For Whiskey Joe & David VP
John Canal
spelled thoroness [sic] in that last post to you, but I wanted to tell you
anyway that I do know how to spell better than that. My keyboard is
wireless, and unless I have the damn thing aimed at the receiver, even
groups of letters don't make it to the final document. I just needed to
tell you that so you won't explain a radical spin on the three issues I
asked you about with me being totally illiterate.
Let me start by saying I think the three issues are connected and that if
this is too crazy for you, fine, no problem...but I'd appreciate you
producing the evidence proving I'm wrong. Based on about seven years of
studying these three issues, here's what I think happened....I could be
wrong, but I doubt it.
1. Three shots by LHO from the SN, at about 160, 224, and 312/313,
respectively. No other shots....LHO had no accomplices.
2. The 3rd shot entered near the EOP and caused at least two large
transverse fractures, seen well on the lateral x-ray. The lower fracture
split the entry hole in half. This precipitated Boswell's sketch on his
face sheet showing a piece of bone, with the top half of the entry hole,
that he later said fit onto the intact bone that had the bottom half of
the entry. Also, consistent with that conclusion about the fracture
splitting the entry is this statement by the FPP regarding F8 (the photo
of the inside of the rear skull from the front): "Stereoscopic
visualization......reveals a semi-circular beveled defect..." IOW, they
stated only the bottom half of the entry can be seen in the skull
edge....and the skull above that had either fallen out or had stuck to the
reflected scalp.
3. Note that lower fracture that split the entry originates from near the
EOP. Now the exit, no matter what A. Marsh says, was along the coronal
suture. The reason that's accepted as fact, as you recall, is because one
of the late-arriving pieces of bone from Dallas was beveled on one corner
that had metallic fragments on it....and Dr. Angel, the FPP's consulting
forensic anthropologist, determined that bone was frontal bone and fit
along the coronal suture.
4. This is key. That means the bullet deflected upwards (some 20.deg.) as
it penetrated the rear skull near the EOP onto a trajectory towards the
coronal suture exit. It split apart, though, into two large fragments
after penetrating an inch or so, with tiny metallic debris from the
break-up being carried up to the top of the head along with the brain
tisue that exploded in that same direction. In any case, I'm convinced
that the bullet's upward deflection as it penetrated the rear skull, not
only caused at least the two large aforementioned fractures, caused the
piece of bone between those fractures to move up somewhat....thereby
allowing cerebrum, under pressure to exude out the gap between that piece
of bone and the intact skull below it.
5. Besides exuding cerebrum, 10 witnesses said they saw cerebellum
tissue...and where does the cerebellum sit? Indeed just inside the skull
and immediately below that lower fracture (the lower margin of that
"moved" piece of bone.
6. Now you might be thinking, but the Z-film shows an intact BOH at 317.
And I agree, but I think, while the BOH was fragmented at 313, it took a
few seconds for the brain tissue to exude out that gap...and after that
few seconds passed since the bullet struck, is when C. Hill was on the
limo and within a foot or so of the President's BOH, and, as he testified
early on, was able to see a gaping right-rear wound.
7. And I totally agree with all the no-BOH theorists that witness
testimony is normally unreliable...but, can you argue against the notion
it can be right on? And, for the most part, I think that was the case
here. Hold on, as far as many thinking the top/right large wound was so
messy it appeared as if the large would was in the BOH, I say this. Two
neurosurgeons and eight other medically trained witnesses stated they saw
cerebellum tissue, which has a faily distinct appearance from
cerebrum...and one cannot see cerebellum from a hole in the top/right of
the head...onl;y from a right rear wound!
8. So, the body is put into the casket and arrives at Bethesda....but, you
might ask, what about the right-rear BOH wound that the autopsy x-rays and
photos don't show? Boswell cleared up this mystery, after cruely allowing
it to perpetuate for some 30+ years, when he admitted replacing rear bone
BEFORE the x-rays. Now, it's important to note that most of the x-rays
were taken shortly after the body arrived....IOW, if Boswell replaced rear
bone, that means, when the body arrived, there must have been rear bone
out of place.
