhhh - but other experts say they didn't make that error.
> >Now we have experts arguing with each other.
>
> If you had been following the head shot threads you'd have a reasonable
> explanation for that.
You have made an excellent point with the entrance of a GK shot wound.
> >I'm forced to conclude, if the experts don't agree, that the evidence
> >is inconclusive.
>
> Oh, really--how convenient...diss the medical evidence to fit n ith a
> conspiracy theory, e.g. a GK shot. LOL!
Well, I wasn't discussing the entrance wound to a GK shot though I did
briefly ponder the idea of the evidence for it being destroyed by an
immediate shot afterwards.
If you want to laugh about it, you can but it's not germane to what I
have been discussing, LOL!
>
>
>
>
> >> >Well, surely they tracked the wound by dissecting and sectioning the
> >> >brain - that'll take care of any conspiracy allegations.
> >> >Whoops.....they didn't do that either.
>
> >> So when they examined the brain and found a through and through laceratio=
> >n
> >> extending from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the fronal
> >> lobe, you have no idea what caused that laceration? They didn't breadloaf
> >> cut his brain out of sensitivity for the fact he was the President of the
> >> United States. So anyway, you've dismissed their conclusion that nly one
> >> bullet it him in the head and it entered in the back of his head, based o=
> >n
> >> them not breadloaf cutting the brain? I guess that's proof enough for you=
> >.
> >Not quite - your allegation was that the CT-ers had no basis for
> >proposing a conspiracy.
>
> No nearly enough...just what they think are suspicious events.
This one is hard to follow.
We have suspicious events.
So I wonder, was there a conspiracy?
And that's about it.
> >I'm not proposing the theories are true - just is it reasonable to
> >ponder them.
>
> Oh, OK...that's fine...ponder away, but, CTs sound silly when all that
> pondering results in a theory, e.g. a GK shot.
I have yet to put forth a theory of what I believe to have happened.
> >Suppose the shot that caused the above laceration destroyed the
> >evidence of a prior shot to the head?
> >Only a sectioning of the brain can give a definitive answer.
>
> You sound new to this stuff? If there was only one entrance wound and one
> exit wound in the skull, not to mention the fact that there were no bullet
> fragments found behind JFK, nor any in front that were proven to come from
> other than the 312 bullet.....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> out only one bullet hit him in the head. But, the assumption is, I guess,
> the autopsists were wrong...so you diss their findings an move on, right?
No - I'm very interested in the evidence.
In fact, I prefer to deal with the evidence.
> >Maybe they didn't do it out of respect - but the fact is, they didn't
> >do it.
>
> Ok, you win...very very suspicious...but what else do you have...and I
> would hope you have something else in order to make a bigger issue out of
> the no-beadloaf-cutting than it was.You're "moving the goal post".
Essentially you say, "The CT-ers have no basis for what they say."
When I point out that the record contains genuine problems and lack of
documentation, you say, well, sure - but what else do you have?
Only enough to win my original case, I guess.
> >It wasn't the CT-ers.
> >And I note that they're already accused of making a 4 inch error with
> >the entrance wound to the skull.
>
> Huh?
>
> >How do I know if they made another 4 inch error, this one with the
> >above laceration?
>
> When did we agree they made the first error?
I said, "if".
You're getting a little sloppy, maybe drink some coffee before
posting.
> >Hey, it's just a question, but it isn't unreasonable to propose.
> >> >Again, they botched the autopsy....not the CT-ers.
>
> >> The main question is, did they botch the bottom line--two hits to JFK fro=
> >m
> >> above and behind? Do you have proof they botched that or not?
> >Yeah.
> >Pretty much.
> >They botched it.
>
> List all your proof they btched the two-hits-from-above-and-behind finding rght
> here___________.
Okay......
1. They didn't find a throat exit wound - after the autopsy was
finished, they called a Parkland doctor and found out they missed a
bullet hole.
2. They didn't track the bullet's path through the neck
3. They've been accused of making a 4 inch error in the head wound
entrance - so say these "experts" over here.
4. They didn't section the brain as per usual procedure
5. They destroyed the autopsy photos that would have proved their case
Whew....man, I just feel like I win this one......I'm trying to be
humble here......but it appears they "botched" the autopsy.
> >I'm not saying conspiracy is proved by it.
