Question for DVP, Fiorentino, and Dr. McAdams
John Canal
the morgue around five AM.
They had prepared the body for an open casket funeral (that plan was later
aborted).
In the autopsy report and in Humes' WC testimony it is abundantly clear that the
bone and scalp were missing in large mostly top/right/front wound (to be more
specific, the bone and scalp were blown out roughly from just anterior of the
cowlick forward to about 4 cm into the frontal bone on the right side).
From what the morticians said, it is clear that plaster of paris with some
rubber was the primary method of preserving the contour of the President's head
in lieu of an intact skull as the skull pieces had been blown out in that area.
That all being said, how do each of you propose that they covered that large
aforementioned area with hair so that JFK looked presentable for an open casket
funeral......if the scalp wasn't undermined, stretched to its maximum, and
sutured closed over the plaster of paris and rubber?
Thank you for your answers that make sense.
John Canal
David Von Pein
John Canal is trying desperately to salvage at least SOME of his wacky
BOH/LN/EOP theory, but the question he has asked in this thread skirts
around the issue of the exact location of the entry hole in the back of
JFK's head (which is smart of John C. to do -- because avoiding the
obviousness of the "cowlick" entry is something he HAS to do in order to
pretend his "stretching" theory has merit).
Maybe there's a glimmer of hope that John C. might finally abandon his
BOH/LN/EOP nonsense after Vincent Bugliosi (whom apparently John has been
conferring with in some manner somewhat recently) completely rejects
John's impossible theory(ies). But I still wouldn't count on John giving
up the EOP/BOH ship even after VB inevitably fails to support such
ridiculous nonsense.
I'll just repeat an earlier post of mine here (regarding the EOP/ Cowlick
debate), which belongs in this thread too, because it goes to the issue of
scalp "stretching":
========================================
"If we just do the simple math here, it would seem to me (via John Canal's
"stretching" theory) that the cowlick of JFK's head/scalp (which John
insists is NOT the area where the bullet entered JFK's head) should be
located SEVERAL INCHES above the location of the bullet hole (the red
spot) in the autopsy picture linked below.
In fact, the cowlick (per John's "stretched scalp" theory) should probably
be about EIGHT full inches above the bullet hole, because John already
believes that the bullet hole is about FOUR inches below the cowlick on
the UNSTRETCHED scalp of JFK. And when taking into account the four-inch
"stretch" to the north on Kennedy's head that John says is occurring here,
that makes 8 inches total (4 "misleading" inches due to the "stretching"
plus 4 "real" inches):
Instead, we find the cowlick (even if the scalp is being stretched by
the doctors) to be right AT the level of the bullet hole (red spot) in
the above photograph.
Go figure." -- DVP
=============================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>John Canal is trying desperately to salvage at least SOME of his wacky
>BOH/LN/EOP theory, but the question he has asked in this thread skirts
>around the issue of the exact location of the entry hole in the back of
>JFK's head (which is smart of John C. to do -- because avoiding the
>obviousness of the "cowlick" entry is something he HAS to do in order to
>pretend his "stretching" theory has merit).
You are dead wrong...again. My question is relevant to the issue of whther
or not the scalp was stretched which, in turn, has everything to do with
why the red spot is so far above the hairline. Is this getting through?
Now, I'd assumed (and I shouldn't have) that you think you can identify
where the cowlick was in JFK's scalp in the photo because of the very
distinct "part-like" defect that extends from the red spot towards the
front right at about 45 deg. Did I assume correctly? If that is how you
determined (and I must remember that you evidently think you have an
uncanny ability to tell things from photos--I can't forget how you
determined from the scans of the x-rays that the fractures were not
"complete", "fragment-causing" fractures) the red spot was in the cowlick,
then you are guessing and taking a wild guess at that--I already posted
Boswell's testimony in which he say that defect is a laceration....and
that makes sense because, understandably, it extends out from that which
we agree is the entry [red spot].
Now, again, that red spot and connecting laceration was appx. over the EOP
at Z-312--about 4 inches above the hairline...but, after the scalp was
stretched, that red spot (and laceration) was about seven inches above the
hairline.
And, least we forget this is consistent with:
1. The flawed cowlick entry trajectory as determined by Dale Myers.
2. The trail of tiny opacities extending from near the EOP seen on the
ORIGINAL lateral film.
3. The lack of any trail of opacities seen on the lateral film extending
from any point in the cowlick.
4. Considering that the rear skull was fragmented and that F8 shows part
of the entry ***NOT*** in any bone fragment BUT ALONG THE EDGE OF THE
INTACT SKULL, means that the entry had to have been BELOW the rear bone
fragments that came/fell out...and it was...it was near the EOP.
5. The brain damage.
6. The fact that several eyewinesses, including the autopsists, stated the
entry was near the EOP....help me out, David, can you list the witnesses
who saw an entry in the cowlicK??????????
7. The replications of the only photo of the entry in the skull (F8)by
myself, Sturdivan, Seaton, and Hunt that irrefutably and, regardless of
what Fiorentino says, scientifically, prove the the entry in the skull was
near the EOP!