9. When they reflected the scalp to remove the brain, pieces of rear bone
fell out all the way down to near the EOP. How do we know that? First,
that lower transverse fracture (yes, the lower margin of that bone piece
that moved up), matches in its jagged contour the skull edge as seen in
F8. IOW, those pieces were loose when they reflected the scalp....and it's
not a major leap to conclude that they were loose in Dallas...unless
someone hit JFK in the bOH with a hammer after he arrived at Bethesda?
10. Ok, so what about the BOH photos they show no right-rear wound. Of
they don't, but ask yourself what was under that scalp when those photos
were taken. Thanks, Dr. Boswell...he finally enlightens us, again 30+
years later that the bone behind the scalp in the BOH photos was missing
all the way down to the EOP. Heck, he even drew where the missing bone was
on a skull for the ARRB.
11. And you might ask, why, if there was a BOH wound, didn't the autopsy
doctors report one....and that was a question I didn't even think was
important to answer....until about a month ago.
12. Ok, here's were it really gets radical (but prove me wrong and that
might be a good thing). I think the autopsy doctors resisted describing a
right-rear BOH wound for fear it would set off conspiracy buzzers around
the world. Endulge me while I mention some facts that support that,
seemingly, radical theory.
A. Even though the autopsy MDs had to have heard about the alarming BOH
wound assertions from the Parkland doc, if not from C. Hill, they NEVER
EVER MENTION THE STATUS OF THE BOH WHEN THE BODY WAS FIRST
RECEIVED...neither in the autopsy report nor in their WC testimony.
B. Guess what important measurement that's on the face sheet that is NEVER
EVER MENTIONED...neither in the autopsy report nor in their WC testimony?
If you guesses the 17 cm measurement on Boswell's face sheet, you'd be
right. Why? Because, I say, they didn't want to give the impression that
bone fell out all the way down to near the EOP....again to avoid any
conspiracy conclusions about some shot from the front causing a right-rear
BOH wound.
C. Guess what little sketch on Boswell's face sheet is NEVER EVER
MENTIONED...neither in the autopsy report nor in their WC testimony? If
you guessed that sketch of the bone piece that he later said fit onto the
intact skull below the EOP, you'd be right. Why? Because, I say, they
didn't want to give the impression that bone fell out all the way down to
near the EOP....again to avoid any conspiracy conclusions about some shot
from the front causing a right-rear BOH wound.
D. And why wasn't there a photo taken of the BOH from the rear, either
when the body was first received or after the scalp was reflected? If they
had, that piture would have been worth a million words of arguing about
wether the bullet hit near the EOP or in the cowlick...but they took
neither photo and I won't bore with telling you why...again.
E. So, why did the autopsy doctors wait all those years to tell us about
the rear bone being replaced before the x-rays, the bone being missing
down to the EOP behind the scalp in the BOH photos, the little sketch on
the face sheet of the piece of bone that fit onto the intact skull with
the entry, and the 17 cm measurement? You know what I think the reson
is...because they were no longer worried about reporting a BOH wound.
And if anyone thinks for one second that the autopsy doctors weren't
worried about reporting findings that might signal conspiracy, just look
at their drawing, CE-388. It shows a near-EOP entry without
deflection...and they have to show JFK leaning forward some ridiculous 50
degrees just to make their trajectory work with a shot from the SN. Oh,
how about CEs 385 & 386, we all know what they did in those to help make
sure the wounds didn't work with any other trajectory besides the one from
the SN.
BTW, Ebersole testified that he not only held the President's head/scalp
in his hands, he saw a gaping BOH wound....but geeze, why didn't he
testify to the WC? I wonder. :-)
Ok, there's more but we're all getting tired and you all are probably
getting bored as well.
The 6.5 mm opacity.
While Humes was telling Rydberg to draw JFK leaning ridiculously forward
to help make sure their low, near-EOP entry was consistent with a shot by
LHO from the SN, other folks came up with their own plan to make sure the
reported wounds bagged Oswald. Ok, you're thinking this Canal guy needs a
padded cell and white jacket, right. Hold on a minute.
