New article on Robert McClelland
Dave Reitzes
I'll just post the link:
Dave
marki...@yahoo.com
> Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
> I'll just post the link:
>
>
> Dave
Thanks, Dave! I enjoyed reading that, as I've always drawn attention
to McClelland's firm conviction regarding the discrepancy between the
autopsy images versus what he saw directly. I don't participate in
other forums, as most are self-fulfilling conspiratorial prophecies.
One of the statements that caught my attention was the frontal neck
wound described as "quarter size", when Perry's estimates on actual
size were significantly smaller.
~Mark
John McAdams
>On Nov 11, 10:59 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
>> I'll just post the link:
>>
>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>>
>> Dave
>
>Thanks, Dave! I enjoyed reading that, as I've always drawn attention
>to McClelland's firm conviction regarding the discrepancy between the
>autopsy images versus what he saw directly.
But he told NOVA that there was no discrepancy:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
>I don't participate in
>other forums, as most are self-fulfilling conspiratorial prophecies.
>One of the statements that caught my attention was the frontal neck
>wound described as "quarter size", when Perry's estimates on actual
>size were significantly smaller.
>
But McClelland didn't arrive in time to see the throat wound in its
unaltered condition.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "But he told NOVA that there was no discrepancy." <<<
At the 7:40 mark of this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv9ifW_Fs3Y&fmt=18
John Canal
>
>On 13 Nov 2008 23:41:26 -0500, marki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Nov 11, 10:59 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
>>> I'll just post the link:
>>>
>>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>>Thanks, Dave! I enjoyed reading that, as I've always drawn attention
>>to McClelland's firm conviction regarding the discrepancy between the
>>autopsy images versus what he saw directly.
>
>But he told NOVA that there was no discrepancy:
What would you have expected him to say? Perhaps, "I hereby formally accuse the
USG of doctoring the JFK autopsy photos....my career wasn't going anywhere
anyway!" I don't think so. He gave the politically correct answer to Nova. That
said, read his ARRB testimony during which he obviously felt less intimidated as
his colleagues also said they recalled a BOH wound.
Honest question, .john. Do you think, for Nova, it was explained to McClelland
that before the BOH autopsy photo was taken the scalp had been reflected, rear
bones had been allowed to fall out, and a possibly repaired rear scalp held back
up? I'll bet the farm it wasn't. Remember, the testimony clearly tells us that
some time before the body left the morgue Humes assisted the morticians as they,
among other things, stretched and closed the scalp (in preparation for a
possible open casket funeral)......and there is no way of knowing if that photo
was taken before or after that event. The fact is the autopsy docs reported that
the great defect extended somewhat into the occipital and the BOH photo shows no
such damage....not even a hint of it.
That leaves us with one of two explanations: either the autopsy docs were lying
or that photo was taken after the aforementioned repair to the rear scalp.
Myself, I usually don't call people liars unless I can prove they lied.
BTW, especially considering a BOH wound doesn't hardly have to mean such damage
wasn't caused by the Z312 bullet from the SN, while it's up to you, I think it'd
be nice if you'd refrain from calling the autopsy docs either liars or
idiots...unless of course you can prove that's what they were.
:-)
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <gc0qh4he73dtfpj4g...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>> On 13 Nov 2008 23:41:26 -0500, marki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 11, 10:59 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
>>>> I'll just post the link:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>> Thanks, Dave! I enjoyed reading that, as I've always drawn attention
>>> to McClelland's firm conviction regarding the discrepancy between the
>>> autopsy images versus what he saw directly.
>> But he told NOVA that there was no discrepancy:
>
> What would you have expected him to say? Perhaps, "I hereby formally accuse the
> USG of doctoring the JFK autopsy photos....my career wasn't going anywhere
> anyway!" I don't think so. He gave the politically correct answer to Nova. That
> said, read his ARRB testimony during which he obviously felt less intimidated as
> his colleagues also said they recalled a BOH wound.
>
In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, McClelland agreed in general with the WC
diagram of the head wound showing the large wound on the right side of
the head.
> Honest question, .john. Do you think, for Nova, it was explained to McClelland
> that before the BOH autopsy photo was taken the scalp had been reflected, rear
> bones had been allowed to fall out, and a possibly repaired rear scalp held back
> up? I'll bet the farm it wasn't. Remember, the testimony clearly tells us that
You suppose a lot of things without proving any of them.
> some time before the body left the morgue Humes assisted the morticians as they,
> among other things, stretched and closed the scalp (in preparation for a
> possible open casket funeral)......and there is no way of knowing if that photo
Which photo? We know that all the existing autopsy photos were taken
before the embalmers arrived.
> was taken before or after that event. The fact is the autopsy docs reported that
> the great defect extended somewhat into the occipital and the BOH photo shows no
> such damage....not even a hint of it.
>
> That leaves us with one of two explanations: either the autopsy docs were lying
> or that photo was taken after the aforementioned repair to the rear scalp.
> Myself, I usually don't call people liars unless I can prove they lied.
>
> BTW, especially considering a BOH wound doesn't hardly have to mean such damage
> wasn't caused by the Z312 bullet from the SN, while it's up to you, I think it'd
> be nice if you'd refrain from calling the autopsy docs either liars or
> idiots...unless of course you can prove that's what they were.
>
We have. Many times.
David Von Pein
RE: THE 1988 "NOVA" DOCUMENTARY & THE PARKLAND DOCTORS STRANGE
TALES.......
The Parkland doctors' comments on the NOVA program in 1988 make no sense
whatsoever (when you stop to think about it for two seconds).
They EACH said that the photo depict the President's body in just exactly
the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at Parkland....and yet
the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e., each doctor points to the
REAR of their heads for the NOVA cameras before going into a back room at
the National Archives (which is where they all said the large exit wound
was located on JFK's head--with Dulany actually pointing to the
FAR-REAR-CENTER area of his head nearer the cowlick or EOP area)....
They then go and view the photos and then claim, on camera, that the
wounds in the pictures are the same as what they saw at Parkland.
That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher.
And McClelland's possible explanation for why this is the case is just
nuts too (IMO) -- because if McClelland were right about the flap of scalp
being pulled up over the larger wound underneath that scalp...it would, of
course, mean that Kennedy's scalp must have been peeled back in that
manner while JFK was at Parkland....and we know that didn't happen. His
scalp was peeled back like a banana at Parkland...which means that there
was no way in Hades for McClelland and the other doctors to have seen any
underlying hole in Kennedy's head at Parkland (per McClelland's oddball
"scalp was pulled up, which hid the large hole" theory.
I don't know what "pressures" those doctors were under in 1988 when they
viewed those autopsy photos for PBS-TV's NOVA program, but their
explanations after seeing the photos do not mesh at all with their
comments and the physical demonstration that each doctor performed for the
camera before going in to see those pictures.
I hate to utter my theory on this -- for fear of being laughed out of the
country. But I will say it anyway---
I think it's possible that those doctors were just flat-out embarrassed to
admit that they were wrong when it came to locating the true location of
JFK's large head wound.
The photos have been authenticated by the HSCA. And the photos positively
depict President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy. And each doctor
surely must have known those facts before viewing the pictures at the
Archives in 1988.
After seeing the various photos which undeniably PROVE that they were each
wrong about where they originally said the large wound on JFK was located,
the doctors still could not bring themselves to say this to the NOVA
camera --- "After looking at these photos, I must admit that I was
mistaken when I said that the President's large head wound was located in
the far-right-rear portion of his head. I must have been in error."
Instead, the doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their
original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not
corroborate a single one of those doctors.
I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an innocent
error.
~shrug~
==========================================
PARKLAND DOCTORS VIEW AUTOPSY PHOTOS IN 1988:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv9ifW_Fs3Y&fmt=18
==========================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Kennedy's scalp was peeled back like a banana at Parkland..." <<<
God, I hate typos!! I hate them! With a passion! And I really hate the
fact there's no "edit" function here @ Google.
The above sentence should read (of course):
Kennedy's scalp wasn't peeled back like a banana at Parkland.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 11, 10:59 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
>> I'll just post the link:
>>
>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>>
>> Dave
>
> Thanks, Dave! I enjoyed reading that, as I've always drawn attention
> to McClelland's firm conviction regarding the discrepancy between the
> autopsy images versus what he saw directly. I don't participate in
No such thing.
> other forums, as most are self-fulfilling conspiratorial prophecies.
> One of the statements that caught my attention was the frontal neck
> wound described as "quarter size", when Perry's estimates on actual
> size were significantly smaller.
>
I doubt it. Can you cite that quote? McClelland did not see the original
size of the wound. There were varying estimates, none of which are proof.
> ~Mark
>
John Canal
"I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an innocent
error.
~shrug~"
So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as credible
Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert, Ebersole, Boyers, and O'Neill were ***ALL***
wrong about there being a BOH wound......based on a photo (and, of couse, what
VB says)--indeed, a photo that you're 100% absolutely positive (so positive
you're able, with a clear conscience, to call all these individals grossly
mistaken--not liars, of course--you'd never use the "L" word) wasn't taken after
some repair was done to the BOH scalp........even though that photo wasn't
time-stamped and there is clear and convicing testimony that openings in the
scalp were closed (in preparation for a possible open-casket funeral), with
Humes assisting them, before the body left the morgue?