>
> Proved by what?
the botched autopsy
> >I'm calling into question the validity of their findings.
>
> Queston them all you want...I'm sure it makes for a great hobby...but, to
> decide their findings were wrong based on whatever...is off-the-charts
> sillyness, IMO.
I haven't decided anything.
> >Are you
> >> guessing? Smells like a conspiracy to you though...good, move onto the
> >> next evidence to trash.
> >Their incompetency calls into question the findings.
> >It isn't "trashing" to point out facts.
>
> How about proving they were incompetent...is that too much to ask for?
Whew......man oh man.
I'm starting to think I wouldn't trust the autopsy doctors to mow my
lawn.
If someone told me my loved one was to get an autopsy from them, I'd
run in the other direction.
> >> >Blame them.
>
> >> The autopsy was effective enough to determine the cause of death...if you
> >> can prove otherwise let's hear it.
> >Sure - read my lips.
>
> Your lips are saying one thing but I wonder if you mind is somewhat
> disconnected from them when they are moving?
Nope.
> >They botched the autopsy.
>
> So the circle is complete...again!!!!!! Where's the damn proof they
> botched the "two-hits-from-above-and-behind" finding?
This is an excellent question.
What the botched autopsy ultimately means to the findings I have yet
to decide for myself.
But I know one thing: I'm not accepting their findings at face value.
> When you get it, post it for my attention an we'll continue. In the
> meantime, I don't like going in circles.
>
> Bye.
I feel your pain.
I wouldn't want to hold the position that the autopsy was wonderfully
executed either.
Herbert Blenner
> On 1/27/2009 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 12:47 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "The autopsy does not reconcile with the evidence."<<<
> >> The autopsy IS the evidence (re. JFK's body anyway).
>
> > The autopsy evidence does not reconcile with itself. In particular,
> > Commander Humes documented a 4 mm by 7 mm bullet hole in the back with
> > its longer axis roughly parallel to the spinal column. This
> > information placed the bullet on an inward and roughly headward
> > trajectory with nearly equal velocities. However, the FPP described
> > the abrasion surrounding this bullet hole as a 7 mm by 10 mm wound.
>
> In case you haven't figured this out yet, a bullet wound is more than just
> the hole. It includes the abrasion collar. The hole itself is slightly
> smaller than the entire wound and may often be smaller than the diameter
> of the bullet due to the skin's elasticity.
Flash quiz. Is the 4 mm by 7 mm bullet hole smaller or larger than the
surrounding abrasion that measured 7 mm by 10 mm?
Of course you know the answer and only posted your condescending
remarks to distract readers from the fundamental difference in the
alignments of the hole and its abrasion. In particular the longer axis
of the hole was roughly parallel to the spinal column while the longer
axis of the abrasion was nearly perpendicular to the spinal column.
So, Marsh why don't you attempt to dismiss this evidence of wound
alteration by telling us that the body was upright when they
documented the bullet hole and lying on its side when they
photographed the abrasion. Go ahead, Tony, it's been a long dull
winter and I would appreciate a good laugh.
Herbert
> >velocityare living in an unreal world. In particular, the direction
> > of the major axis coincides with the tangential component of the
> > strikingvelocitywhile the tangential speed divided by the normal
> > speed equals the trigonometric tangent of the incidence angle between
> > the trajectory of the bullet and the perpendicular to the entry site.
> > These two relationships are fundamental to a forensic analysis.
>
> Mumbo Jumbo.
>
>
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
But they did do it, but just lost the brain.
Due to military inteference.
> Their findings of specific trajectories, entrances, and exits are
> subject to question.
> They destroyed the photos that would have helped prove their findings.
We can't be sure that the photos would prove anything. But the ARRB was
able to find and salvage 4 or 5 of the missing photos. Unfortunately we
will never get to see them. National Security, you know. Could start
WWIII I suppose.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<e18be177-3958-4727...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> amand...@gmail.com says...
>> On Jan 26, 10:10=A0pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article<b61c95c2-893a-4eef-b74e-79046b3e6...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> jbarge says...
>>>
>>>> On Jan 26, 12:16=3DA0am, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Now that darn head wound - this should be simple, right?
>>>> But wait....the 1978 House investigation found the doctors made a 5
>>>> inch MISTAKE in locating the entrance wound.