Whiskey Joe at least agrees it's not a real bullet fragment...but he's not
radical like me so he just concludes it was an accidental thing.
Hey, coincidences do occur, and the fact that it's about the same size in
diameter as one of Oswald's bullets with the jacket, could be a
coincidence...I agree. But, that fragment also is exactly the same
distance horizontally from midline ads the near-EOP entry...another
coincidence? Add to that the fact that the fragment just happens to sit up
high on the back of the head where one might expect a bullet from the SN
to entry, especially if it exited along the coronal suture...another
coincidence? Let's try an experiment about figuring odds. If the chances
are 6 to 1 that one can roll a snake eye on a die, what are the chances,
if one rolls three diece that three snake eyes will come up...you know
this; the chances are 6 x 6 x 6 = 216 to one...against. It's the same
thing, IMO, trying to figure the odds that thing could wind up in that
location with that size.
Here are some other interesting facts that are relevant to the suggestion
the 6.5 mm opacity was added.
1. The 6.5 mm thing was never mentioned in the autopsy report...and do you
see a bullet fragment that was recovered that looks like that one? I'm not
asking you, Anthony.
2. Ebersole had his mitts on the x-rays about a month after the
x-rays...to get some measurements for a bust of JFK...ya, right.
3. Humes didn't see it on 11-22-63 but did before he testified (yes, I
know this may be hard to swallow, but he did see the x-rays prior to his
testimony, regardless of what he said)...so, not thinking that it'd been
added after the autopsy, he had to get it into the record...right? So he
did...Specter feeds him questions about a large bullet fragment behind the
right eye and Humes tell him ya, I think we recovered one in that area.
Folks...lie, lie, lie. The only fragments recovered were from the surface
of the right cerebral cortex and that is medical miles from "behind the
right eye". But that's not enough...Humes has Rydberg draw that fragment
BEHIND THE RIGHT EYE (CE-388)...because that's where Humes thinks it
is....and why does he think it's there...hint: because there's no
corresponding opacity with the correct density for metal on the lateral!
And further poof that it wasn't near the right eye is that, with Humes'
entry, a fragment that size that ended up behind the right eye would have
had to have torn through the cerebellum...and that's not hardly consistent
with what the brain drawings show.
4. So what about the fragment
5.In any case, Humes tells us 30+ years later he never recalled seeing
that thing on 11-22-63....he was finally ready for communion. :-)
5. The Clark Panel, however, apparently thought the 6.5 mm was real and
that it corresponded vertically with an opacity that appeared to be
embedded in the outter table of the rear skull...problem for them that the
opacity on the lateral in the cowlick was consistent with that of a bone
fragment and not a bullet fragment.
6. And I wonder how many bullet fragments in the history of gunshot have
come out wafer-shaped and the same diameter as the bullet they came off
of...including the bullet's jacket? One should ask Larry Sturdivan about
that so-called "fragment".
My wife is yelling at me...I've got to go...and, luckily for you, I had
more to say. :-)
Think I'm nuts?...you wouldn't be the first one to do that...but, if you
do, at least have the decency of providing proof that I am...please don't
just tell me that witnesses can't be trusted.
I wanted to run this by the two LNers who I thought exhibited the most
logical thinking in order to see what they thought.
Thanks for being polite.
John Canal
P.S. I was going to proof this but it's too late..sorry about that.
David Von Pein
Some very interesting stuff there, John.
I'll have to try and absorb all of your intriguing post re. Humes, the
6.5mm. "object", and the BOH situation.
I'm wondering if Vincent Bugliosi might just take a similar approach
to explaining the BOH wound witnesses. Have you talked with Vince at
all, by any chance? Just curious.
I'm not sure I can wrap myself around every last thing you've said
here, John....but it certainly sounds plausible in many respects.
But I cannot fully understand WHY pieces of JFK's head would be put
BACK IN PLACE on his head BEFORE the X-rays were taken on 11/22/63??