Is that your compelling argument? Honestly, the "Greer-did-it", Blenner's,
"the-two-recovered-head fragments-came off-the-bullet that-hit-him-in-the-upper
back", and Marsh's, "no-hits-to-the-BOH" theories make better
sense....seriously.
Remember this, if you will: the existence of a BOH would doesn't hardly mean the
312 shot fired by LHO didn't case that wound.
Truck on.
John Canal
John Canal
CORRECTION:
I WROTE:
"Remember this, if you will: the existence of a BOH would doesn't hardly mean
the 312 shot fired by LHO didn't case that wound."
BUT, OF COURSE, SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN:
"Remember this, if you will: the existence of a BOH wound doesn't hardly mean
the 312 shot fired by LHO didn't cause that wound."
Perhaps that is worth repeating anyway....because, IMO, the unwarranted fear by
the likes of Baden, Posner, VB, and McAdams that such a wound was proof of a
frontal shooter is why this issue has been beat to death over the years.
While my opinion and one dollar is probably worth a cup of coffee around here
(not that I really care), I assure you the BOH wound was the result of a bullet
deflecting up as it penetrated the rear skull and causing the skull in that area
to fragment and subsequently partially "open up" due to the pressure of the
temporary cavity.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
I still don't get your point. What do you define as a BOH wound? Are you
talking about a small entrance wound? Are you limiting it to some
various conspiracy theories? What BOH wound are you claiming was caused
by a bullet deflection? Wouldn't some conspiracy theorists see that same
wound and claim it was an exit wound?
I think you do your cause more harm than good by admitting to some wound
which the conspiracy side alleges and then trying to explain it away as
not indicating a conspiracy.
It's like the attempt to claim that although Kennedy was shot in the
front, the shot was fired from the sniper's nest.
Anthony Marsh
What BOH wound? Show it to me.
Why should you assume the existence of something which conspiracy
believers thinks proves conspiracy?
You don't need no damn BOH wound.
> Truck on.
>
> John Canal
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> RE: THE 1988 "NOVA" DOCUMENTARY & THE PARKLAND DOCTORS STRANGE
> TALES.......
>
> The Parkland doctors' comments on the NOVA program in 1988 make no sense
> whatsoever (when you stop to think about it for two seconds).
>
> They EACH said that the photo depict the President's body in just exactly
> the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at Parkland....and yet
> the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e., each doctor points to the
> REAR of their heads for the NOVA cameras before going into a back room at
> the National Archives (which is where they all said the large exit wound
> was located on JFK's head--with Dulany actually pointing to the
> FAR-REAR-CENTER area of his head nearer the cowlick or EOP area)....
>
> They then go and view the photos and then claim, on camera, that the
> wounds in the pictures are the same as what they saw at Parkland.
>
> That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher.
>
You have to remember two things. First, the appearance of the head may
have been different when the body arrived at Parkland versus after being
examined at autopsy. And the Parkland doctors did not know what happened
to the body from the time they saw it to when the autopsy photos were
taken.
> And McClelland's possible explanation for why this is the case is just
> nuts too (IMO) -- because if McClelland were right about the flap of scalp
> being pulled up over the larger wound underneath that scalp...it would, of
> course, mean that Kennedy's scalp must have been peeled back in that
> manner while JFK was at Parkland....and we know that didn't happen. His
> scalp was peeled back like a banana at Parkland...which means that there
> was no way in Hades for McClelland and the other doctors to have seen any
> underlying hole in Kennedy's head at Parkland (per McClelland's oddball
> "scalp was pulled up, which hid the large hole" theory.
>
Does their description specify a "hole" or just that's where they saw
the wound? They could see matted blood and brain matter at the back of
the head, but no hole underneath that.
> I don't know what "pressures" those doctors were under in 1988 when they
> viewed those autopsy photos for PBS-TV's NOVA program, but their
> explanations after seeing the photos do not mesh at all with their
> comments and the physical demonstration that each doctor performed for the
> camera before going in to see those pictures.
>
I think they were under intense pressure and threats not to say anything
which would indicate conspiracy.
> I hate to utter my theory on this -- for fear of being laughed out of the
> country. But I will say it anyway---
>
> I think it's possible that those doctors were just flat-out embarrassed to
> admit that they were wrong when it came to locating the true location of
> JFK's large head wound.
>
You mean like the autopsy doctors were just flat-out embarrassed to admit
that they were wrong about the entrance wound in the head? Sometimes
people are just simply wrong and were tricked by an optical illusion.
> The photos have been authenticated by the HSCA. And the photos positively
> depict President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy. And each doctor
> surely must have known those facts before viewing the pictures at the
> Archives in 1988.
>
> After seeing the various photos which undeniably PROVE that they were each
> wrong about where they originally said the large wound on JFK was located,
> the doctors still could not bring themselves to say this to the NOVA
> camera --- "After looking at these photos, I must admit that I was
> mistaken when I said that the President's large head wound was located in
> the far-right-rear portion of his head. I must have been in error."
>
> Instead, the doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED their
> original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the photos do not
> corroborate a single one of those doctors.
>
> I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an innocent
> error.
>
A lot of people did not.
John Canal
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> CORRECTION:
>>
>> I WROTE:
>>
>> "Remember this, if you will: the existence of a BOH would doesn't hardly mean
>> the 312 shot fired by LHO didn't case that wound."
>>
>> BUT, OF COURSE, SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN:
>>
>> "Remember this, if you will: the existence of a BOH wound doesn't hardly mean
>> the 312 shot fired by LHO didn't cause that wound."
>>
>>Perhaps that is worth repeating anyway....because, IMO, the unwarranted fear by
>> the likes of Baden, Posner, VB, and McAdams that such a wound was proof of a
>> frontal shooter is why this issue has been beat to death over the years.
>>
>> While my opinion and one dollar is probably worth a cup of coffee around here
>>(not that I really care), I assure you the BOH wound was the result of a bullet
>>deflecting up as it penetrated the rear skull and causing the skull in that area
>> to fragment and subsequently partially "open up" due to the pressure of the
>> temporary cavity.
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>>
>
>
>I still don't get your point. What do you define as a BOH wound?
Well, with you responding to, what about 9,000 posts per year, I don't
expect you to be up on the perticulars of every issue that's being
debated, so let me enlighten you on the oft used term, "BOH wound" or
"Large BOH wound".
No, as far as I'm concerned, we're not talking about the small entry
wound, we're talking about a wound perhaps somewhere in size between what
McClelland endorsed as being fairly representative of what he recalled in
the BOH drawing we are all familiar with and one about the size of a
quarter. Me, I'm not sure but would guess from the testimony that it was
somewhere roughly half way between those sizes. Evidently, it was low and
large enough to expose and/or allow cerebellum tissue to exude out of it.
Even Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated.
I also believe the entry was along the lower margin and near the left
corner of the larger wound....with the entry being 2.5 cm to the right of
and a few mm above the EOP. In fact, one of the pieces of bone that moved
out of position in DP (helping to creat the BOH wound) and eventually fell
out when they reflected the scalp had the top half of the entry along its
lower margin...that's the piece shown in Boswell's diagram. Also, the
contour of that piece's lower margin fits the contour of the edge of bone
with the bottom half of the entry as seen in F8. Remember, Boswell's note
on his face sheet, "Ragged and slanting"? He was referring the the contour
[slant] and raggedness of the edge of skull with the bottom half of the
entry along it...thus the little circle [entry] with the arrow going up
and to the left, as opposed to the slant of the entry in the scalp [up and
to the right] as seen in their CE-388 (Rydberg's dwg).
look, I know you think this is all hogwash, so I want you to know that I'm
taking the time to write it for others, not you. :-)
>Are you
>talking about a small entrance wound? Are you limiting it to some
>various conspiracy theories? What BOH wound are you claiming was caused
>by a bullet deflection? Wouldn't some conspiracy theorists see that same
>wound and claim it was an exit wound?
Cripes, the beveling of inner table around the entry, which all the
autopsists described and O'Neill told me he literally felt with his finger
makes it a slam dunk that it was an entry. Also the trail of opacities
(surely representing the beveled out bone), seen on the lateral, extending
anteriorly from it, not to mention the longitudinal laceration through the
brain that went anteriorly from it or the beveled out principal exit near
the end of that laceration, I'd say makes it a no-brainer that it was an
entry.
Of course, CTs like you will deny all of that and come up with your own
theories which is your privilege...so go for it--what else do you have to
do? Heck, you might even get a few newbies who haven't studied the ev. too
well or who are just iching to believe in a conspiracy to believe you. :-)
>I think you do your cause more harm than good by admitting to some wound
>which the conspiracy side alleges and then trying to explain it away as
>not indicating a conspiracy.
I believe in voicing what I believe is the truth....not what I think will
end a debate or what is politically correct. That should be obvious,
because due to my claims I've alienated myself pretty much from the entire
LN crowd. It only bothers me when I realize that, to push their hardline
LN views, like you and many other CTs, they (e.g. the likes of DVP, and
McAdams) have to endorse the claim that dozens on otherwise credible
doctors and other witnesses were either lying or too dumb to know what
they were talking about.
>It's like the attempt to claim that although Kennedy was shot in the
>front, the shot was fired from the sniper's nest.
Huh? I wouldn't waste my time reading about such a stupid theory.
>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.jpg
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as
credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and
O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
Answer: Never.