>>>> Got that?
>>> How about a four inch error? And I can tell you've just glossed over the
>>> medical evidence thoroughly enough to come to your CT cnclusions. There
>>> are more red flags out there than you can shake a stick at that shows the
>>> Clark Panel and HSCA were wrong about the autopsists making that error.
>
>> Well, you were attempting to show that the CT-ers were being
>> unreasonable and making up stuff out of whole cloth.
>
> I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
> are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
I see. So you think that evidence of a frontal head shot is not enough
to indicate a conspiracy? Do you have a Two Stranger Theory?
You can't and you won't explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal
bone, which BTW the autopsists completely missed.
>
>> Now, the CT-ers might very be wrong, but they're not just making up
>> stuff as they go along.
>> With the autopsy, there's a lot of problems.
>
> Who's making stuff up re. the autopsy? Me? It's the FRONTAL SHOT CTers who
> insist that HB&F misreported the basc findings.
>
Missed reporting.
Maybe the first autopsy report said that the President was hit in the
forehead by a shot from the front.
Do you yourself think that there was only ONE exit wound? Where is it?
What do you think the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone is? You
know, the one that Dr. Angel said was an exit wound. Show me the
trajectory through that wound and where the bullet would end up.
The HSCA did that in spades.
John Canal
>
>On 1/27/2009 11:00 PM, John Canal wrote:
[...]
>> I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
>> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
>> are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
>> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
>
>I see. So you think that evidence of a frontal head shot is not enough
>to indicate a conspiracy?
Are you dreaming? What evidence of a frontal shot? Let something sink in:
The doctors, who had the body literally in their hands and examined it,
said two hits to JFK, from above and behind. Get it?....sadly, I think
not, and you never will.
[...]
>You can't and you won't explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal
>bone, which BTW the autopsists completely missed.
I've explained it to you dozens of times, but you won't listen. The
autopsists missed it? LOL. Take a close look at HSCA F-60--it's a blow up
photo of your semi-circular defect in the frontal bone,..you tell us
honestly, does it look like a bullet wound? Of course it doesn't and,
earth to Marsh--if my transmission can reach the outer reaches of the
universe--that's why the autopsy docs didn't even mention it. Still don't
get it do you? And that's exactly why it's always a pleasure to debate you
Anthony....NOT. Let me explain why it's such a pleasure: you can be shown
precisely why you're wrong but refuse to look at what's being shown to
you.
Fly your ship closer to earth and we'll continue.
[....]
John Canal
amand...@gmail.com
Are you saying there are additional photos beyond the ones that
Groden, Livingstone etc. have repeatedly published?
Herbert Blenner
amand...@gmail.com
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eh, I'm confused here - where is it stated that the brain was sectioned
but lost? My understanding is that they didn't and handed it over to RFK
in a steel box. What's the contrary evidence?
John McAdams
Nobody "handed it over" to RFK.
His secretary, Angie Novello, stole it.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Yes, several. And I can't promise anything for sure, but rumors are that
Groden intends to publish the rest soon. I saw several more at a
conference here in Boston.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<49805519$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> On 1/27/2009 11:00 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article<e18be177-3958-4727-b97f-
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
>>> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
>>> are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
>>> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
>> I see. So you think that evidence of a frontal head shot is not enough
>> to indicate a conspiracy?
>
> Are you dreaming? What evidence of a frontal shot? Let something sink in:
> The doctors, who had the body literally in their hands and examined it,
> said two hits to JFK, from above and behind. Get it?....sadly, I think
> not, and you never will.
>
The autopsy doctors were incompetent. They missed the throat wound right
in front of their eyes. They missed the semi-circular defect right in
front of their eyes. They missed the fracture of T-1. The were not
allowed to examine the clothing. They were forbidden from dissecting the
back wound. They were not qualified.
> [...]
>
>> You can't and you won't explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal
>> bone, which BTW the autopsists completely missed.
>
> I've explained it to you dozens of times, but you won't listen. The
> autopsists missed it? LOL. Take a close look at HSCA F-60--it's a blow up
> photo of your semi-circular defect in the frontal bone,..you tell us
> honestly, does it look like a bullet wound? Of course it doesn't and,
Of course it does, just like the examples I have pointed out from the
Coe and Peterson papers. And Dr. Lawrence Angel said it was the exit
wound, something you continually deny.
jbarge
I read the evidence as being possible that RFK disposed of it, not the
Angie Novello ended up with it.