That's just....nuts IMO. But, if your theory is correct, it would
indeed make more sense (i.e., nobody wanted any type of "BOH" hole in
the records, anyplace, including the X-rays).
But I think we're a long way from proving that there was any INTENT TO
DELIBERATELY DECEIVE re. the BOH stuff. Because of the condition of
Kennedy's badly-damaged head, WHY wouldn't it just be perfectly
reasonable for the BACK of the head to have sustained a good deal of
damage from a REAR shot....like an eggshell cracking and breaking
apart after it's been cracked open?
Why is that impossible? (That is, IF, indeed, a large BOH hole WAS
really present in JFK's head.)
Seems to me, though, that regardless of how far into the BOH the large
(exit) wound might have extended, the KEY fact concerning the question
of "WHAT DIRECTION DID THE FATAL HEAD SHOT COME FROM?" is fully
answered now and forever by the presence of that ONE and only small
entry wound in the head...which was UNDENIABLY IN THE BACK OF JFK'S
HEAD. That, to me, is the major key. (The BOH controversy
notwithstanding.)
But, in any event, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, Mr. Canal.
And even if I might not embrace every last portion of your scenario,
there's one part I completely concur with (right down to the exact Z-
Film frame numbers), and that is this statement.....
"Three shots by LHO from the SN, at about 160, 224, and 312/313,
respectively. No other shots....LHO had no accomplices."
The remainder of the assassination puzzle is practically incidental in
light of the above LONE-ASSASSIN-FAVORING statistics.
Regards,
David Von Pein
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/60d259946b0dd872
>
>Some very interesting stuff there, John.
>
>I'll have to try and absorb all of your intriguing post re. Humes, the
>6.5mm. "object", and the BOH situation.
>
>I'm wondering if Vincent Bugliosi might just take a similar approach
>to explaining the BOH wound witnesses. Have you talked with Vince at
>all, by any chance? Just curious.
>
>I'm not sure I can wrap myself around every last thing you've said
>here, John....but it certainly sounds plausible in many respects.
>
>But I cannot fully understand WHY pieces of JFK's head would be put
>BACK IN PLACE on his head BEFORE the X-rays were taken on 11/22/63??
>That's just....nuts IMO. But, if your theory is correct, it would
>indeed make more sense (i.e., nobody wanted any type of "BOH" hole in
>the records, anyplace, including the X-rays).
>
>But I think we're a long way from proving that there was any INTENT TO
>DELIBERATELY DECEIVE re. the BOH stuff. Because of the condition of
>Kennedy's badly-damaged head, WHY wouldn't it just be perfectly
>reasonable for the BACK of the head to have sustained a good deal of
>damage from a REAR shot....like an eggshell cracking and breaking
>apart after it's been cracked open?
>
>Why is that impossible? (That is, IF, indeed, a large BOH hole WAS
>really present in JFK's head.)
You make a good point. IMO, they probably did consider reporting the BOH with a
right-rear defect, but either they themselves or their bosses simply "played it
safe". IOW, they didn't want to take a chance that the conspiracy explanation
for the BOH wound would prevail....in the press and otherwise.
In the end, I think they did the right thing.
>Seems to me, though, that regardless of how far into the BOH the large
>(exit) wound might have extended, the KEY fact concerning the question
>of "WHAT DIRECTION DID THE FATAL HEAD SHOT COME FROM?" is fully
>answered now and forever by the presence of that ONE and only small
>entry wound in the head...which was UNDENIABLY IN THE BACK OF JFK'S
>HEAD. That, to me, is the major key. (The BOH controversy
>notwithstanding.)
I'd agree with that.
>But, in any event, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, Mr. Canal.
"John", please, David....or "John C".
>And even if I might not embrace every last portion of your scenario,
Can't blame you for that.
>there's one part I completely concur with (right down to the exact Z-
>Film frame numbers), and that is this statement.....
>
>"Three shots by LHO from the SN, at about 160, 224, and 312/313,
>respectively. No other shots....LHO had no accomplices."
>
>The remainder of the assassination puzzle is practically incidental in
>light of the above LONE-ASSASSIN-FAVORING statistics.