They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in the
RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and RIGHT
SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Emphasis is
DVP's]
>>> "...a photo that you're 100% absolutely positive...wasn't taken after
some repair was done to the BOH scalp....even though that photo wasn't
time-stamped and there is clear and convi[n]cing testimony that openings
in the scalp were closed (in preparation for a possible open-casket
funeral), with Humes assisting them, before the body left the morgue? Is
that your compelling argument?" <<<
My "compelling argument" is derived from a combination of things, of
course--with all of the things in this "combination" being far more
convincing and DEFINITIVE than any of the witnesses who claimed they saw a
great-big hole at the back of JFK's head on November 22 (no matter how
many of these BOH witnesses there were).
And when viewed and examined IN TANDEM and in their totality, this
combination of things below is telling everyone with some common sense
(and at least one functioning eyeball) that there was not--and, in fact,
COULD NOT have been--a large hole in the back of President Kennedy's head
(in BOTH the SCALP and SKULL of Kennedy's head) after he was shot in the
head from behind by Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher- Carcano bullet:
1.) This autopsy X-ray -- which certainly does not do the "BOH" crowd any
favors whatsoever....because it couldn't be more obvious, from this X-ray
picture alone, that JFK did not have any kind of a large hole in the BACK
of his head in the occipital region:
2.) This autopsy photograph -- which does not do the "BOH" crowd any
favors either. And the SCALP of the President's head is COMPLETELY INTACT
in this picture, too. Not a sign of damage. Nothing. And not a sign of any
stitches or "repair" work having been done to the rear scalp of JFK can be
detected either (but John Canal apparently can see the repairs; but he's
the only person on the planet who can, evidently):
And since it couldn't be more obvious from the above photo of the back of
President Kennedy's head that the SCALP in the ENTIRE BACK of his head was
completely intact and totally undamaged....then the next logical question
to ask, of course, is -- How in the world would it have been physically
POSSIBLE for anyone at Parkland Hospital to have seen a great-big, gaping
hole in the back part of JFK's head if his scalp looked like this (in two
different photographs) during his autopsy on the night of 11/22/63?:
Answer to that last question: It's not possible.
3.) The autopsy report, which doesn't help out the "BOH" theorists very
much either (unless the word "somewhat" can somehow be looked upon by some
theorists to mean that a huge hole was present ONLY in the VERY BACK PART
of Kennedy's head, which is the only alternative the BOH theorists have
with respect to this "somewhat" language that appears in the autopsy
report; because it couldn't be more obvious that the report is describing
a wound that was located on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, and not in the
FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head):
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
in greatest diameter."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
4.) The three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), who all signed
the autopsy report which contained the words I just used in #3 above.
Not ONCE did any of the three autopsy surgeons talk about there being a
large gaping hole in the BACK of John F. Kennedy's head. Never. And that's
because: No such gaping "BOH" wound ever existed in the first place.
So, naturally, the doctors never talked about a wound of "fantasy" that
was never present in President Kennedy's head to begin with.
A Humes Replay:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and RIGHT
SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Emphasis is
DVP's]
5.) The Zapruder Film -- which does not support any kind of a "BOH wound"
scenario at all, as we can easily see in digital clarity via the following
stabilized version of the film (which is not playing in real time; it's
been slowed down just a tad; but that really doesn't matter here):
Add up #1 through #5 above. What do you get?
Do those things add up to the "BOH wound" witnesses being correct?
Or do they add up to the logical conclusion (via a combination of
photographs, X-rays, the Zapruder Film, the official autopsy report, and
the words of the autopsists) that President Kennedy did not have a large
hole in the back part of his head?
Amazingly, instead of opting for the latter choice, lone-assassin believer
John Canal has decided to choose the first answer shown above.
And John will choose that first answer even though the second answer is a
conclusion that is firmly anchored by the weight of much better and
definitive evidence than the eyewitnesses who viewed JFK's head wounds.
Go figure John Canal's logic on this matter.
I can't.
David Von Pein
November 15, 2008
=============================================
RELATED "BOH" STUFF:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
=============================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
_________________________________________
>>>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as
>credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and
>O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
>
>When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
>Answer: Never.
Answer by DVP is soooo wrong. Read the autopsy report--the large wound was
chiefly parietal but extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital. Read
Humes' WC testimony--the flocculus cerebri (part of the cerebellum) was severely
lacerated.
Now, look at the BOH photo (if you can break away from RH for a few minutes) and
ask yourself if you see even the slightest hint of there being any damage to the
occipital, much less any that would expose any of the cerebellum. You won't see
any such damage of course, but no, you don't need to ask yourself why, right?
Also, I noticed while you questioned whether the autopsy docs ever said there
was a BOH wound, you didn't address the fact that Ebersole, Siebert, Boyers, and
O'Neill also said there was such a wound. Hmmm, I wonder why you missed them.
>They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in the
>RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
Yes, they said that but also said the wound extended somewhat into the occipital
and that the flocculus was severely lacerated. Is this sinking in, David?
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and RIGHT
>SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Emphasis is
>DVP's]
Yes, they said that but also said the wound extended somewhat into the occipital
and that the flocculus was severely lacerated. Is this sinking in, David?
>>>> "...a photo that you're 100% absolutely positive...wasn't taken after
>some repair was done to the BOH scalp....even though that photo wasn't
>time-stamped and there is clear and convi[n]cing testimony that openings
>in the scalp were closed (in preparation for a possible open-casket
>funeral), with Humes assisting them, before the body left the morgue? Is
>that your compelling argument?" <<<
>
>
>My "compelling argument" is derived from a combination of things,
But you didn't answer my implied question. How can you be 100% absolutely
certain that photo wasn't taken after his scalp was stretched and any holes
sutured closed?
>of
>course--with all of the things in this "combination" being far more
>convincing and DEFINITIVE than any of the witnesses who claimed they saw a
>great-big hole at the back of JFK's head on November 22 (no matter how
>many of these BOH witnesses there were).
No matter how many? Does that mean if there were a 100 BOH wound witnesses you'd
say they were all mistaken or lying? Did you really mean to say that? Really?
>And when viewed and examined IN TANDEM and in their totality, this
>combination of things below is telling everyone with some common sense
>(and at least one functioning eyeball) that there was not--and, in fact,
>COULD NOT have been--a large hole in the back of President Kennedy's head
>(in BOTH the SCALP and SKULL of Kennedy's head) after he was shot in the
>head from behind by Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher- Carcano bullet:
>
>
>1.) This autopsy X-ray -- which certainly does not do the "BOH" crowd any
>favors whatsoever....because it couldn't be more obvious, from this X-ray
>picture alone, that JFK did not have any kind of a large hole in the BACK
>of his head in the occipital region:
Hmmm, but didn't Boswell say he replced some pieces of bone before the x-rays or
photos were taken? Still, in spite of what he said, you're 100% absolutely
certain he didn't shove any occipital bone, that was surely still adhered to the
scalp, back into place before that x-ray was taken? It's more certain to you
that dozens of eyewitnesses were mistaken, right? Good old CS&L at work there.
[...] We've seen them ad nauseam.
>2.) This autopsy photograph -- which does not do the "BOH" crowd any
>favors either. And the SCALP of the President's head is COMPLETELY INTACT
>in this picture, too.
That would be the idea of closing any holes in preparation for a possible
open-casket funeral, no? LOL.
>Not a sign of damage. Nothing. And not a sign of any
>stitches or "repair" work having been done to the rear scalp of JFK can be
>detected either (but John Canal apparently can see the repairs;
I woudn't expect to. If large hole in his scalp had been sutured closed for an
open casket funeral, Would you expect to see sutures hanging out of his head,
especially if it was the President of the United States? Oh, you would, eh? I
realize you don't give a hoot what I think, but your reasoning is sorely
lacking, IMO.
>but he's
>the only person on the planet who can, evidently):
[..] We know what he says...and you parrot him as he parroted Baden.
>And since it couldn't be more obvious from the above photo of the back of
>President Kennedy's head that the SCALP in the ENTIRE BACK of his head was
>completely intact and totally undamaged
As it was supposed to look.
>....then the next logical question
>to ask, of course, is -- How in the world would it have been physically
>POSSIBLE for anyone at Parkland Hospital to have seen a great-big, gaping
>hole in the back part of JFK's head if his scalp looked like this (in two
>different photographs) during his autopsy on the night of 11/22/63?:
[...] Not necessary to post graphics that don't prove your point.
>Answer to that last question: It's not possible.
But I just explained how it [a BOH wound] was not only possible, it was the most
likely scenario...as opposed to dozens of eyewitnesses being mistaken or lying.
>3.) The autopsy report, which doesn't help out the "BOH" theorists very
>much either (unless the word "somewhat" can somehow be looked upon by some
>theorists to mean that a huge hole was present ONLY in the VERY BACK PART
>of Kennedy's head, which is the only alternative the BOH theorists have
>with respect to this "somewhat" language that appears in the autopsy
>report; because it couldn't be more obvious that the report is describing
>a wound that was located on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, and not in the
>FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head):
But the point is that there is no, none, nada, zero, zilcho damage shown in the
BOH photo that can be reconciled with Humes' use of the adjective, "somewhat"
[into the occipital], not to mention his revelation that he saw a lacerated
flocculus. Please address that and stop your rhetoric...thanks, I'll appreciate
that.
>"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
>temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
>of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
>in greatest diameter."
[...] Excuse me, why are you quoting the AR? We know what it says and believe it
accrately describes the wounds he sustained.
