My email to Dale K. Myers
John Canal
helped me with his email address.
Prev Next Normal view To: dalek...@comcast.net
Cc: jca...@webtv.net
From: John Canal
Subject: Suggestion...or just for your interest.
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:53 PM

Mr. Myers,
There is indisputable proof (replication of autopsy photo #45 of the
inside of the cranial cavity endorsed by Larry Sturdivan and John
Stringer) the bullet that killed JFK entered appx. 2.5 cm to the right of
and only a few millieters above the EOP. As you know, the main portions of
the bullet exited forward of the coronal suture. The channel-like
laceration that began at the tip of the occipital lobe, tracked just above
the Thalamus (Finck--his letter to Bloomberg), and ended at the tip of the
frontal lobe, is perfectly consistent with that entry and exit.
Yes, before it fragmented, the bullet deflected up with a change of course
of appx. 20 degrees as it penetrated the rear skull. Lattimer's
experiments proved a deflection of 20 degrees was not only possible but
that it probably occurred (see the caption and graphic Fig. 103 in his
book). Also, given the extent of the deformation of the nose of the bullet
(CE-567) it would have been pretty much a ballistics miracle if the bullet
DID NOT change course [deflect] as it deformed and penetrated the rear
skull. My friend, Sturdivan is wrong about the two large fragments curving
through the brain...they both traveled on petty much a straight course.
Then with JFK leaning forward about 27 degrees (relative to true
horizontal at Z-312) a straight line connecting the entry, a point just
above the Thalamus, and the coronal suture exit points at the windshield
damage....but this is only as plotted two-dimensionally on frame Z-312.
It would advance the understanding of the assassination if someone with
your highly regarded technical skills would plot that trajectory in 3D.
Just a suggestion...and a hope.
Happy holidays,
John Canal
Author of "Silencing the Lone Assassin" (Paragon House, 2000)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
David Von Pein
>>> "There is indisputable proof...the bullet that killed JFK entered...only a few milli[m]eters above the EOP." <<<
Hardly "indisputable", Mr. Canal.
Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA's FPP is on tape in a 1978 interview
with Dr. Finck confirming that the entry wound (red spot) seen in the
color autopsy photograph of the back of JFK's head corresponded
precisely with entry wound in the skull as seen via X-ray, with that
wound being 100 mm. [4 inches] above the EOP, per the HSCA and the
Clark Panel.
BADEN, ET AL, ON TAPE IN MARCH 1978:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>>>>"There is indisputable proof...the bullet that killed JFK entered...only a few
>>>>milli[m]eters above the EOP." <<<
>
>Hardly "indisputable", Mr. Canal.
IMO, you are one of the least qualified researchers to make any judgements
on where the entry was because you have no idea whatsoever how to
orientate F8...which, BTW, shows the entry in the skull at the level of
the transverse sinus...which BTW is near the level of the EOP....not that
you care.
At least Dr. McAdams was honest and observant enough to admit the
defect--as seen in F8, which I called the entry--is "deep inside the
cranial cavity". Being a proud man, however, refusing to admit that the
entry was indeed deep inside the cranial cavity, he then tried to say what
I was calling the entry was not what Zimmerman and Sturdivan--who examined
the originals--identified as the entry. I then produced a quote from
Zimmerman saying I had correctly identified the entry in F8...which is the
same defect as Sturdivan identifies as the entry (in F8) in his book.
.john had no further arguments....just as you shouldn't....but that won't
stop you.
Also, the only channel-like laceration through the brain, from the tip of
the occipital lobe, tracking just above the Thalamus, to the tip of the
frontal lobe--surprise, surprise--is perfectly consistent with the bullet
entering near the EOP and with the two largest fragments exiting forward
of the coronal suture. That laceration, of course, is hardly consistent
with a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting forward of the coronal
suture...a track which, BTW, doesn't come close to being reconcilable with
the windshield damage....as does the track from the EOP to the exit.
Again, what do you care about little details like that?
>Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA's FPP is on tape in a 1978 interview
>with Dr. Finck confirming that the entry wound (red spot) seen in the
>color autopsy photograph of the back of JFK's head corresponded
>precisely with entry wound in the skull as seen via X-ray,
LOL! Hey, praise the Lord and pass the ammuniton, David got something
right. Yup, the wound in the scalp did correspond with the wound in the
skull---BEFORE THE SCALP WAS STRETCHED! Oh that's right, I forgot....you
don't believe anything the autopsists said, e.g. they stretched the scalp
to try to cover the large top/right/front blow-out hole in his head in
anticipation of an open-casket funeral.
>with that
>wound being 100 mm. [4 inches] above the EOP, per the HSCA and the
>Clark Panel.
The wound in the scalp is indeed appx. 100 mm above the EOP as seen in the
photos...the problem is that those photos weren't taken when the body was
first received....in fact no photos of the BOH were taken at that time.
Again, what do you care?
>BADEN, ET AL, ON TAPE IN MARCH 1978:
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
Fisher said F8 was unusable due to its poor contrast...funny thing though,
the HSCA had no problem using it and neither did Zimmerman and Sturdivan.
In fact, both Zimerman and Sturdivan noted that F8 as "crystal clear". In
any case, had Fisher used F8 to locate the entry instead of the photo of
the wound in the scalp that you fell in love with we wouldn't be having
this silly exchange. Baden and Fisher wrote books together...who do you
think Baden was going to support on the entry...Humes....or Fisher? Oh, I
know...Baden would never lie. Don't be gullible...and if you want to chime
in intelligently on discussions about the entry location you ought to try
to figure out what is arguably the most important autopsy photo...that'd
be F8.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <76a3328b-5e59-490f...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>>>>"There is indisputable proof...the bullet that killed JFK entered...only a few
>>>>>milli[m]eters above the EOP." <<<
>>
>>Hardly "indisputable", Mr. Canal.
>
>IMO, you are one of the least qualified researchers to make any judgements
>on where the entry was because you have no idea whatsoever how to
>orientate F8...which, BTW, shows the entry in the skull at the level of
>the transverse sinus...which BTW is near the level of the EOP....not that
>you care.
>
>At least Dr. McAdams was honest and observant enough to admit the
>defect--as seen in F8, which I called the entry--is "deep inside the
>cranial cavity".
Not "the defect."
What you *think* is a defect.
I don't know what it is, and neither do you.
>Being a proud man, however, refusing to admit that the
>entry was indeed deep inside the cranial cavity, he then tried to say what
>I was calling the entry was not what Zimmerman and Sturdivan--who examined
>the originals--identified as the entry.
But Zimmerman uploaded *his* graphic showing what *he* thought was the
entry defect, and it didn't match yours.
>I then produced a quote from
>Zimmerman saying I had correctly identified the entry in F8...which is the
>same defect as Sturdivan identifies as the entry (in F8) in his book.
>
You can't make facts go away.
Zimmerman and you disagreed on what was the "defect" in F8.
>.john had no further arguments....just as you shouldn't....but that won't
>stop you.
>
>Also, the only channel-like laceration through the brain, from the tip of
>the occipital lobe, tracking just above the Thalamus, to the tip of the
>frontal lobe--surprise, surprise--is perfectly consistent with the bullet
>entering near the EOP and with the two largest fragments exiting forward
>of the coronal suture.
You're assuming that, when the brain is blown open by a pressure
cavity, the lowest point of the defect has to be the bullet track.
>That laceration, of course, is hardly consistent
>with a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting forward of the coronal
>suture...a track which, BTW, doesn't come close to being reconcilable with
>the windshield damage....as does the track from the EOP to the exit.
>Again, what do you care about little details like that?
>
>>Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA's FPP is on tape in a 1978 interview
>>with Dr. Finck confirming that the entry wound (red spot) seen in the
>>color autopsy photograph of the back of JFK's head corresponded
>>precisely with entry wound in the skull as seen via X-ray,
>
The x-rays shows the entry in the cowlick area.
Look at the AP. You can see nasty fractures radiating from the entry.