Now, please answer the question I asked...if you can't figure out that
it's germane to the discussion about stretching, then there's not much
sense in continuing this debate.
{,,,,]
John Canal
Ritchie Linton
regarding the medical evidence so I will accomodate your question with a
sensible reply regarding the effects of the head wound.U guys note:
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gr4h4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Humes testified that they stayed to assist the morticians until the body
> left
> the morgue around five AM.
>
> They had prepared the body for an open casket funeral (that plan was later
> into night,but anyway U note:
>
> In the autopsy report and in Humes' WC testimony it is abundantly clear
> that the
> bone and scalp were missing in large mostly top/right/front wound (to be
> more
> specific, the bone and scalp were blown out roughly from just anterior of
> the
> cowlick forward to about 4 cm into the frontal bone on the right side).
=='anterior' and forward R contradiction in terms=it could not have been
both and the persceptive Humes was canny when he told the WC that
"scienticically,sir"it could have been either given the damage to the
skull that had observed.Humes only saw the skull after it had been whacked
by either of Kellerman or Greer while in their custody,&it had been in
their control for a considerable period of time after the shooting.Because
they knew they had been forced by circumstance to pass the frameup window
front to back as the car approched the TSBD,there was little option open
to them but to add wounding that would now have to appear backward.Hence
the "opening in the back" that did not exit that went nowhere(Its both
ironic & significant that Kellerman verified that fact)&and as to the head
wound=====well,actually,it was "the right rear portion that was extremely
blasted".That was Greers soft lead bullet-a"tagential strike"-a shallow
wound-which left a"fine spray" of metallic fragments seen in Xray later
but untracable to the planted Carcano against OZ.
RJ
pjfk
> In article <5b7e96b2-39d6-46ec-9da6-17bd8b366...@r37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Of course, all this begs the question of where the back of JFK's head
was actually pointing at Z313, doesn't it? The alignment from Z312
would put the rear of JFK's head somewhere other than the TSBD.
John Canal
>was actually pointing at Z313, doesn't it? The alignment from Z312
>would put the rear of JFK's head somewhere other than the TSBD.
Well that's kind of why the bullet's path wasn't parallel with the sagittal
plane, ya think.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> cool-ur starting to get it&IthinkUmust have read my chapter on Inferno
> regarding the medical evidence so I will accomodate your question with a
> sensible reply regarding the effects of the head wound.U guys note:
I might help if you could write in proper English rather than Web speak.
> ironic& significant that Kellerman verified that fact)&and as to the head
John Fiorentino
"The alignment from Z312 would put the rear of JFK's head somewhere other
than the TSBD."
BUNKUM!
John F.
"pjfk" <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:492ab280-2808-415f...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
shockingly (ya, right), received no answers....soooo, I thought I'd try
again, this time making it a multiple choice type question in order to
help encourage them to respond.
I truly hope "everyone" finds this question at least somewhat interesting,
even though there are those who would much rather discuss Judyth issues.
Anyway, here goes.
Regarding JFK's head wounds, how do each of you [DVP, JF, and Dr. McAdams]
think they addressed the problem of the large area, from just forward of
the cowlick [your entry] to a little into the frontal bone on the right
side (where the bone had been blown into DP and/or the limo), where the
scalp was missing and/or extremely macerated.....so that JFK looked
presentable for an open-casket funeral?
A. First, they altered the BOH photos so they only "appear" to show a
virtually undamaged scalp with hair in most of that area....and then they
simply left the large opening in his head. Had the plans for an
open-casket funeral not been aborted, they would have just hoped no one
would notice the opening....one contingency plan may have been to use
Secret Service Agents, very noticeably armed with M-16s or whatever, to
keep those showing their respects from getting so close to the body that
they couldn't help but notice the huge opening in his head.
B. First, they used a wig in the BOH photos to cover most of that area.
Later they used a larger wig that covered the entire huge hole.
C. They used his own scalp/hair to cover the large top/right/front wound.
First, scalp that was undamaged (except for a couple of tears), from his
hairline to just forward of the cowlick, was "undermined" (a process in
which the scalp is seperated from the "occipitalis" muscle and other
tissues connecting it to the skull--primarily at the skull's nuchal
lines--thereby allowing the scalp to be stretched to its maxium), and then
stretched so that most of the huge opening was covered.
Note 1: This stretching unfortunately caused the entry in the scalp to be
over the cowlick part of his skull instead of where it was
originally--near the EOP.
Note 2: later, after stretching the scalp and taking the BOH photos, the
morticians slid the scalp forward to cover the portion of the large hole
that they couldn't cover by stretching the scalp. Then, after the scalp
was slid forward, they used a pillow to cover the opening in the BOH
[created by them sliding the scalp forward].
D. I have no idea and don't want to think about it or discuss it with
you....because you [John Canal] are one rude person, who is getting too
"shrill" (Fiorentino said something like that) to have a discussion with.
McAdams once said my comments are too "arcane" to respond to.so, OK, I
apologize here and now for my past behavior, and will try to do
better...with that will you answer my question?
MODERATORS: I'M JUST KIDDING ON CHOICE D...CAN'T ALWAYS BE SERIOUS...NO
OFFENSE TO ANYONE.