>4.) The three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), who all signed
>the autopsy report which contained the words I just used in #3 above.
>
>Not ONCE did any of the three autopsy surgeons talk about there being a
>large gaping hole in the BACK of John F. Kennedy's head. Never. And that's
>because: No such gaping "BOH" wound ever existed in the first place.
No kidding? But for the umpteenth time they said there was occipital damage,
with brain tissue exuding out of it, and Humes testified under oath that part of
the cerebellum was lacerated. Didn't they say that, David....or are you saying
those of us who believe the dozens of BOH witnesses can't read? Look, we know
the boh photo doesn't reconcile with all of that, but that's been explained to
you...unfortunately, you'd rather accept the explanation that dozens of
eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken. And you wonder where the CTs get their
motivation from. How about the questionable CS&L of the hardline LNs?
>So, naturally, the doctors never talked about a wound of "fantasy" that
>was never present in President Kennedy's head to begin with.
"Fantasy"? Wow...Humes said he saw a lacerated flocculus and you're now saying
he was fanaticizing? Good grief, man...I don't think VB would be proud of the
President of his fan club saying such a thing....you are the President, right?
>A Humes Replay:
[....] No matter how many times you repeat it to yourself, it doesn't say what
you want it to.
>5.) The Zapruder Film -- which does not support any kind of a "BOH wound"
>scenario at all, as we can easily see in digital clarity via the following
>stabilized version of the film (which is not playing in real time; it's
>been slowed down just a tad; but that really doesn't matter here):
But what if the rear bones were moved out of position in DP but the brain tissue
didn't begin to exude out from there until after the limo had passed or until he
was laying on his back on the gurney? Oh, you've ruled out that
possibility...because you were there? Sorry, I forgot.
[...]
>Add up #1 through #5 above. What do you get?
I get no proof whatsoever that dozens of eyewitnesses were wrong.
>Do those things add up to the "BOH wound" witnesses being correct?
I get no proof whatsoever that dozens of eyewitnesses were wrong.
>Or do they add up to the logical conclusion (via a combination of
>photographs, X-rays, the Zapruder Film, the official autopsy report, and
>the words of the autopsists) that President Kennedy did not have a large
>hole in the back part of his head?
I get no proof whatsoever that dozens of eyewitnesses were wrong.
>Amazingly, instead of opting for the latter choice, lone-assassin believer
>John Canal has decided to choose the first answer shown above.
Because it makes the best sense....and that scenario doesn' require the idea
that there were dozens of goofball doctors fanaticizing.
>And John will choose that first answer even though the second answer is a
>conclusion that is firmly anchored by the weight of much better and
>definitive evidence
"Much better and definitive evidence"? A photo that could have been taken after
the scalp was closed, an x-ray that Boswell said was taken after he replaced
bones, and z-film frames that undobtedly end before brain tissue exuded out a
BOH wound? That's what you call "much better and definitive evidence' than the
testimony an statements of dozens of eyewitnesses?
Go figure.
>than the eyewitnesses who viewed JFK's head wounds.
>
>Go figure John Canal's logic on this matter.
>I can't.
Of course you're unable to.
John Canal
>David Von Pein
>November 15, 2008
[...]
John Canal
>When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
>Answer: Never.
In my first reply I failed to notice that you slipped in the adjective, "huge"
and said that you were wrong when you answered your own question above in the
negative.
I should have asked you when the hell, during all of the fruitless exchanges
with you I have wasted my time on, ever ever used the adjective, "huge" in the
context of describing a BOH wound???????????.......and why the hell you decided
to slip that in now?????
So the correction I want to make is that you're right, they never said there was
a "huge" BOH wound. Let me add that, not only would I not have expected them to
say there was a "huge" BOH wound, but also that, IMO, only you would ask if they
ever did.
They did, however, say there was a BOH wound besides the entry and that's all
most of the eyewitnesses reported seeing.
Got it now? No, why did I ask?
I take Marsh's arguments more seriously than yours.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Who said what exactly? I think you are making up crap again. Show me on
the face sheet where Boswell drew this BOH wound.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as
> credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and
> O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
>
> When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
> Answer: Never.
>
This is what you do so well. Create strawman arguments. When you can't
answer a question, you change the question. You change a BOH wound into a
"huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge." YOU made that up.
Anthony Marsh
I see lots of people bandying about terms like BOH wound and huge BOH
wound. I doubt those are what you are talking about.
> No, as far as I'm concerned, we're not talking about the small entry
> wound, we're talking about a wound perhaps somewhere in size between what
> McClelland endorsed as being fairly representative of what he recalled in
> the BOH drawing we are all familiar with and one about the size of a
The BOH drawing was not done by McClelland and does not represent what he
thought. He agreed with the WC version of a large wound on the right side
of the head. The Boswell drawing does not show a second BOH wound. Only
the entrance wound. So this is something that you are making up from your
own imagination.
> quarter. Me, I'm not sure but would guess from the testimony that it was
> somewhere roughly half way between those sizes. Evidently, it was low and
> large enough to expose and/or allow cerebellum tissue to exude out of it.
Nonsense. Look at the photos of the brain. The cerebellum was intact.
There is no point near the EOP entrance wound which would expose the
cerebellum.
> Even Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated.
> I also believe the entry was along the lower margin and near the left
> corner of the larger wound....with the entry being 2.5 cm to the right of
> and a few mm above the EOP. In fact, one of the pieces of bone that moved
> out of position in DP (helping to creat the BOH wound) and eventually fell
> out when they reflected the scalp had the top half of the entry along its
> lower margin...that's the piece shown in Boswell's diagram. Also, the
> contour of that piece's lower margin fits the contour of the edge of bone
> with the bottom half of the entry as seen in F8. Remember, Boswell's note
> on his face sheet, "Ragged and slanting"? He was referring the the contour
> [slant] and raggedness of the edge of skull with the bottom half of the
> entry along it...thus the little circle [entry] with the arrow going up
> and to the left, as opposed to the slant of the entry in the scalp [up and
> to the right] as seen in their CE-388 (Rydberg's dwg).
>
> look, I know you think this is all hogwash, so I want you to know that I'm
> taking the time to write it for others, not you. :-)
>
You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
>> Are you
>> talking about a small entrance wound? Are you limiting it to some
>> various conspiracy theories? What BOH wound are you claiming was caused
>> by a bullet deflection? Wouldn't some conspiracy theorists see that same
>> wound and claim it was an exit wound?
>
> Cripes, the beveling of inner table around the entry, which all the
> autopsists described and O'Neill told me he literally felt with his finger
O'Neill was a doctor?
> makes it a slam dunk that it was an entry. Also the trail of opacities
> (surely representing the beveled out bone), seen on the lateral, extending
> anteriorly from it, not to mention the longitudinal laceration through the
> brain that went anteriorly from it or the beveled out principal exit near
> the end of that laceration, I'd say makes it a no-brainer that it was an
> entry.
>
Things you imagine in your head convince you of realities which don't
exist.
> Of course, CTs like you will deny all of that and come up with your own
> theories which is your privilege...so go for it--what else do you have to
> do? Heck, you might even get a few newbies who haven't studied the ev. too
> well or who are just iching to believe in a conspiracy to believe you. :-)
>
I have no interest in newbies or followers.
>> I think you do your cause more harm than good by admitting to some wound
>> which the conspiracy side alleges and then trying to explain it away as
>> not indicating a conspiracy.
>
> I believe in voicing what I believe is the truth....not what I think will
> end a debate or what is politically correct. That should be obvious,
> because due to my claims I've alienated myself pretty much from the entire
> LN crowd. It only bothers me when I realize that, to push their hardline
> LN views, like you and many other CTs, they (e.g. the likes of DVP, and
> McAdams) have to endorse the claim that dozens on otherwise credible
> doctors and other witnesses were either lying or too dumb to know what
> they were talking about.
>
That's already been proven.
John Canal
Why did he sign a copy of that drawing then?
>He agreed with the WC version of a large wound on the right side
>of the head.
That's not what he told the ARRB, is it AM?
>The Boswell drawing does not show a second BOH wound. Only
>the entrance wound. So this is something that you are making up from your
>own imagination.
Yah sure, I've been studying the headwounds, almost exclusively since my book
was published in 2000 and all I've got to offer is what my imaginaton tells me,
eh? LOL! Yes, all Boswell drew on his face sheet was the entry, but they wrote
in the report that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital.
Moreover, Humes testified that they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
lacerated.
Can't you see they understated the BOH damage? That's why no pics of the BOH
from behid when the body was first received and that's why no pics were taken of
the BOH from behind after the scalp was reflected. And that's why Humes used the
vague term, "somewhat" into the occipital....they didn't want to draw a lot of
attention to a BOH wound (other than the entry) that might cause the public or
whoever to point to such a wound as evidence of a frontal shot. Naturally, you
think this is all hogwash and you're entitled, but prove it didn't happen that
way....you can't, and it all makes perfectly good sense...unfortunately you are
committed to disagree with that scenario because it runs counter to your theory.
>> quarter. Me, I'm not sure but would guess from the testimony that it was
>> somewhere roughly half way between those sizes. Evidently, it was low and
>> large enough to expose and/or allow cerebellum tissue to exude out of it.
>
>Nonsense. Look at the photos of the brain. The cerebellum was intact.
From the basilar view you can't see the top of the cerebellum hemishperes and
from the superior view you can only see the posterior portions of the cerebellum
hemishperes. You should have checked that out before making such a comment.