I just feel that, if we're ever going to resolve this conspiracy vs.
no-conspiracy seemingly perpetual argument, at least down to a manageable level,
we LNers need to offer non-conspiratorial explanations for the several
suspicious legitimate issues the CTs raise....the BOH wound, near-EOP vs.
cowlick entry, and 6.5 mm opacity, being three of them.
That said, I'm staying out of the SBT frey, but might opine from time to time on
the head wounds.
BTW, I re-read my post from last night and at times I was incoherent, e.g. I
wasn't clear enough about the piece of rear skull that moved up in Dallas being
still attached very much to his head by the scalp. But, not trying to make
excuses, I will say that I was tired and it was late (elevenish here)..perhaps I
should have waited....no big deal, though, I guess.
In any case, thanks for being objective.
Regards,
John C.
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/60d259946b0dd872
>
Oh, I forgot. I exchanged phone calls with Mr. Bugliosi about eight years
ago...believe it or not, even back then, as I recall, he was working on his
book. We didn't talk about the specific issues other than to agree there had
been no conspiracy. He tried to help me out a little getting a Los Angeles
publisher for my book. That didn't work out but I knew from that gesture he was
a kind man.
John C.
David Von Pein
>>> "I exchanged phone calls with Mr. Bugliosi about eight years
ago...believe it or not, even back then, as I recall, he was working on
his book." <<<
Oh, indeed he was. That'd be 1999 (approximately). Vince has been writing
it since 1986! Ever since the LHO TV Docu-Trial, which is a "trial" I'm
enthralled with (in every respect). I even took the time to "transcribe" a
bunch of verbatim passages from the trial, via my VHS video copy (for my
own amusement and my "JFK Files", as well...for reference).
Lots of great stuff here (IMHO). The "Wecht battle" is priceless. ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
The Wecht battle (in truncated video form):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4zIBSqUEP94
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>Thanks for the follow-up John.
>
>>>> "I exchanged phone calls with Mr. Bugliosi about eight years
>ago...believe it or not, even back then, as I recall, he was working on
>his book." <<<
>
>
>Oh, indeed he was. That'd be 1999 (approximately). Vince has been writing
>it since 1986!
Interesting. I'm sure it'll be as successful as Helter Skelter.
>Ever since the LHO TV Docu-Trial, which is a "trial" I'm
>enthralled with (in every respect). I even took the time to "transcribe" a
>bunch of verbatim passages from the trial, via my VHS video copy (for my
>own amusement and my "JFK Files", as well...for reference).
I'm pretty sure I had a VHS copy of that trial.....it was Bugliosi at his best,
but, after that I couldn't stand the sight of Spence.
>Lots of great stuff here (IMHO). The "Wecht battle" is priceless. ....
My memory fades on that...but, I'd hate to be the one to lock horns with Vince
in an argument....one would almost have to sympathize with Wecht.
BTW, I've talked to Wecht...in fact, he was gracious enough to return my call.
We discussed the 6.5 mm opacity, and he admitted he was always suspicious about
it being a real bullet fragment. I have the feeling he doesn't believe more than
just some of the things he says publicly....just a feeling.
Re. Bugliosi, now you've got me wondering what his position will be on the BOH
wound, the entry location, and the 6.5 mm. I'll be very interesting to see what
his take is on those issues.
Thanks for the post.
Regards.
John C.
Anthony Marsh
> Thanks for the follow-up John.
>
>>>> "I exchanged phone calls with Mr. Bugliosi about eight years
> ago...believe it or not, even back then, as I recall, he was working on
> his book." <<<
>
>
> Oh, indeed he was. That'd be 1999 (approximately). Vince has been writing
> it since 1986! Ever since the LHO TV Docu-Trial, which is a "trial" I'm
> enthralled with (in every respect). I even took the time to "transcribe" a
> bunch of verbatim passages from the trial, via my VHS video copy (for my
> own amusement and my "JFK Files", as well...for reference).
>
Yeah, yeah. Next month you'll claim that he started writing it in 1950.
