>> On 9/11/2012 10:08 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6-a403-4b5ee240e899@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>>> says...

>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b-8733-393f8cfb0553@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>>> says...

> This post is exactly why I took you off my killfile.....the things you say
> are so ridiculous they humor me.

>>> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
>>> right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
>>> besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
>>> there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

>> False premise. You are revealing Humes incompetence. That was a dab of
>> tissue on top of the hair, not tissue oozing out of the head.

> If you're referring to the dab of tissue below the EOP as seen in the BOH
> photos (you know the one just about every one else that knows anything
> about this case besides you shows the entry wound in the scalp) let me say
> this:

> The white dab represents muscle or tissue from one of the lower of the
> five layers of scalp that exuded through a breach in the top scalp layers
> accidently caused when they undermined the scalp.

> If the tissue exuded upfrom the lower scalp layers his damn hair wouldn't
> have preveted it from ending up on top of his hair.

> Now, let me see what other foolishness you've bothered me with.

>> Parkland already suggested conspiracy when they said the throat wound
>> was an entrance wound.

> Duh....and....?

>>>> I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my abi=
>>>> lity and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do exactl=
>>>> y that.

>>> You have no reason to believe the autopsy team reported exactly what they
>>> saw?

>>> They saw cerebellum--and you agreed they did--but they didn't report that?

>> Nonsense.

> Huh? Have you not read either the autopsy report or Humes' WC testimony?
> Neither one...really. Why am I not surprised....you might find a ton of
> evidence that helps debunk your wacky theories...that's why.

>>> They documented the damage to the BOH with photographs taken after the
>>> rear scalp was repaired...is that reporting what they actually saw?

>>> They told the FBI that the bullet didn't transit JFK's upper back/lower
>>> neck, when that night they knew better...is that reporting what they saw?

>>> They used a metal probe to probe the back wound but did not report that
>>> they did.

>>> They found the back wound right away but led the FBI to believe they found
>>> it "during the later stages of the autopsy"...and didn't report they found
>>> it right away.

>>> 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
>>> fact, and I don't have to be a forensic pathologist to know that...I just
>>> needed to study the medical evidence that was reported.

>>>> 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
>>> have a desire to have the reason for the aforementioned examples of
>>> misreporting explained.

>>> The only thing that makes sense is that they (probably Burkley, who
>>> evidently died thinking there had been a conspiracy) feared the actual
>>> wounds could be misinterpreted as being caused by multiple
>>> shooters........and considering they knew LHO had been to the Soviet
>>> Union, they, being perhaps over-cautious, thought it'd be in the nations
>>> best interest to not report that night the wounds they actually saw.

>> Maybe, just maybe they were smart enough to know that it was a
>> conspiracy and said so then were slapped down and threatened by their
>> commanding officer.

>>> The misreporting happened, bigdog, do you have a better reason why it did
>>> than I suggested?

>>> Incompetence? Oversights? Rushing?

>>> I don't think so....besides Humes, Boswell, and Finck, there was Ebersole
>>> and Burkley there to decide what to do.

>>> IMO, while perhaps being over-cautious, the misreporting was consciously
>>> done and carefully planned..again with the best interests of the nation in
>>> mind.

> Marsh, you keep saying the defect over his right eye was an entry
> wound....but you are smart enough to realize I hope that if a bullet
> entered there that bullet would have had to create a pathway throught his
> brain, right? No? Oh well.

> Anyway, news flash, Marsh...there was only ONE pathway through the brain
> noted and it hardly lined up with either your entry or Harris'.