John Canal
>
>On 1/28/2009 6:18 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article<49805519$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> On 1/27/2009 11:00 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article<e18be177-3958-4727-b97f-
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
>>>> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
>>>> are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
>>>> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
>>> I see. So you think that evidence of a frontal head shot is not enough
>>> to indicate a conspiracy?
>>
>> Are you dreaming? What evidence of a frontal shot? Let something sink in:
>> The doctors, who had the body literally in their hands and examined it,
>> said two hits to JFK, from above and behind. Get it?....sadly, I think
>> not, and you never will.
>>
>
>The autopsy doctors were incompetent. They missed the throat wound right
>in front of their eyes.
A pretty good case can be made for them knowing about the throat wound
much earlier than they said. But I won't try to explain anything that
complex to you...IMO, you're having trouble with the much simpler issues.
>They missed the semi-circular defect right in
>front of their eyes.
Yup..because it wasn't a bullet wound. Name one person who saw the
body--and a lot of medically trained individuals did--who said there was a
bullet wound above the right eye. Write there names here__. I didn't leave
you much space because you won't need ANY---IOW, the only ones who said
that thing above the right eye was a bullet wound are people, like you,
who only saw the photos!
>They missed the fracture of T-1.
Don't bet your last dime on that either. The autopsy docs weren't exactly
forthcoming on all they knew or saw...but, like the throat wound, it's way
too complex an explanation for you to comprehend. As a matter of fact, as
we speak, Gary Aguilar is reviewing a theory I came up with on just this
issue.
>The were not
>allowed to examine the clothing.
Does that make them incompetent? In any case, don't bet they didn't see
the clothes. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the entry marked on
Bos' descriptive sheet matches the holes in the back of the shirt and
jacket? <g> How about the writen description of where the back wound was
in the death certificate...do you think it's just a coincidence that it
matches better the clothing hole than the hole in the body(photo)? Of
course you do..while you claim almost everything else the autopsists said
was factual was wrong, you take them at their word on issues like the
clothing. LOL!
>They were forbidden from dissecting the
>back wound.
Does that make them incompetent? And what if they figured out, with
reasonable certainty, the path without dissecting or even Perry's
guidence?....in spite of what you think--or want to know--or will ever
know, a good case can be made for that happening. If true (and you're not
capable of handling the evidence that supports that scenario), IMO, they
autopsists should have received accolades, not criticism, for determining
the bullet's path, while at the same time, not being insensitive to the
fact that it was the body of the President, by unnecessarily slicing up
his neck.
>They were not qualified.
You need them to be that or blind, or in on a cover-up in order to
convince yourself you haven't wasted a kazillion hours of your life
blabbering about your no-hits-to-the-BOH, off-the-charts wacky frontal
shot theory. :-)
>> [...]
>>
>>> You can't and you won't explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal
>>> bone, which BTW the autopsists completely missed.
>>
>> I've explained it to you dozens of times, but you won't listen. The
>> autopsists missed it? LOL. Take a close look at HSCA F-60--it's a blow up
>> photo of your semi-circular defect in the frontal bone,..you tell us
>> honestly, does it look like a bullet wound? Of course it doesn't and,
>
>Of course it does, just like the examples I have pointed out from the
>Coe and Peterson papers.
How about the blow-up photo...you treat that photo like Dracula would
treat a crucifix. Why? Because it shows what you don't want to
realize---indeed, it shows why not one person who saw the actual body said
there was a bullet wound above his right eye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>And Dr. Lawrence Angel said it was the exit
>wound, something you continually deny.
If you're not too busy replying to other posts with more B/S, find where I
said he DIDN't write in his memo that it was an exit wound. So, while I
could care less if you continue for the rest of your life misrepresenting
the evidence, I want you to stop misrepresenting what I said.
Now, rather than embarrassing Baden, who also misused the photo to decide
that must be an exit wound, Angel parroted him by agreeing with him in the
TEXT of the memo. ****But**** he drew the largest skull piece that came
late to the autopsy so that the beveled corner of that piece (with the
metallic residue on it) fit on JFK's head (drawing) just forward of the
coronal suture...the same spot where Baden, Angel, and all the other HSCA
forensic docs agreed was the PRINCIPAL exit....and the same spot that is
medical miles from your non-bullet wound over the right eye!!!!