Humes testified the flocculus was severely lacerated and that's part of the
cerebellum. It's important to note that he didn't say that until ***after*** he
read the reports of the PH docs in which most said they saw cerebellum. My point
is that in the autopsy report he held that back about seeing cerebellum
(undoubtedly to understate the overall damage to the BOH)...but after he
realized there was credible eyewitness testimony (PH docs) about an
exposed/damaged cerebellum, he knew the "cat was out of the bag", as far as the
cerebellum went and ,in March, finally made sure he got it into the record (WC
test.) that the PH docs were correct--the cerebellum was damaged.
>There is no point near the EOP entrance wound which would expose the
>cerebellum.
If there was a piece of skull moved out of position with its bottom margin at
the level of the EOP the cerebellum could easily have been exposd....and that
was the case--the entry was at that EOP level and Boswell even drew the skull
piece on his face sheet that had moved out of posiion with the top portion of
that entry along its bottom margin. That moved skull piece accounted for at
least a major portion of the so-called BOH wound that the PH docs and others
saw.
>> Even Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated.
>> I also believe the entry was along the lower margin and near the left
>> corner of the larger wound....with the entry being 2.5 cm to the right of
>> and a few mm above the EOP. In fact, one of the pieces of bone that moved
>> out of position in DP (helping to creat the BOH wound) and eventually fell
>> out when they reflected the scalp had the top half of the entry along its
>> lower margin...that's the piece shown in Boswell's diagram. Also, the
>> contour of that piece's lower margin fits the contour of the edge of bone
>> with the bottom half of the entry as seen in F8. Remember, Boswell's note
>> on his face sheet, "Ragged and slanting"? He was referring the the contour
>> [slant] and raggedness of the edge of skull with the bottom half of the
>> entry along it...thus the little circle [entry] with the arrow going up
>> and to the left, as opposed to the slant of the entry in the scalp [up and
>> to the right] as seen in their CE-388 (Rydberg's dwg).
>>
>> look, I know you think this is all hogwash, so I want you to know that I'm
>> taking the time to write it for others, not you. :-)
>>
>
>You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
You're entitled to your opinion as is McAdams, DVP, and all the rest. There are
a few who agree with just about my entire scenario and they are prett well
educated and sharp on these issues. I won't name them to avoid embarassing them.
>>> Are you
>>> talking about a small entrance wound? Are you limiting it to some
>>> various conspiracy theories? What BOH wound are you claiming was caused
>>> by a bullet deflection? Wouldn't some conspiracy theorists see that same
>>> wound and claim it was an exit wound?
>>
>> Cripes, the beveling of inner table around the entry, which all the
>> autopsists described and O'Neill told me he literally felt with his finger
>
>O'Neill was a doctor?
Does it take a doctor to feel the beveled out inner portion of the skull around
the bottom half of a hole and then notice a little bump [that'd be the EOP,
Anthony) on the skull on the opposite side of the beveled out bone?
>> makes it a slam dunk that it was an entry. Also the trail of opacities
>> (surely representing the beveled out bone), seen on the lateral, extending
>> anteriorly from it, not to mention the longitudinal laceration through the
>> brain that went anteriorly from it or the beveled out principal exit near
>> the end of that laceration, I'd say makes it a no-brainer that it was an
>> entry.
>>
>
>Things you imagine in your head convince you of realities which don't
>exist.
You are imagining that I just imagined those things.
>> Of course, CTs like you will deny all of that and come up with your own
>> theories which is your privilege...so go for it--what else do you have to
>> do? Heck, you might even get a few newbies who haven't studied the ev. too
>> well or who are just iching to believe in a conspiracy to believe you. :-)
>>
>
>I have no interest in newbies or followers.
How about the truth?
>>> I think you do your cause more harm than good by admitting to some wound
>>> which the conspiracy side alleges and then trying to explain it away as
>>> not indicating a conspiracy.
>>
>> I believe in voicing what I believe is the truth....not what I think will
>> end a debate or what is politically correct. That should be obvious,
>> because due to my claims I've alienated myself pretty much from the entire
>> LN crowd. It only bothers me when I realize that, to push their hardline
>> LN views, like you and many other CTs, they (e.g. the likes of DVP, and
>> McAdams) have to endorse the claim that dozens on otherwise credible
>> doctors and other witnesses were either lying or too dumb to know what
>> they were talking about.
>>
>
>That's already been proven.
Of course you would hope that was true to fit you sill theory, just as bad as
the hardline LNs do to be consistent with their silly theories about the
headwounds.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "I take Marsh's arguments more seriously than yours." <<<
Then you're further out in The Twilight Zone than I had initially
thought. That's a shame.
Take a breather, John. Your last silly BOH tirade probably has your
veins all a-poppin' (and your blood pressure all out of whack too).
My "combination totality" still holds up....and always will. Mainly
because this X-ray [below], the one that you hate so much,
exists...and always will:
David Von Pein
>>> "You change a BOH wound into a "huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge."
YOU made that up." <<<
LOL.
The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
"huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses.
Hence, I used a synonym for "very large" -- "Huge".
Or do you think that John Canal would now like to pretend that Dr.
McClelland's drawing (showing an enormous--i.e., "huge"--hole in the back
of Kennedy's head is a fake drawing of some kind)?
And we all know that John C. believes McClelland's story about the BOH
wound....right?
In short: Mr. Canal is making up theories as he goes along....not unlike
most CTers, of course.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "I take Marsh's arguments more seriously than yours." <<<
>
>Then you're further out in The Twilight Zone than I had initially
>thought. That's a shame.
Please, whatever you do, don't worry about me being out in the Twilight
Zone...if I were even close to being true, then the U.S. Air Force must be
nuts, because they awarded me, among several other distinctive awards, two
Meritorious Service Medals, not to mention the second highest enlisted
rank. Also, if I were even a tiny bit nutty, then the President of the
United States should be questioned for sending me a highly coveted
personally signed letter of gratitude for my work to improve the
Electronic Warfare Training Program for our fighter pilots. And, of
course, if I were loosing it, that wouldn't speak too well for my
publisher, Paragon House, would it?
In any event, I'm not exactly worried about whether you think I'm out in
the Twilight Zone.
>Take a breather, John. Your last silly BOH tirade probably has your
>veins all a-poppin' (and your blood pressure all out of whack too).
It's just not sinking in with you, David. Let me try another approach.
Look around...you are just one of many many hard-line LNs who think the
autopsy docs were, not only incapable of seeing that the bullet entry hole
was in the posterior parietal but also so out of their field, which you
must think was bricklaying or something, they didn't recognize cerebellum
from cerebrum tissue.....but you are the only one who's arguing with me
about those issues. Don't you wonder why? If you believe the others as to
why they stopped debating me on this stuff, well maybe it's you who is
headed toward another planet. McAdams says my arguments are too arcane.
Walker says I'm rude. Fiorentino says he's too busy. Durnavich and Mitch
Todd quit posting entirely..and it goes on and on. Funny thing, though,
none of them will explain the conflicts I present to them regarding the
stupid cowlick entry or no-BOH-wound theories....it's just you who
stubbornly "tries" to with your repetitive already-debunked-trio of
so-called evidence, the Z-film, the lateral x-ray, and the BOH photo.
Try to understand why you're here arguing with me on these two issues.
Fisher of the Clark Panel got the conflicts over these issues started and
Baden endorsed his conclusions (the Rockefeller Commission lead expert was
military and surely was intimidated to not disagree with the Clark panel).
Then Posner parroted Baden and VB parroted Posner and Baden......meanwhile
McAdams, IMHO, not wanting to rock the government boat, parrots them all.
All of them except McAdams is unreachable to defend their positions and
McAdams isn't exactly answering his phone if he knows what the subject is.
But there's DVP...I just think you ought to ask yourself why you don't
have a lot of active support for your high entry and no-BOH wound myths.
I know this is long winded, but I intend on it being my last reply to you
so I might as well get this off my chest. All right, remember I said
Fisher started all this, right? So let's talk about him for a bit and then
I'll end this fruitless debating with you.
First, Fisher, claimed the 6.5 mm opacity was a real bullet fragment. I
know you don't care about whether it was real or not, but it's important
to know about it....because it tells a lot about the agenda that Fisher
had.
Fisher knew damn well that that opacity didn't represent a bullet
fragment. The evidence is clear that he did. My friend and associate,
Larry Sturdivan, told me he met with Fisher on at least two occasions
while the Clark Panel was still active--Larry was there on official
business as a wound-ballistics consultant--BUT FISHER NEVER ASKED HIM
ABOUT THE 6.5 MM OPACITY, which Larry insists is an artifact. Have you
ever heard the expression, "Don't ask the question if you can't stand the
answer"? Donahue, who knew firearms, told Fisher the 6.5 mm thing did not
represent a fragment that sheered off the bullet....Fisher ignored him
saying something to the effect of, "Well you know more about that than I".
Then Fisher says in his report that F8 was too out of focus to be
useable---but Zimmerman and Sturdivan said F8 was crystal clear. My point
on that is that F8, which shows the entry in the skull, would have proven
to him the entry was near the EOP....THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T USE IT AS
EVIDENCE. I'm not through on Fisher. He said that the skull was severely
fragmented back to the vicinity of where the parietal meats the
occipital---two points on that. One, if the bone was fragmented back that
far then why does F8 show the bottom of the entry in unfragmented skull?