E. I simply have no idea.
F. I know the answer, but refuse to answer on the grounds it would make me
look a bit silly.
John Canal
David Von Pein
I'll choose this newly-added option:
G. Who cares?
David Von Pein
Addendum......
John Canal (incredibly) thinks that it would have been physically
possible to take JFK's scalp and stretch it like a rubber band, in
order to cover up the huge 13-cm. blowout to the skull in the right-
front of JFK's head.
That was one massive "scalp-stretching" exercise engaged in by Tom
Robinson, et al.
Proverbial ---> "LOL".
Anthony Marsh
>
> Addendum......
>
> John Canal (incredibly) thinks that it would have been physically
> possible to take JFK's scalp and stretch it like a rubber band, in
> order to cover up the huge 13-cm. blowout to the skull in the right-
> front of JFK's head.
>
Much worse than that. He thinks the hole was at the level of the EOP at
the time of the shot, then magically pulled up to the cowlick by Humes
just for the photos.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>I'll choose this newly-added option:
>
>G. Who cares?
That's pretty telling about the strength of your case for a high entry. But I
see you've posted something else--let's see what enlightenment you've provided
us in that one.
JC
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
This isn't funny...it's downright sad that a supposedly educated
individual like DVP insists that they didn't stretch the scalp in an
effort to cover the huge top/right/front opening in JFK's head in
preparation for an open-casket funeral (EVEN THOUGH THEY TESTIFIED THEY
DID)......and then laughs at the idea...BUT WHERE IS HIS ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIO FOR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM PRESENTED TO THE AUTOPSIST/MORTICIANS
RE. THAT HUGE OPENING??????????? I ASKED HIM AND HE HAS NOTHING...SO FAR
BUT SILLY LAUGHS.
Go figure...that's our DVP.
Note that McAdams and Fiorentino stayed clear of the multiple choice
question I asked...they smelled the trap that DVP steped on and were wise,
if not clever, not to do the same.
John Canal
David Von Pein
I've never said the scalp wasn't stretched a little bit. I think I made a
post just a few days ago, in fact, where I forthrightly admitted that
JFK's scalp was probably in a bit of a "loose" condition when Stringer
took the BOH photograph, and hence the entry hole in the skull possibly
wasn't "lined up" perfectly with the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH
picture.
But the type of massive scalp-stretching John C. is talking about is
insane. (IMHO, that is.)
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>I've never said the scalp wasn't stretched a little bit.
That's wonderful--a little give on David's part.
>I think I made a
>post just a few days ago, in fact, where I forthrightly admitted that
>JFK's scalp was probably in a bit of a "loose" condition when Stringer
>took the BOH photograph,
You're getting there.
>and hence the entry hole in the skull possibly
>wasn't "lined up" perfectly with the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH
>picture.
"Perfectly" is a gross understatement.
>But the type of massive scalp-stretching John C. is talking about is
>insane. (IMHO, that is.)
LOL! And you were coming along fine too before that blabber. First, who's
talking about a "massive" scalp-stretching event--not me. You seem to have
an affection for the word, "massive". Indeed, when I tried to tell you I
was certain the BOH wound wasn't "massive" as you kept saying (until you
finally backed off) I was insisting it was. Now, David's favorite
adjective rears its ungly head again. Now hear this: I think the scalp was
stretched about three inches, which is easily consistent with what the
morticans I interviewed said was quite possible.
Now, they had a huge top/right/front hole to cover, and, unless you have
some compelling reason for concluding they would allow the fallen
President of United States to appear for a viewing in front of dignitaries
from around the globe with only a partly covered "massive" hole in his
head, logic dictates they stretched the scalp to its max...about three
inches.
That three inch stretch would account for, not only the red spot being
about three inches further above the hairline than where it should be,
IMO, but also for the scalp past the cowlick forward to where the hand is
in the photo to be in pretty much undamaged condition.
Note that a three inch stretch still wouldn't have been enough to cover
the entire "massive" top/right/hole. The statements of the morticians,
though, make it clear that, as one of their final steps, the entire scalp
was slid forward enough to finish covering the "massive" hole. This of
course created about an "orange-size" area of missing scalp down near the
hairline--but this was not a big problem for them, and, as their
stetements indicate, they simply used extra "fluffy" pillows (or something
like that-going from memory), which masked the "new" opening in the
extreme back of his head. Thanks to Mimus, who has written about a 35
page, very-useful, chronology of the autopsy, for helping figure out,
especially what those final steps by the morticians included.
This just has to make sense to you...doesn't it?
Are there any lurkers who would like to chime in on that [I'm asking if
that scenario makes sense to you?]...or are you all so preoccupied with
the Judyth threads that you don't have time for this apparently more
insignificant (?) discussion? IMHO, what's on trial here is the
credibility of the autopsy......and at least I think that's pretty
significant.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
As I predicted you finally admit that you think the wound was near the
EOP, but only appears to be in the cowlick area because Humes
intentionally stretched the scalp that far. Besides the fact that this is
physically impossible, you'd have Humes as a witting conspirator.