IF YOU DON'T AGREE THAT HAPPENED YOU WILL BE PUT ON MY KILLFILE...NOT THAT
YOU CARE WHETHER YOU ARE OR NOT...BUT ASK ME IF I CARE IF YOU DON'T CARE.
Don't bother asking, I don't give a rat's butt what you think.
>> earth to Marsh--if my transmission can reach the outer reaches of the
>> universe--that's why the autopsy docs didn't even mention it. Still don't
>> get it do you? And that's exactly why it's always a pleasure to debate you
>> Anthony....NOT. Let me explain why it's such a pleasure: you can be shown
>> precisely why you're wrong but refuse to look at what's being shown to
>> you.
>>
>> Fly your ship closer to earth and we'll continue.
>>
>> [....]
>>
Indeed!!!!!!!!
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article<4981d2f8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> On 1/28/2009 6:18 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article<49805519$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>> On 1/27/2009 11:00 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article<e18be177-3958-4727-b97f-
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
>>>>> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
>>>>> are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
>>>>> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
>>>> I see. So you think that evidence of a frontal head shot is not enough
>>>> to indicate a conspiracy?
>>> Are you dreaming? What evidence of a frontal shot? Let something sink in:
>>> The doctors, who had the body literally in their hands and examined it,
>>> said two hits to JFK, from above and behind. Get it?....sadly, I think
>>> not, and you never will.
>>>
>> The autopsy doctors were incompetent. They missed the throat wound right
>> in front of their eyes.
>
> A pretty good case can be made for them knowing about the throat wound
> much earlier than they said. But I won't try to explain anything that
> complex to you...IMO, you're having trouble with the much simpler issues.
>
No it can't. And are speculating, not presenting evidence. You can claim
that they had the TV on in the morgue, but the facts prove they didn't.
>> They missed the semi-circular defect right in
>> front of their eyes.
>
> Yup..because it wasn't a bullet wound. Name one person who saw the
> body--and a lot of medically trained individuals did--who said there was a
It doesn't have to be a bullet wound to notice it. They noticed and
noted scars and cutdowns. But they called Parkland to see if they really
were cutdowns or could they be wounds.
> bullet wound above the right eye. Write there names here__. I didn't leave
I did already, thousands of times. Dr. Lawrence Angel. But of course you
think you are smarter than him and you misrepresent what he said.
> you much space because you won't need ANY---IOW, the only ones who said
> that thing above the right eye was a bullet wound are people, like you,
> who only saw the photos!
>
>> They missed the fracture of T-1.
>
> Don't bet your last dime on that either. The autopsy docs weren't exactly
> forthcoming on all they knew or saw...but, like the throat wound, it's way
> too complex an explanation for you to comprehend. As a matter of fact, as
> we speak, Gary Aguilar is reviewing a theory I came up with on just this
> issue.
>
Oh, so you have a secret theory that the autopsy doctors knew
everything, but conspired to keep it secret? Why?
>> The were not
>> allowed to examine the clothing.
>
> Does that make them incompetent? In any case, don't bet they didn't see
Why yes, yes it does.
> the clothes. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the entry marked on
Every time I bring up a well proven fact, you hint that maybe you know
it is not true. But you have no facts.
> Bos' descriptive sheet matches the holes in the back of the shirt and
> jacket?<g> How about the writen description of where the back wound was
Matches? Without any bunchup? That'll be news to millions of WC defenders.
> in the death certificate...do you think it's just a coincidence that it
> matches better the clothing hole than the hole in the body(photo)? Of
> course you do..while you claim almost everything else the autopsists said
> was factual was wrong, you take them at their word on issues like the
> clothing. LOL!
>
Boswell lied many years later and moved the location of the back wound
up from where he had marked it on the night of the autopsy.
>> They were forbidden from dissecting the
>> back wound.
>
> Does that make them incompetent? And what if they figured out, with
Why yes, yes it does.
> reasonable certainty, the path without dissecting or even Perry's
> guidence?....in spite of what you think--or want to know--or will ever
They don't need Perry and they intended to do it, but were ordered to
not do it by some unknown Army general.