The answer, duh, is that the entry was below the fragmented skull, i.e.
near the EOP and not hardly in the cowlick. Two, IF FISHER HAD ASKED THE
AUTOPSY DOCS TO PROVIDE INPUTS THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM HE WAS WRONG...BUT
THEY WEREN'T INVITED TO THAT LITTLE PARTY AND A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT
WONDER WHY. If they had been they surely would have told him about the
brain damage that was consistent with only a low-entering shot and they
might have even looked at the trail of tiny opacities seen on the lateral
extending anteriorly from near the EOP, NOT the cowlick! Humes might have
even told Fisher that he didn't recall seeing the 6.5 mm opacity on
11-22-63.
The reason Humes et. al weren't invited to that "party" is obvious--Fisher
thought the low, near-EOP entry was inconsistent with a shot from six
floors up and that an entry in the cowlick was [consistent with such a
shot]...and had his mind made up early on he was going to refute the
autopsists' conclusion on that.
Baden came along and had two choices: one, embarrass Fisher and tell the
truth about the entry (it was near the EOP), or two, embarrass three
unknown military docs---it was really not choice.
Then Posner cited Baden more times than you can shake a stick at and, of
course, came up with the same conclusions. VB followed suit.
So, Ok I didn't talk about the BOH wound and I won't other than to say
this: the aforementioned were/are all wrong about the entry--point being
that they should be counted on to be right regarding the BOH wound issue
>My "combination totality" still holds up....and always will. Mainly
>because this X-ray [below], the one that you hate so much,
>exists...and always will:
I'll leave you to wallow in your own confusion over this stuff....you may
even get an at-a-boy from McAdams.
:-)
Oh, BTW, I don't "hate" those three items--they are useful evidence if you
analyze them properly...the lateral [original] even shows a trail of
opacities, like I said, extending anteriorly from near the EOP
(surprisingly, none from the cowlick--that was sarcasm)...this reinforces
the autopsists' EOP entry finding and further debunks the cowlick entry
hoax. Ya, I know you say it's also ev. there was no BOH wound....if that's
true then it also shows Boswell lied about replacing bones before that
x-ray and that there were how many dozen liars or hallucinators who said
they saw a BOH wound? I just wish I could see you telling them they were
wrong to their face. Of couse you'd have the guts to, right? Heck, you
could even show them the Z-film, lateral x-ray, and BOH photo....you'd
surely be treated warmly by them and with all the respect you so richly
deserve.
John Canal
[...]
John Canal
From: John Canal
Subject: Re: New article on Robert McClelland
Date: Monday, November 17, 2008 1:01 PM
I'm not exactly worried about whether you think I'm out in the
Twilight Zone.
>Take a breather, John. Your last silly BOH tirade probably has your
>veins all a-poppin' (and your blood pressure all out of whack too).
It's just not sinking in with you, David. Let me try another approach.
Look around...you are just one of many many hard-line LNs who think the
autopsy docs were, not only incapable of seeing that the bullet entry hole
was in the posterior parietal but also so out of their field (which you
must think was bricklaying or something), they didn't recognize cerebellum
from cerebrum tissue.....but you are the only one who's arguing with me
about those issues. Don't you wonder why? If you believe the others as to
why they stopped debating me on this stuff, well maybe it's you who is
headed toward the Twilight Zone and not me, like you suggested.
McAdams says my arguments are too arcane. Walker says I'm rude. Fiorentino
says he's too busy. Durnavich and Mitch Todd quit posting entirely..and it
goes on and on. Funny thing, though, none of them will explain the
conflicts I present to them regarding the stupid cowlick entry or
no-BOH-wound theories....it's just you who seems to stubbornly "try"
to....with your repetitive already-debunked-trio of so-called evidence
against a BOH conclusion, i.e. the Z-film, the lateral x-ray, and the BOH
photo.
Try to understand why you're here arguing with me on these two issues.
Fisher of the Clark Panel got the conflicts over these issues started and
Baden endorsed his conclusions (the Rockefeller Commission lead expert was
military and surely was intimidated to not disagree with the Clark panel).
Then Posner parroted Baden and VB parroted Posner and Baden......meanwhile
McAdams,
--edited--
All of them except McAdams is
unreachable to defend their positions--edited.
But then there's DVP...I just think you ought to ask yourself why you
don't have a lot of "active" support for your high entry and no-BOH wound
myths.
I know this is long winded, but I intend on it being my last reply to you
so I might as well get this off my chest. All right, remember I said
Fisher started all this, right? So let's talk about him for a bit and then
I'll end this fruitless debating with you.
First, Fisher, claimed the 6.5 mm opacity was a real bullet fragment. I
know you don't care about whether it was real or not, but it's important
to know about it....because it tells a lot about the agenda that Fisher
had.
Fisher knew damn well that that opacity didn't represent a bullet
fragment. The evidence is clear that he did. Edited--Larry Sturdivan, told
me he met with Fisher on at least two occasions while the Clark Panel was
still active--Larry was there on official business as a wound-ballistics
consultant--BUT FISHER NEVER ASKED HIM ABOUT THE 6.5 MM OPACITY, which
Larry insists is an artifact. Have you ever heard the expression, "Don't
ask the question if you can't stand the answer"? That's what Fisher was
practcing.
Also, Donahue, who knew firearms, told Fisher the 6.5 mm thing did not
represent a fragment that sheered off the bullet....Fisher ignored him
saying something to the effect of, "Well you know more about firearms than
I". Then Fisher said in his report that F8 was too out of focus to be
useable---but Zimmerman and Sturdivan said F8 was crystal clear. My point
on that is that F8, which shows the entry in the skull, would have proven
to him the entry was near the EOP....THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T USE IT AS
EVIDENCE.
I'm not through on Fisher. He said that the skull was severely fragmented
back to the vicinity of where the parietal meets the occipital---but, if
the bone was fragmented back that far then why does F8 show the bottom of
the entry in unfragmented skull? The answer, duh, is that the entry was
below the fragmented skull, i.e. near the EOP and not hardly in the
cowlick.
In addition, IF FISHER HAD ASKED THE AUTOPSY DOCS TO PROVIDE INPUTS TO HIS
COMMISSION, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM HE WAS WRONG...BUT THEY WEREN'T EVEN
INVITED TO THAT LITTLE PARTY AND A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT WONDER WHY. The
answer is, HB&F would have told him [Fisher] things that he did not want
to hear, e.g. they surely would have told him about the brain damage that
was consistent with only a low-entering shot and they might have even
looked at the trail of tiny opacities seen on the lateral extending
anteriorly from near the EOP, NOT from the cowlick! Humes might have even
told Fisher that he didn't recall seeing the 6.5 mm opacity on 11-22-63.
The reason Humes et. al. weren't invited to that Clark Panel "party", IMO
is obvious--Fisher thought the low, near-EOP entry was inconsistent with a
shot from six floors up and that an entry in the cowlick was [consistent
with such a shot]...and, therefore, had his mind made up early on he was
going to refute the autopsists' conclusion on that.
Baden came along and had two choices: one, embarrass Fisher and tell the
truth about the entry (it was near the EOP), or two, embarrass three
unknown military docs---it was really wasn't a choice.
Then Posner cited Baden more times than you can shake a stick at and, of
course, came up with the same conclusions. IMO, VB followed suit.
So, Ok I didn't talk about the BOH wound and I won't other than to say
this: the aforementioned were/are all wrong about the entry--point being
that they proved they shouldn't be counted on to be fully accurate with
issues pertaining to the headshot and that includes whether or not there
was a BOH wound.
>My "combination totality" still holds up....and always will. Mainly
>because this X-ray [below], the one that you hate so much,
>exists...and always will:
I'll leave you to wallow in your own confusion over this stuff....you may
even---edited.
:-)
Oh, BTW, I don't "hate" those three items--they are useful evidence if you
analyze them properly...the lateral [original] even shows a trail of
opacities, like I said, extending anteriorly from near the EOP
(surprisingly, none from the cowlick--that was sarcasm)...this reinforces
the autopsists' EOP entry finding and further debunks the cowlick entry
hoax. Ya, I know you say it's also ev. there was no BOH wound....if that's
true then it also implies Boswell lied about replacing bones before that
x-ray......and it also implies that there were how many dozen liars or
hallucinators who said they saw a BOH wound?
I just wish I could see you telling them they were wrong to their face. Of
couse you'd have the guts to that, right?
:-)
Heck, you could even show them the Z-film, lateral x-ray, and BOH
photo....talk about a warm reception...[edited].
:-)
>>>> "I take Marsh's arguments more seriously than yours." <<<
>
>Then you're further out in The Twilight Zone than I had initially
>thought. That's a shame.
Please, whatever you do, don't worry about me being out in the Twilight
Zone...if that was even close to being true, then the U.S. Air Force must
be nuts, because they awarded me, among several other distinctive awards,
two Meritorious Service Medals, not to mention the second highest enlisted
rank. Also, if I were even a tiny bit nutty, then the President of the
United States should be questioned for sending me a personally signed
letter of gratitude for my work to improve the Electronic Warfare Training
Program for our fighter pilots. And, of course, if I were loosing it, that
wouldn't speak too well for my publisher, Paragon House, would it?
John Canal
:-)
Geesh, I hope all the smiley faces help keep this from being rejected like
the first try was.