Look . . . John. I've long given up debating you on this. I simply
don't believe you know what you are doing trying to interpret medical
evidence.
But please have the decency not to misrepresent what I said.
.John
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
BOTTOM POST
And in return for saying how honest and observant you are, you question my
integrity?
Here's Zimmerman AGAIN:
"Between color prints #44 and #45, we could see the entrance hole. It is
where John Canal puts it."
Wed, August 10 2005. Subject: "Re. F8 Orientation Challenge"
Be honest as I have said you are and tell me he wasn't clear that we agree
on which defect is the entry.
There is only ONE defect seen in F8 in the rear skull that even remotely
resembles an entry...it is semicircular and beveled. My oh my, do I have
to post Sturdivan's graphic and mine along side of it to prove to you we
both agree on what is the entry? Note that Sturdivan and Zimmerman both
agree on that. We do disagree, though, on "where" that entry is in
relation to the EOP, but our difference is LESS than an inch....which is
within a reasonable margin for error, IMO.
Now, please be clear and specific about how you think I misrepresented
you...if you stil think I did.
>.John
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Fiorentino
i.e.., we are looking from the front to the back of the head.
However, if indeed what Canal says is *the* entry wound, then it is only
several inches down from the vertex. This is where the HSCA indicates it
was, where the forensic anthropologist Canal himself enlisted says it is,
and who has posted here repeatedly, and in fact where Humes himself gave
added evidence of in the Supplemental brain examination.
Trajectory analysis has nothing to do with anything, once that bullet
fragmented, and anyone who is familiar with this will explain that to you.
Canal is grasping at straws here.
Even if we go back to Lattimer, and take a look at the enhanced photo at
the time of the head shot in his book "Kennedy and Lincoln" we can see
that much of the ejecta went essentially straight up, or very nearly so,
after Kennedy's head exploded.
Now, unless you believe JFK was shot through the trunk of the Limo, and
ejecta was spewed up in the air because of it, then you can easily see why
any trajectory study proposed by Canal is perfunctory at best.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:jk7qi5lrq13jfqfmu...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <jk7qi5lrq13jfqfmu...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>>>
I didn't say a defect was deep in the cranium.
I said what you *think* is a defect is deep in the cranium.
>Here's Zimmerman AGAIN:
>
>"Between color prints #44 and #45, we could see the entrance hole. It is
>where John Canal puts it."
>
>Wed, August 10 2005. Subject: "Re. F8 Orientation Challenge"
>
>Be honest as I have said you are and tell me he wasn't clear that we agree
>on which defect is the entry.
>
He wasn't originally.
Both of you uploaded versions of F-8 in which you circled what you
said was the entry defect, and they were in *different* locations.
If he changed his mind, that's interesting, but he first saw an "entry
defect" in a place different from you.
>There is only ONE defect seen in F8 in the rear skull that even remotely
>resembles an entry...it is semicircular and beveled. My oh my, do I have
>to post Sturdivan's graphic and mine along side of it to prove to you we
>both agree on what is the entry? Note that Sturdivan and Zimmerman both
>agree on that. We do disagree, though, on "where" that entry is in
>relation to the EOP, but our difference is LESS than an inch....which is
>within a reasonable margin for error, IMO.
>
>Now, please be clear and specific about how you think I misrepresented
>you...if you stil think I did.
>
You said I agreed that your "entry defect" was an entry defect.
I don't know what it is, and you don't either.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> About the only thing Canal has right here is the "orientation" of "F-8"
> i.e.., we are looking from the front to the back of the head.
>
> However, if indeed what Canal says is *the* entry wound, then it is only
> several inches down from the vertex. This is where the HSCA indicates it
> was, where the forensic anthropologist Canal himself enlisted says it
> is, and who has posted here repeatedly, and in fact where Humes himself
> gave added evidence of in the Supplemental brain examination.
>
Oh please. Are you trying to salvage Canal? The whole damn point is that
he thinks the entrance wound was right where The Three Stooges said it
was. And that is 4 inches lower than where the HSCA said, so don't try
to bring in the HSCA to rescue him.