> know, a good case can be made for that happening. If true (and you're not
> capable of handling the evidence that supports that scenario), IMO, they
> autopsists should have received accolades, not criticism, for determining
> the bullet's path, while at the same time, not being insensitive to the
> fact that it was the body of the President, by unnecessarily slicing up
> his neck.
Path? Which path? They mere guessed, just as you claim the HSCA experts did.
>
>> They were not qualified.
>
> You need them to be that or blind, or in on a cover-up in order to
> convince yourself you haven't wasted a kazillion hours of your life
> blabbering about your no-hits-to-the-BOH, off-the-charts wacky frontal
> shot theory. :-)
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You can't and you won't explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal
>>>> bone, which BTW the autopsists completely missed.
>>> I've explained it to you dozens of times, but you won't listen. The
>>> autopsists missed it? LOL. Take a close look at HSCA F-60--it's a blow up
>>> photo of your semi-circular defect in the frontal bone,..you tell us
>>> honestly, does it look like a bullet wound? Of course it doesn't and,
>> Of course it does, just like the examples I have pointed out from the
>> Coe and Peterson papers.
>
> How about the blow-up photo...you treat that photo like Dracula would
> treat a crucifix. Why? Because it shows what you don't want to
> realize---indeed, it shows why not one person who saw the actual body said
> there was a bullet wound above his right eye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Dr. Lawrence Angel. And expert. You are not an expert.
>> And Dr. Lawrence Angel said it was the exit
>> wound, something you continually deny.
>
> If you're not too busy replying to other posts with more B/S, find where I
> said he DIDN't write in his memo that it was an exit wound. So, while I
> could care less if you continue for the rest of your life misrepresenting
> the evidence, I want you to stop misrepresenting what I said.
>
You are the one misrepresenting the evidence. He said it was an exit wound.
> Now, rather than embarrassing Baden, who also misused the photo to decide
> that must be an exit wound, Angel parroted him by agreeing with him in the
Baden never pointed to the semi-circular defect as an exit wound. He
moved the exit wound back to the suture.
> TEXT of the memo. ****But**** he drew the largest skull piece that came
> late to the autopsy so that the beveled corner of that piece (with the
> metallic residue on it) fit on JFK's head (drawing) just forward of the
> coronal suture...the same spot where Baden, Angel, and all the other HSCA
> forensic docs agreed was the PRINCIPAL exit....and the same spot that is
> medical miles from your non-bullet wound over the right eye!!!!
>
Talk about medical miles, the HSCA entrance wound in the cowlick is
medical miles away from your EOP entrance wound.
> IF YOU DON'T AGREE THAT HAPPENED YOU WILL BE PUT ON MY KILLFILE...NOT THAT
> YOU CARE WHETHER YOU ARE OR NOT...BUT ASK ME IF I CARE IF YOU DON'T CARE.
> Don't bother asking, I don't give a rat's butt what you think.
>
I always expect you to put me on your killfile list, because you can't
refute my points. Instead, you misrepresent the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
No, the rumors are wrong. Even Baden claimed that RFK buried it during
the reinterment, but the photos show that was not possible. Novello
picked it for RFK.
John Canal
>
>On 1/29/2009 11:31 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article<4981d2f8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> On 1/28/2009 6:18 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article<49805519$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>> On 1/27/2009 11:00 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>>> In article<e18be177-3958-4727-b97f-
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I was attempting to show that the FRONTAL SHOT CTers dissed the basic
>>>>>> findings of the autopsists based only on suppositions and what they think
>>>>>>are suspicious issues re. the procedure. That's not nearly enough, IMO, to
>>>>>> make the giant leap that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
>>>>> I see. So you think that evidence of a frontal head shot is not enough
>>>>> to indicate a conspiracy?
>>>> Are you dreaming? What evidence of a frontal shot? Let something sink in:
>>>> The doctors, who had the body literally in their hands and examined it,
>>>> said two hits to JFK, from above and behind. Get it?....sadly, I think
>>>> not, and you never will.
>>>>
>>> The autopsy doctors were incompetent. They missed the throat wound right
>>> in front of their eyes.
>>
>> A pretty good case can be made for them knowing about the throat wound
>> much earlier than they said. But I won't try to explain anything that
>> complex to you...IMO, you're having trouble with the much simpler issues.