:-)
P.S. One more thing (I promise), In the Discovery Channel program last
night, did you happen to notice the rather odd location where in the limo
the trajectory line extended to from the SN? No, of course you didn't.
I'll tell you--It pointed a long ways from where the two large fragments
ended up---and that's because, as Dale Myers said, the cowlick entry
trajectory just doesn't work.
[...]
Anthony Marsh
To go along with someone's conspiracy theory.
>
>> He agreed with the WC version of a large wound on the right side
>> of the head.
>
> That's not what he told the ARRB, is it AM?
>
It's what he drew for The Men Who Killed Kennedy.
McClelland also said the wound was on the LEFT side of the head.
Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He
testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note
for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President
received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head
and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6).
>> The Boswell drawing does not show a second BOH wound. Only
>> the entrance wound. So this is something that you are making up from your
>> own imagination.
>
> Yah sure, I've been studying the headwounds, almost exclusively since my book
> was published in 2000 and all I've got to offer is what my imaginaton tells me,
> eh? LOL! Yes, all Boswell drew on his face sheet was the entry, but they wrote
> in the report that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital.
That's wonderful. But it is not another wound. It is just the wound on
the top of the head. Not IN the back of the head.
> Moreover, Humes testified that they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
> lacerated.
>
Ridiculous. You're still stuck in the 60's.
> Can't you see they understated the BOH damage? That's why no pics of the BOH
> from behid when the body was first received and that's why no pics were taken of
> the BOH from behind after the scalp was reflected. And that's why Humes used the
> vague term, "somewhat" into the occipital....they didn't want to draw a lot of
> attention to a BOH wound (other than the entry) that might cause the public or
Of course there was extensive damage to the back of the head. But they
did not cover that up and it does represent another wound.
> whoever to point to such a wound as evidence of a frontal shot. Naturally, you
They already had tons of problems with a frontal shot. And some even
speculated the throat shot exited out the top of the head.
> think this is all hogwash and you're entitled, but prove it didn't happen that
> way....you can't, and it all makes perfectly good sense...unfortunately you are
> committed to disagree with that scenario because it runs counter to your theory.
>
It runs counter to the evidence and you have to misrepresent the
evidence to support your wacky theory.
>>> quarter. Me, I'm not sure but would guess from the testimony that it was
>>> somewhere roughly half way between those sizes. Evidently, it was low and
>>> large enough to expose and/or allow cerebellum tissue to exude out of it.
>> Nonsense. Look at the photos of the brain. The cerebellum was intact.
>
> From the basilar view you can't see the top of the cerebellum hemishperes and
> from the superior view you can only see the posterior portions of the cerebellum
> hemishperes. You should have checked that out before making such a comment.
>
> Humes testified the flocculus was severely lacerated and that's part of the
> cerebellum. It's important to note that he didn't say that until ***after*** he
> read the reports of the PH docs in which most said they saw cerebellum. My point
> is that in the autopsy report he held that back about seeing cerebellum
> (undoubtedly to understate the overall damage to the BOH)...but after he
> realized there was credible eyewitness testimony (PH docs) about an
> exposed/damaged cerebellum, he knew the "cat was out of the bag", as far as the
> cerebellum went and ,in March, finally made sure he got it into the record (WC
> test.) that the PH docs were correct--the cerebellum was damaged.
>
>> There is no point near the EOP entrance wound which would expose the
>> cerebellum.
>
> If there was a piece of skull moved out of position with its bottom margin at
> the level of the EOP the cerebellum could easily have been exposd....and that
Not really. Look at the X-rays and you can see where the fractures went.
No, there is no one else who agrees with you.
>
>>>> Are you
>>>> talking about a small entrance wound? Are you limiting it to some
>>>> various conspiracy theories? What BOH wound are you claiming was caused
>>>> by a bullet deflection? Wouldn't some conspiracy theorists see that same
>>>> wound and claim it was an exit wound?
>>> Cripes, the beveling of inner table around the entry, which all the
>>> autopsists described and O'Neill told me he literally felt with his finger
>> O'Neill was a doctor?
>
> Does it take a doctor to feel the beveled out inner portion of the skull around
> the bottom half of a hole and then notice a little bump [that'd be the EOP,
> Anthony) on the skull on the opposite side of the beveled out bone?
>
Yes, and I seriously doubt an FBI agent did anything like that.
>>> makes it a slam dunk that it was an entry. Also the trail of opacities
>>> (surely representing the beveled out bone), seen on the lateral, extending
>>> anteriorly from it, not to mention the longitudinal laceration through the
>>> brain that went anteriorly from it or the beveled out principal exit near
>>> the end of that laceration, I'd say makes it a no-brainer that it was an
>>> entry.
>>>
>> Things you imagine in your head convince you of realities which don't
>> exist.
>
> You are imagining that I just imagined those things.
>
>>> Of course, CTs like you will deny all of that and come up with your own
>>> theories which is your privilege...so go for it--what else do you have to
>>> do? Heck, you might even get a few newbies who haven't studied the ev. too
>>> well or who are just iching to believe in a conspiracy to believe you. :-)
>>>
>> I have no interest in newbies or followers.
>
> How about the truth?
>
The truth is not measured by accumulating newbies and followers.
John Canal
>>> The BOH drawing was not done by McClelland and does not represent what he
>>> thought.
>>
>> Why did he sign a copy of that drawing then?
>
>To go along with someone's conspiracy theory.
Ah ha, so he just wanted to please the CTs...is that it?
Your posts are getting funnier and funnier, AM.
:-)
John Canal
Sorry, I had to stop--I was laughing too hard to continue.
[...]
David Von Pein
>>> "McAdams says my arguments are too arcane. Walker says I'm rude.
Fiorentino says he's too busy. Durnavich and Mitch Todd quit posting
entirely..and it goes on and on. Funny thing, though, none of them will
explain the conflicts I present to them regarding the stupid cowlick entry
or no-BOH-wound theories....it's just you who stubbornly "tries" to with
your repetitive already-debunked-trio of so-called evidence, the Z-film,
the lateral x-ray, and the BOH photo." <<<
LOL. John Canal thinks those three things have been "debunked" in some
way. That's a real howl!
Those three things being:
1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows no large-ish hole in the back of JFK's
head at any point on the film).
2.) The lateral X-ray of JFK (which shows no large BOH hole at all, of
course).
3.) The autopsy photo [actually TWO pictures in total, including the
back-wound photo] of the back of JFK's head (which, of course, shows no
large-ish BOH hole either).
The above three things, IN TANDEM, are proving that John's own theory is
incorrect. But he thinks that this IN-TANDEM evidence (which all shows him
to be wrong) has been "debunked" in some fashion.
But John C. doesn't think that any of these items have been "faked" or
"tampered with" either. So it's a strange belief that John possesses here.
Those three items are "debunked" in John's mind--but ONLY so far as his
own unique "LN/LG. BOH Wound" theory is concerned.
As Andy Taylor always used to mumble to himself on "The Andy Griffith
Show" in the early 1960s -- "Curious, curious, curious."
>>> "I just think you ought to ask yourself why you don't have a lot of
active support for your high entry and no-BOH wound myths." <<<
Now I'm believing in "myths" with respect to these things. LOL reprise!
In actuality, if you were to take a poll amongst LNers (here at these
forums or anywhere else), my guess would be that approximately 99% of all
of those LNers believe in just EXACTLY the same scenario that I believe
in. And that list of LNers certainly includes Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald
Posner, Dale Myers, Jim Moore, and several other LN authors.
The reason for the lack of "active support" on these forums, John, is
pretty easy to figure out I think -- it's because those other LNers (who
certainly do not favor the theory that there was ANY kind of a large-sized
hole in the back of JFK's head) are just sick and tired of following you
and your silly theory around the mulberry bush, time and time again.
Heck, I've gone around this same bush with you at least a half-a-dozen
times myself. But, then too, I probably have lots more time to peck away
on this keyboard than most other LNers have. After all, those people most
likely have what is called a "life". I don't. Hence, I spend hours typing
a lot of common-sense-filled stuff into my computer that will be archived
by Google Groups (it'll remain pretty much ignored and unread; but it
satisfies me to know that my writings are archived somewhere in
cyberland).
I'm sure we'll dance around that "BOH" bush a seventh time pretty soon,
John. Until then, try to keep this photo in the forefront of your mind (if
you can); and then ask yourself, honestly, if your LN/ BOH theory has even
the slightest chance of being accepted by the masses as the truth:
David Von Pein
November 18, 2008
Anthony Marsh
> In article <c24ab3c4-7d72-44ad...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>>>> "I take Marsh's arguments more seriously than yours." <<<
>> Then you're further out in The Twilight Zone than I had initially
>> thought. That's a shame.
>
> Please, whatever you do, don't worry about me being out in the Twilight
> Zone...if I were even close to being true, then the U.S. Air Force must be
> nuts, because they awarded me, among several other distinctive awards, two
> Meritorious Service Medals, not to mention the second highest enlisted
> rank. Also, if I were even a tiny bit nutty, then the President of the
Something that Fletcher Prouty would say.
> United States should be questioned for sending me a highly coveted
> personally signed letter of gratitude for my work to improve the
> Electronic Warfare Training Program for our fighter pilots. And, of
> course, if I were loosing it, that wouldn't speak too well for my
> publisher, Paragon House, would it?
>
Which raises troubling questions. Did you misrepresent yourself to them
as a WC defender?