WhiskyJoe
I don't know too much about the exact nature of the head wound, so I
can't comment on the details of it, beyond saying the straight line
cowlick to temple wounds does not make sense, knowing the bullet
fragments did deflect upwards by up to 20 degrees or so.
However, did the autopsy doctors disguise a large back of the head
wound? I don't think so. I don't think they would have known enough
about the case to do so.
I don't think they knew that the sniper's nest was almost directly
behind the limousine, within 10 degrees of straight back for both
shots. At best, they would have heard reports that the sniper's nest
was behind the limousine but I don't know if they would have known it
was 10, 20, 30, 40 or more degrees away from being directly behind.
I don't think they had access to any film which would have shown that
JFK was facing forward, just turned roughly 30 degrees to the left.
For all they knew, JFK may have been turned, looking over his right
shoulder, looking directly at the shooter. In which case a large exit
wound in the back of the head might not be too surprising. (As an
aside, Sturdivan would probably say the explosive exit wound would
still likely be at the side of the head, midway between the entrance
and exit wounds, although it could be anywhere.)
It would be crazy to disguise a large wound in the back of the head,
only to discover later that the Zapruder film showed JFK was facing
the sniper's nest at the time of the fatal head shot, looking back at
the location he heard the earlier shots come from.
Having information about snapshots probably wouldn't help. Someone
would have had to make a careful study of the Zapruder film and
communicate this information to the autopsy doctors by November 22. Is
this really likely?
I doubt the autopsy doctors would have known enough to say "Maybe we
should disguise the large wound in the back of the head." or "Maybe we
should add a metal fragment that lines up with the cowlick area, but
only for one x-ray."
> 1. Three shots by LHO from
> the SN, at about 160, 224,
> and 312/313, respectively.
> No other shots....LHO had
> no accomplices.
Agreed, except Mr. Sturdivan argues well for:
first shot, around Z153/154, as best evidenced by the Zapruder jiggle
at Z158/159
second shot, around Z222, as best evidence by the jiggle at Z227 and
the coat bulge at Z224. I believe that tests by Dr. Lattimer
consistently showed that the coat bulge occurred one tenth of a second
after the bullet passed. Unless some test shows a coat bulge
occasionally occurs one eighteen of a second later, I think talk of a
bullet at Z223 should be dropped. And a bullet at Z224 causing a coat
bulge at Z224 is impossible, the coat would move much slower than the
bullet.
third shot at Z312/313, of course. The Zapruder film makes this
obvious. Note, the Zapruder jiggle at Z318 follows the familiar
pattern of a jiggle 5 frames after a shot.
> 4. This is key. That means the
> bullet deflected upwards
> (some 20.deg.) as it penetrated
> the rear skull near the EOP onto
> a trajectory towards the coronal
> suture exit. It split apart,
> though, into two large fragments
> after penetrating an inch or so,
> with tiny metallic debris from the
> break-up being carried up to the
> top of the head along with the brain
> tissue that exploded in that same
> direction.
The bullet fragmented into at least three large fragments. Two were
found in the limousine. One had damaged the windshield. The second had
damaged the frame. The third fragment, containing more than half the
mass of the bullet, was never found, caused no damage to the limousine
and must have cleared the windshield. There is a very good chance this
fragment is the one that hit the curb and wounded Mr. Tague's cheek.
All three fragment were deflected at least 13 degrees upwards with the
large "Tague" fragment deflecting by 19 or more degrees. I would guess
that as the bullet started to break up, it was being deflected upward,
so all three fragments ended up deflecting upwards to greater and
lesser extent.
> In any case, I'm convinced
> that the bullet's upward
> deflection as it penetrated
> the rear skull, not only
> caused at least the two
> large aforementioned
> fractures, caused the piece
> of bone between those
> fractures to move up
> somewhat....thereby
> allowing cerebrum, under
> pressure to exude out the
> gap between that piece
> of bone and the intact
> skull below it.
I don't know anything about these details.