>>
>
>No it can't. And are speculating,
Soooo, I can't make a pretty good case for that? You don't even know the
arguments I have on that. Once again, true to form, you don't make sense.
I smell killfile time--anyway, why should I waste my time arguing with
someone who has such a wacky "no-hits-to-the-BOH, frontal shot"
theory---now talk about bringing the art of speculation to uncharted
levels.
>not presenting evidence. You can claim
>that they had the TV on in the morgue, but the facts prove they didn't.
You can claim that, I won't.
>>> They missed the semi-circular defect right in
>>> front of their eyes.
>>
>> Yup..because it wasn't a bullet wound. Name one person who saw the
>> body--and a lot of medically trained individuals did--who said there was a
>
>It doesn't have to be a bullet wound to notice it. They noticed and
>noted scars and cutdowns. But they called Parkland to see if they really
>were cutdowns or could they be wounds.
But that whatever it is, sticks ut like a sore thumb in the photo (not the
blow up)...and they didn't mention it...it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to figure out why--it wasn't worthy of mention, much less a bullet wound.
>> bullet wound above the right eye. Write there names here__. I didn't leave
>
>I did already, thousands of times. Dr. Lawrence Angel.
GOOD GRIEF MAN, I SAID NO INDIVIDUALS WHO SAW THE BODY MENTIONED
IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMHO, as far as contributions to this NG, I'd compare you to an uninformed
heckler disrupting a lecture at a college.
>But of course you
>think you are smarter than him and you misrepresent what he said.
Read above...for comprehension this time.
>> you much space because you won't need ANY---IOW, the only ones who said
>> that thing above the right eye was a bullet wound are people, like you,
>> who only saw the photos!
>>
>>> They missed the fracture of T-1.
>>
>> Don't bet your last dime on that either. The autopsy docs weren't exactly
>> forthcoming on all they knew or saw...but, like the throat wound, it's way
>> too complex an explanation for you to comprehend. As a matter of fact, as
>> we speak, Gary Aguilar is reviewing a theory I came up with on just this
>> issue.
>>
>
>Oh, so you have a secret theory that the autopsy doctors knew
>everything, but conspired to keep it secret? Why?
Secret for you because you can't comprehend new information or ideas.
>>> The were not
>>> allowed to examine the clothing.
>>
>> Does that make them incompetent? In any case, don't bet they didn't see
>
>Why yes, yes it does.
You think they were incompetent because they weren't allowed to see the
clothes? That makes sense....not.
>> the clothes. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the entry marked on
>
>Every time I bring up a well proven fact, you hint that maybe you know
>it is not true. But you have no facts.
Not for you...but for someone who understands the medical evidence..yes.
>> Bos' descriptive sheet matches the holes in the back of the shirt and
>> jacket?<g> How about the writen description of where the back wound was
>
>Matches? Without any bunchup? That'll be news to millions of WC defenders.
What did I say? Read slower....I didn't mention bunch-up with regard to
the face sheet entry matching the hole in the back of the jacket. There
certainly was bunch-up when he was shot, but that's a different issue.
>> in the death certificate...do you think it's just a coincidence that it
>> matches better the clothing hole than the hole in the body(photo)? Of
>> course you do..while you claim almost everything else the autopsists said
>> was factual was wrong, you take them at their word on issues like the
>> clothing. LOL!
>>
>
>Boswell lied many years later and moved the location of the back wound
>up from where he had marked it on the night of the autopsy.
No shit, Sherlock...so what. I was talking about why he put it low to
start with...in the same location as the hole in the jacket!
>>> They were forbidden from dissecting the
>>> back wound.
>>
>> Does that make them incompetent? And what if they figured out, with
>
>Why yes, yes it does.
Unbelievable!
>> reasonable certainty, the path without dissecting or even Perry's
>> guidence?....in spite of what you think--or want to know--or will ever
>
>They don't need Perry and they intended to do it, but were ordered to
>not do it by some unknown Army general.
I was talking about not needing Perry's guidence to identify the throat
wound as an exit.
>> know, a good case can be made for that happening. If true (and you're not
>> capable of handling the evidence that supports that scenario), IMO, they
>> autopsists should have received accolades, not criticism, for determining
>> the bullet's path, while at the same time, not being insensitive to the
>> fact that it was the body of the President, by unnecessarily slicing up
>> his neck.