> Trajectory analysis has nothing to do with anything, once that bullet
> fragmented, and anyone who is familiar with this will explain that to you.
>
Unless you deny that it fragmented upon impact. The HSCA showed it
exiting intact as did Dale Myers. Only Lattimer diagrammed it breaking
up into SEVERAL pieces inside the head.
> Canal is grasping at straws here.
>
Much worse than that. Stop making excuses for him and treat him like Lifton.
> Even if we go back to Lattimer, and take a look at the enhanced photo at
> the time of the head shot in his book "Kennedy and Lincoln" we can see
> that much of the ejecta went essentially straight up, or very nearly so,
> after Kennedy's head exploded.
>
Of course, but when I say that the WC defenders call me a kook.
> Now, unless you believe JFK was shot through the trunk of the Limo, and
> ejecta was spewed up in the air because of it, then you can easily see
> why any trajectory study proposed by Canal is perfunctory at best.
>
Perfunctory? Why the euphemism? Why not call it what it is? Can't get
that word past the censors?
Maybe you should try a foreign language because you know they won't
understand it. Merde.
John Canal
>
>About the only thing Canal has right here is the "orientation" of "F-8"
>i.e.., we are looking from the front to the back of the head.
So Sturdivan, Zimmerman, Seaton, Hunt, and Ken Rahn are all wrong too? Is
that your story? Hogwash. If you'd have the guts to superimpose a model
skull at 50% opacity onto JFK's skull in F8 and post the results for us,
you wouldn't be able to sell your B/S about the entry being only several
inches down from the vertex [I guess you mean it's in the cowlick].
>However, if indeed what Canal says is *the* entry wound, then it is only
>several inches down from the vertex.
So says Fiorentino's precision "I'll just eyeball it" method of
determining where in F8 the entry was.
>This is where the HSCA indicates it
>was, where the forensic anthropologist Canal himself enlisted says it is,
Yup, only he used your technique for determining where the entry was--the
old reliable eyeball method.
>and who has posted here repeatedly, and in fact where Humes himself gave
>added evidence of in the Supplemental brain examination.
You exploited the mistake Humes made when he said the longitudinal
laceration was only 4.5 cm down from the vertex. Humes measured that when
the brain was on the table...when it was hardly in the same shape
(crescent) as it was when he was shot. For your information, the base of
laceration was just above the Thalamus which, if you'll look at an MRI of
a typical brain in a skull, is about 9.0 cm from the vertex.
>Trajectory analysis has nothing to do with anything, once that bullet
>fragmented, and anyone who is familiar with this will explain that to you.
Of course you don't want to discuss the trajectory...that's because
Baden's so called "fairly accurate" trajectory of his mythical cowlick
entering bullet (HSCA, F-66) points towards JBC's back and not any where
near towards the windshield.
>Canal is grasping at straws here.
Hopefully trying to help make sure those who don't know any better--who
might be reading these threads--don't fall for your silly rhetoric.
>Even if we go back to Lattimer, and take a look at the enhanced photo at
>the time of the head shot in his book "Kennedy and Lincoln" we can see
>that much of the ejecta went essentially straight up, or very nearly so,
>after Kennedy's head exploded.
Looks to me that it went mostly up and forward. Your mythical cowlick
entering bullet, though, would have transited the head on a downward
path....least I remind you. The bullet that entered near the EOP, however,
and deflected up (changed course by about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the
skull, was transiting his head on a slightly upward path....towards the
principal exit defect and windshield damage.
>Now, unless you believe JFK was shot through the trunk of the Limo, and
>ejecta was spewed up in the air because of it, then you can easily see why
>any trajectory study proposed by Canal is perfunctory at best.
How about quit eyeballing the entry location in F8 and replicate the
photo.....if you did have the guts to do that, you'd have to take all this
B/S back. But posters, I guarantee you that he'll not back his rhetoric up
by replicating F8 the way myself, Sturdivan, Seaton, and Hunt did....yup
we just didn't have Fiorentino's old "precision eyeball measurement
method" down pat as he thinks he does....hence, we were stuck measuring
the depth of the entry the old fashioned scientific way--by replicating
the photo. Amazing though that all of our results were within less than
one inch of one another.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
But as Zimmerman stated, what I think is the entry ***IS*** the entry.