> 12. Ok, here's were it really
> gets radical (but prove me
> wrong and that might be a good
> thing). I think the autopsy
> doctors resisted describing a
> right-rear BOH wound for fear
> it would set off conspiracy
> buzzers around the world.
> Indulge me while I mention
> some facts that support that,
> seemingly, radical theory.
I don't know. It's possible. Of course, Mr. Sturdivan said that the
explosive wound could occur out any direction, regardless of the
direction of the bullet. He felt it just happened to go out right
side.
I used to think that what I see in frames 313 and 314 strongly
indicated a shot from behind. The blood flies in front of the head.
The massive damage seems to be more in the right side front of the
head. But from reading "The JFK Myths" I found out the explosive head
wound could have been directed in any direction. It just happened to
be directed to the right and up and slightly forward, judging from the
blood spray. And while frame 314 seems to show the massive damage was
limited to the front part of the head, the autopsy showed the damage
to the bone was all along the right side, if anything extending to the
back more than the front. The hair and scalp just happened to cover
the damage to the back more, I guess because the initial rupture was
in the forward part of the skull.
Basically, the blood cloud appearing in front of JFK, the damage in
frame 313 appearing in the front side of the head, even the Harper
fragment flying forward are no greater proof of the shot coming from
the back than the "Back and to the Left" motion is proof of the shot
coming from the front.
> Here are some other interesting
> facts that are relevant to the
> suggestion the 6.5 mm opacity
> was added.
> 1. The 6.5 mm thing was never
> mentioned in the autopsy report...
> and do you see a bullet fragment
> that was recovered that looks
> like that one? I'm not asking
> you, Anthony.
It was claimed that the autopsy doctors were not allowed access to the
x-rays, so that their conclusions would not be based on information
that was withheld from the public. If this is true, it's natural they
would not mention this fragment in their final report.
> 3. ... Specter feeds him questions
> about a large bullet fragment
> behind the right eye and Humes
> tell him ya, I think we recovered
> one in that area.
> Folks...lie, lie, lie.
I don't know about lies. Maybe confusion. Perhaps Specter had seen the
x-rays. He may have believed there must have been a fragment and
convinced Humes it had to be there.
> 6. And I wonder how many bullet
> fragments in the history of
> gunshot have come out wafer-shaped
> and the same diameter as the bullet
> they came off of ... including the
> bullet's jacket? One should ask
> Larry Sturdivan about that
> so-called "fragment".
That is a good point. As you well know, Larry Sturdivan said he never
saw a round bullet fragment like that in all the cases he has studied.
If someone else had, they would probably have reported it by now.
Larry believes that a round fragment is most unlikely.
I do not believe that defenders of this "Maybe it was a bullet
fragment" theory can point to another x-ray from another case that
shows a large bullet fragment that is nearly this round. If they can,
I would like to hear about it.
The only possibility is an entire intact rifle bullet, that somehow
did not fragment upon striking the skull, that somehow did not pass
totally through the head but stopped after a few inches, and was x-
rayed where the bullet just happened to be pointed directly toward or
away from the film, but only for one x-ray, then disappeared, and was
never seen by anyone.
John Canal
says...
<TOP POST>
In the interest of keeping this exchange as simple as we can, I’m just going to
address the areas where we seem to have significant disagreement.
I don’t think the autopsy doctors “disguised” anything. They simply didn’t
photograph or describe in their report what the status of the BOH was when the
body was received. Moreover, they were never asked that during the testimony nor
did they volunteer any such information during that testimony.
Now, you can bet anything that by the time they began the autopsy they knew: 1)
that LHO had fired three shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD, which was
behind JFK at the time of the shooting, 2) that no other shooters were
implicated, and 3) that the Parkland doctors, and probably C. Hill had reported
seeing a BOH wound.
Doesn’t it seem even a little bit odd to you that they didn’t even address the
Parkland/C. Hill statements? It does to me, and I’m not a conspiracy theorist.
Here’s analogy that went over earlier like screen doors in a submarine, but I’ll
try using it again with you.