>
>Path? Which path? They mere guessed, just as you claim the HSCA experts did.
LOL!
>>> They were not qualified.
>>
>> You need them to be that or blind, or in on a cover-up in order to
>> convince yourself you haven't wasted a kazillion hours of your life
>> blabbering about your no-hits-to-the-BOH, off-the-charts wacky frontal
>> shot theory. :-)
>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> You can't and you won't explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal
>>>>> bone, which BTW the autopsists completely missed.
>>>> I've explained it to you dozens of times, but you won't listen. The
>>>> autopsists missed it? LOL. Take a close look at HSCA F-60--it's a blow up
>>>> photo of your semi-circular defect in the frontal bone,..you tell us
>>>> honestly, does it look like a bullet wound? Of course it doesn't and,
>>> Of course it does, just like the examples I have pointed out from the
>>> Coe and Peterson papers.
>>
>> How about the blow-up photo...you treat that photo like Dracula would
>> treat a crucifix. Why? Because it shows what you don't want to
>> realize---indeed, it shows why not one person who saw the actual body said
>> there was a bullet wound above his right eye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
Angel did not see the body!!!!! Pay attention!
>Dr. Lawrence Angel. And expert. You are not an expert.
More like one than you, that's for sure.
>>> And Dr. Lawrence Angel said it was the exit
>>> wound, something you continually deny.
>>
>> If you're not too busy replying to other posts with more B/S, find where I
>> said he DIDN't write in his memo that it was an exit wound. So, while I
>> could care less if you continue for the rest of your life misrepresenting
>> the evidence, I want you to stop misrepresenting what I said.
>>
>
>You are the one misrepresenting the evidence. He said it was an exit wound.
That's the point...I never said he didn't say in the text of his memo it
was an exit!
>> Now, rather than embarrassing Baden, who also misused the photo to decide
>> that must be an exit wound, Angel parroted him by agreeing with him in the
>
>Baden never pointed to the semi-circular defect as an exit wound. He
>moved the exit wound back to the suture.
He moved what he thought looked like (in F8) an exit back to where Angel
and the others agreed it really was--just forward of the suture.
>> TEXT of the memo. ****But**** he drew the largest skull piece that came
>> late to the autopsy so that the beveled corner of that piece (with the
>> metallic residue on it) fit on JFK's head (drawing) just forward of the
>> coronal suture...the same spot where Baden, Angel, and all the other HSCA
>> forensic docs agreed was the PRINCIPAL exit....and the same spot that is
>> medical miles from your non-bullet wound over the right eye!!!!
>>
>
>Talk about medical miles, the HSCA entrance wound in the cowlick is
>medical miles away from your EOP entrance wound.
Change of subject? Not with you I'll go there...I don't need to hear your
wacky ideas on that too.
>> IF YOU DON'T AGREE THAT HAPPENED YOU WILL BE PUT ON MY KILLFILE...NOT THAT
>> YOU CARE WHETHER YOU ARE OR NOT...BUT ASK ME IF I CARE IF YOU DON'T CARE.
>> Don't bother asking, I don't give a rat's butt what you think.
>>
>
>I always expect you to put me on your killfile list, because you can't
>refute my points. Instead, you misrepresent the evidence.
Let any lurkers who, by some slim chance, may have read your B/S judge
that for themselves.
>>>> earth to Marsh--if my transmission can reach the outer reaches of the
>>>> universe--that's why the autopsy docs didn't even mention it. Still don't
>>>> get it do you? And that's exactly why it's always a pleasure to debate you
>>>> Anthony....NOT. Let me explain why it's such a pleasure: you can be shown
>>>> precisely why you're wrong but refuse to look at what's being shown to
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Fly your ship closer to earth and we'll continue.
>>>>
>>>> [....]
>>>>
>>
>> Indeed!!!!!!!!
>>
>> John Canal
IT'S KILLFILE TIME..I'M DONE WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO HELP YOU WAKE UP ON
THIS STUFF--IMO, YOU'LL UNDOUBTEDLY BE LIKE WEISBERG: TRYING TO CONVINCE
ANYONE WHO'LL LISTEN YOU'RE RIGHT...THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
BYE ANTHONY...I WISH I COULD SAY IT'S BEEN A PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE.
John Canal