That fact is also confirmed by matching the graphic of F8 in Sturdivan's
book to my graphic. And as overkill, Seatons and Hunt's replications agree
with mine.
>>Here's Zimmerman AGAIN:
>>
>>"Between color prints #44 and #45, we could see the entrance hole. It is
>>where John Canal puts it."
>>
>>Wed, August 10 2005. Subject: "Re. F8 Orientation Challenge"
>>
>>Be honest as I have said you are and tell me he wasn't clear that we agree
>>on which defect is the entry.
>>
>
>He wasn't originally.
Good grief...he's never changed his mind....because, as seen in F8, only
one defect in the rear skull that looks like an entry...it's unmistakable!
What's more is that our entry is 2.5 cm from the edge of the ruler that's
being held above it [the entry].....and I hope you recall the significance
of that measurement.
>Both of you uploaded versions of F-8 in which you circled what you
>said was the entry defect, and they were in *different* locations.
>
>If he changed his mind, that's interesting, but he first saw an "entry
>defect" in a place different from you.
There's only one defect that looks anything like an entry! If you want
I'll email Chad and ask hi if he's ever changed his mind on that.
>
>>There is only ONE defect seen in F8 in the rear skull that even remotely
>>resembles an entry...it is semicircular and beveled. My oh my, do I have
>>to post Sturdivan's graphic and mine along side of it to prove to you we
>>both agree on what is the entry? Note that Sturdivan and Zimmerman both
>>agree on that. We do disagree, though, on "where" that entry is in
>>relation to the EOP, but our difference is LESS than an inch....which is
>>within a reasonable margin for error, IMO.
>>
>>Now, please be clear and specific about how you think I misrepresented
>>you...if you stil think I did.
>>
>
>You said I agreed that your "entry defect" was an entry defect.
>
>I don't know what it is, and you don't either.
Hopeless. I was the first one to replicate F8. I handcarried the graphics
of that replication to John Stringer's home just to be sure my replication
technique was sound. I did that because he not only took F8, he taught
Medical Photography for the Navy. He aid my replication was sound and
signed a statement agreeing with it.
Then I showed Sturdivan the same graphics in an attempt to prove to him he
wrongly stated to the HSCA that the entry was in the cowlick. He quickly
recognized that my graphics irrefutably proved the entry was near the EOP.
Zimmerman was not so easily won over...he told me he'd have to see the
originals before he decided. He came back from College Park acknowledging
the fact that I was right about the entry and its location.
Since my book on the assassination was published ten years ago, I've
studied little else besides the head wounds...because the issue is
facinating and begs resolution. You, on the other hand have tried to
maintain a high level of knowledge across the vastness of this case and,
IMO, that has prevented you from fully understanding F8, F3 and the head
wounds.
I just hope I live to see the day when you, DVP, Todd, and Fiorentino
realize that Baden took all of you for a stroll down the yellow-brick road
regarding the head wounds and that myself, Sturdivan, Hunt, Ken Rahn, and
Dr. Joseph Davis [FPP], among others, have correctly confirmed Humes'
location of the entry wound to JFK's head.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
No, you can't. You can see from the drawings that fractures radiate up
from below the EOP. There is no entrance wound below the EOP. The fracture
wounds do not radiate FROM the entry. The cut the entrance wound in half.
As I showed before in examples from Peterson and Coe.
> Look . . . John. I've long given up debating you on this. I simply
> don't believe you know what you are doing trying to interpret medical
> evidence.
He knows exactly what he is doing. He is misrepresenting the evidence to
prop up a wacky theory.
Anthony Marsh
No, Zimmerman didn't change his opinion. Canal has a history of false
Argument by Authority by claiming that various experts agree 100% with his
wacky theories. They do not. They laugh at him.