Let’s say you’re the District Attorney in a murder case and your homicide
detectives have collected slam-dunk evidence that, in your mind, proved that
John Doe was the individual who committed the murder. But, some investigative
reporter for a leading newspaper has made a convincing case in the paper against
someone else. Don’t you think it would be normal for you, let’s say in press
interviews prior to any trial, to address the reports in the paper that you
undoubtedly think are false? Even if you didn’t do that on your own, the
reporters surely would ask you questions about the news reports.
But, in the face of reports that there was a right-rear BOH wound in Dallas, the
autopsy doctors stayed away from any photo or description of the BOH (other than
an entry), as it was when the body was first received, like it was forbidden
territory. BUT THEY NEVER ACTUALLY ***LIED***…and that’s important to keep in
mind.
And doesn’t it seem even the least bit odd that:
1.Even though Finck thought he asked for a photo to be taken of the BOH from the
rear with the scalp reflected, evidently none was taken. The importance of such
a photo couldn't be overstated because it would probably have all but resolved,
not only the seemingly neverending argument over whether the entry was in the
cowlick or near the EOP, but also whether or not a BOH wound existed in Dallas.
2.While there are photos of the body from other angles taken when it was first
received, there are none of the BOH.
3.It was not explained until 30+ years after the fact that when the BOH photos
were taken, the bone was missing down to near the EOP.
4.It was not explained until 30+ years after the fact that they had replaced
rear bone BEFORE the x-rays of the head were taken. And, as you know, the x-rays
were taken shortly after the body arrived….so, if rear bone was replaced at that
time, then it stand to reason that the rear bone was NOT IN PLACE ***WHEN THE
BODY WAS RECEIVED***.
5.It was not explained until 30+ years after the fact that the little piece of
skull that Boswell drew on his face sheet included the top half of the entry
hole near the EOP and fit onto to the intact skull below it that included the
bottom half of the entry.
6.It was not explained until 30+ years after the fact that the 17 cm measurement
on Boswell’s face sheet was quantifying how far back the EXTENDED great defect
went. In other words, whereas the 13 cm measurement was the anterior to
posterior length of the blown out top/right/front defect in the skull, the 17 cm
measurement told how far back that original (13 cm) defect was extended when
they reflected the scalp and pieces of bone fell out. That 17 cm brings the
defect all the way back to near the EOP.
7.It was not illustrated until 30+ years after the fact that bone was missing
down to near the EOP.
These actions do not only seem odd to me, I see a clear pattern of reporting
that shows the Parkland doctors, Clint Hill, and Ebersole were undoubtedly
spot-on with their description of a BOH wound.
Remember, 10 Parkland doctors, including two neurosurgeons stated they saw
cerebellum tissue….and, because the cerebellum sits anatomically just below and
forward of the EOP, that would be virtually impossible to do if they only saw a
gaping top/right/front wound. keep in mind that
Also, as far as any of the BOH wound witnesses not having a good angle to see a
BOH, Clint Hill was only a foot or so from JFK’s BOH with a point-blank view…and
testified EARLY ON that he saw a “gaping, right-rear wound”. Also, Ebersole, not
only sated he held the President’s head in his hands, but also that he saw a BOH
gaping wound.
And the physics of the shot should not be used to try to disprove any BOH wound.
You agree the bullet was fired from above, entered low and exited high, right?
If the bullet deflected as it penetrated the rear skull, as it surely did, it
seems perfectly logical to me that the deflection upward would have PUSHED UP on
that piece of skull (referring to the copies of the lateral x-ray) between the
one large transverse fracture that extends around the back/right of his head
from near the EOP and the one a few cm above and pretty much parallel to it.
The bottom line is to me that, for obvious reasons, the autopsy doctors resisted
reporting any right-rear BOH wound that as much as even suggested there had been
a frontal shooter conflicting with the early reports that there had been only
one shooter who fired from above and behind.
And, again, they didn’t confirm or deny the existence of such a wound…meaning
they didn’t lie about it. I think the way they handled the situation was
probably the safe, technically truthful, and prudent way to do it.
I’m going to talk later with Larry about this…do you have his email address?
John Canal