From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Date: 13 Sep 2012 09:15:46 -0400
Local: Thurs, Sep 13 2012 9:15 am
Subject: Re: BINGO. Re: The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
On 9/12/2012 8:07 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <505006f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...Jesus, what the Hell do I have to do to get you to put me back on your
>> On 9/11/2012 10:08 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> This post is exactly why I took you off my killfile.....the things you say
killfile? You promised me 5 times that I would always be on your
killfile. Now you've gone back on your promises. Maybe I need to invent
some new swear words to get around the censors. The software will
usually intercept commonly used swear words and reject the message even
before it can get to the censors. Do you speak Klingon? How about Swahili?
>>> Canal's question to bigdog:Fine, if you are not brain enough to call it brain tissue. But it did
>>> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
>> False premise. You are revealing Humes incompetence. That was a dab of
> If you're referring to the dab of tissue below the EOP as seen in the BOH
> The white dab represents muscle or tissue from one of the lower of the
not have to ooze out through a hole. It could have gotten there from a
doctor's hand when handling the head.
It was deposited on top of the hair, not oozing out of the head.
> Now, read carefully and don't be in such a hurry to make your quota of 50It would also appear below the top of the hair.
> If the tissue exuded upfrom the lower scalp layers his damn hair wouldn't
> Hell, a five year old can understand that.The CIA writers had not yet come up with their fiction of JFK turning
> Now, let me see what other foolishness you've bothered me with.
>> Parkland already suggested conspiracy when they said the throat wound
around to look back at the TSBD exposing his throat to the sniper's nest.
>>> [...]I don't care what they said, only what actually happened.
>>>> I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my abi=
>>> You have no reason to believe the autopsy team reported exactly what they
>>> They saw cerebellum--and you agreed they did--but they didn't report that?
> Huh? Have you not read either the autopsy report or Humes' WC testimony?
And once again you falsely claimed that I conceded something when I
>>> They replaced pieces of skull before photographs or x-rays...but theyI don't have a pathway. I don't believe a bullet went from back to front.
>>> didn't report that they did.
>>> They documented the damage to the BOH with photographs taken after the
>>> They told the FBI that the bullet didn't transit JFK's upper back/lower
>>> They used a metal probe to probe the back wound but did not report that
>>> They found the back wound right away but led the FBI to believe they found
>>> There are other examples but I'm not going to beat a dead horse.
>>>> There was a single shooter. The medical evidence supported that finding.
>>> Yes, but the autopsy team did not report what they actually saw...that's a
>>>> Why do you assume the Bethesda team would need or want to cover anything up?
>>> Anyone interested in an accurate historical record re. this case, should
>>> The only thing that makes sense is that they (probably Burkley, who
>> Maybe, just maybe they were smart enough to know that it was a
>>> The misreporting happened, bigdog, do you have a better reason why it did
>>> Incompetence? Oversights? Rushing?
>>> I don't think so....besides Humes, Boswell, and Finck, there was Ebersole
>>> IMO, while perhaps being over-cautious, the misreporting was consciously
> Marsh, you keep saying the defect over his right eye was an entry
> Anyway, news flash, Marsh...there was only ONE pathway through the brain
> Sorry...I'd say nice try but both theories are ill thought out.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.