> In any event, I'm not exactly worried about whether you think I'm out in
> the Twilight Zone.
>
>> Take a breather, John. Your last silly BOH tirade probably has your
>> veins all a-poppin' (and your blood pressure all out of whack too).
>
> It's just not sinking in with you, David. Let me try another approach.
> Look around...you are just one of many many hard-line LNs who think the
> autopsy docs were, not only incapable of seeing that the bullet entry hole
> was in the posterior parietal but also so out of their field, which you
> must think was bricklaying or something, they didn't recognize cerebellum
> from cerebrum tissue.....but you are the only one who's arguing with me
A lot of incompetence doctors can't. So what?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "You change a BOH wound into a "huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge."
> YOU made that up." <<<
>
>
> LOL.
>
> The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
> "huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses.
>
> Hence, I used a synonym for "very large" -- "Huge".
>
But he was not talking about a very large BOH wound. You
mischaracterized the nature of the wound and tried to stick him with it.
> Or do you think that John Canal would now like to pretend that Dr.
> McClelland's drawing (showing an enormous--i.e., "huge"--hole in the back
> of Kennedy's head is a fake drawing of some kind)?
>
It is a fake and it is not McClelland's drawing.
> And we all know that John C. believes McClelland's story about the BOH
> wound....right?
>
Believes what?
> In short: Mr. Canal is making up theories as he goes along....not unlike
> most CTers, of course.
>
He is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
[...]
>>>> "I just think you ought to ask yourself why you don't have a lot of
>active support for your high entry and no-BOH wound myths." <<<
>
>Now I'm believing in "myths" with respect to these things. LOL reprise!
>
>In actuality, if you were to take a poll amongst LNers (here at these
>forums or anywhere else), my guess would be that approximately 99% of all
>of those LNers believe in just EXACTLY the same scenario that I believe
>in.
Then where are they? But you're right about one thing--we're going round
and round on this.....you with your repetitive rhetoric and me explaining
why the statements and testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses, including the
autopsists, trump in evidentiary value your "compromised" x-ray (Boswell
said he replaced bone before they were taken), photo of the undamaged BOH
scalp (that any 3rd grader can figure out has been worked on, pre-photo),
and the Z-film that doesn't show the BOH when the witnesses said they saw
a BOH wound.
Again, here's the question that if DVP answered it honestly, would tell us
what we really want to know about his belief all those eyewitnesses were
wrong: "If it were possible to arrange, would DVP have the guts,
confidence and knowledge about the related evidence to confront those
aforementioned BOH eyewitnesses face to face and tell them they didn't see
what they testified under oath they saw, i.e. a BOH wound?"
The answer is a resounding "of course not"...and if there is anyone
reading this (although I doubt anyone is because of the boring
merry-go-roundish verbiage that's characterized these threads) who truly
thinks DVP WOULD have the guts and knowledge to tell those witnesses face
to face they were wrong, PLEASE, I REPEAT, PLEASE STAND UP AND TELL US.
THANK YOU.
>And that list of LNers certainly includes Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald
>Posner, Dale Myers, Jim Moore, and several other LN authors.
Maybe they have but can you tell me where Dale Myers and Jim Moore said
there was no BOH wound? As far as the others go, they've sold thousands of
books parroting Baden's crap about there being no BOH wound--of course
they wouldn't change their minds. Does that make any sense to you? I
didn't think so.
>The reason for the lack of "active support" on these forums, John, is
>pretty easy to figure out I think -- it's because those other LNers (who
>certainly do not favor the theory that there was ANY kind of a large-sized
>hole
Instead of, "large-sized hole" can we just say "BOH wound"? I ask that
because it evidently was somewhere beween the size of a quarter (that's
how one eyewitness described the size) and the size of a small orange
(other witnesses said it was that big)? IOW, we'll never know for sure
just exactly how large it was. I'm asking that because when you say,
"large" that could mean softball to football size, and I don't know that
anyone, who believes there was a BOH wound, is arguing it was that size.
In any case, it's nice to see you toning down your B/S adjectives that you
use (you once said, "huge").
>in the back of JFK's head) are just sick and tired of following you
>and your silly theory around the mulberry bush, time and time again.
But they're not sick of following both of us, just me, right? LOL!
>Heck, I've gone around this same bush with you at least a half-a-dozen
>times myself. But, then too, I probably have lots more time to peck away
>on this keyboard than most other LNers have. After all, those people most
>likely have what is called a "life". I don't. Hence, I spend hours typing
>a lot of common-sense-filled stuff
Like the silly notion 20-something eyewitnesses were mass
hallucinating--that's common sense stuff? If so, I'd hate to hear your
silly stuff.
>into my computer that will be archived
>by Google Groups (it'll remain pretty much ignored and unread; but it
>satisfies me to know that my writings are archived somewhere in
>cyberland).
>
>I'm sure we'll dance around that "BOH" bush a seventh time pretty soon,
>John. Until then, try to keep this photo in the forefront of your mind (if
>you can); and then ask yourself, honestly, if your LN/ BOH theory has even
>the slightest chance of being accepted by the masses as the truth:
[...]
Before you ride off into the sunset, David, answer this one question for
me.
Of course you won't, but if there are any lurkers, please note his
answer...or lack thereof...it'll speak volumes. Ok, here it is.
Considering,
1. It has been determined that the linchpin ev. for a high entry was the
6.5 mm opacity, which the Clark Panel and HSCA said was a bullet fragment,
has grid lines on it which means it can't represent a piece of metal.
2. None of the autopsy docs remember seeing on the AP x-ray and/or
recovering from JFK's head, on 11-22-63, ANY object that the rather
sizeable and odd-shaped 6.5 mm opacity could have represented.
3. A trail of tiny opacities has been seen on the original lateral x-ray
extending anteriorly from near the EOP by three highly credible
witneses...while no such trail was observed on that film extending
anteriorly from anywhere in the cowlick by anyone.
4. A longitudinal laceration through the brain began at the tip of the
occipital lobe which is very close to where the autopsists' near-EOP entry
was, but no where near the posterior parietal (where the high entry site
was supposed to be).
5. A straight line drawn on Z-312 from the EOP to the windshield passes
through the HSCA's principal exit while a line on Z-312 drawn from the
cowlick to that same principal exit extends down in the general direction
of the jump seat and a long ways from the windshield.
6. Dale Myers stated that the cowlick entry trajectory line extends back
124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building.
7. Not one individual who saw the body said there was an entry in the
cowlick while many said there was one near the EOP.
8. Myself, Sturdivan, Seaton, and Hunt independently replicated F8 with
ALL of our results showing the entry to be near the EOP
....are you honestly, I repeat, honestly 100% certain the bullet entered
in the cowlick?
If you are not, meaning even you agree the government's conclusion on that
was not a certainty (whih means they may have been susceptible to making
critical mistakes), then how can you be sooooo sure the government's
"NO-BOH wound" conclusion is a certainty that you'd say literally dozens
of credible eyewitnesses were wrong when they said they saw a BOH wound?
If you answered my first question in the affirmative, then we are
through...and, I'll leave you with this: IMO, you know you are locked in
to your position on these issues forever and ever, all because of what VB
wrote and not based on what your gut feeling tells you.
:-)
I'm off this silly merry-go-round.
John Canal
David Von Pein
Virtually EVERY lone-assassin believer I have ever encountered (except
John Canal) believes that there was NO WOUND in the BACK of John
Kennedy's head except the one and only ENTRANCE wound in his head.
And, actually, that's pretty obvious to every LNer (except John
Canal). And, as stated a thousand times before, the biggest reason to
KNOW that this is true (i.e., there's NO WOUND in the BOH except the
small wound of entry) is the lateral autopsy X-ray of JFK's head.
John Canal couldn't work a "BOH" wound (which supports the Parkland
witnesses and some of the Bethesda witnesses) into this photo below if
his life depended on it. But that won't stop him from trying:
>>> "I'm off this silly merry-go-round." <<<
Me too. I think seven go-rounds is probably enough. (Although I liked
my "mulberry bush" verbiage better.) ;)
See ya,
David Von Pein
November 19, 2008
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
<TOP POST>
If this gets rejected by the mods, I'll post it on the unsensored group.
If there were any lurkers at all who read the post that DVP replied to
(well, sort of replied to, check that, not really replied to) here, I hope
you noticed how he evaded the questions I asked him. I assure you he did
so because answering them (at least the few he was knowledgeable enough to
answer) would have helped expose his ridiculously silly case for a high
entry and would, in turn, raise doubt upon the overall credibility of the
Clark/HSCA conclusions regarding the head wounds. And, of couse, he runs
like the other high entry theorists...see David run.
>Virtually EVERY lone-assassin believer I have ever encountered (except
>John Canal) believes that there was NO WOUND in the BACK of John
>Kennedy's head except the one and only ENTRANCE wound in his head.
Not even, "virtually" is accurate. For starters, that's because Paul
Seaton, who has literally forgotten more about the medical evidence in
this case than you or VB will ever know (not that either of you are
interested in really knowing it--RH has put an eternal cap on the
knowledge of both of you regarding these issues), is a LNer who beieves
there was a BOH wound.
Also, there are other LNers, who know the medical evidence extremely well
and either adamantly believe there was a BOH wound or are open to the
possibility there was one. They email me or phone me often enough with
support for the BOH wound and/or low entry.
These individuals, IMO, don't want to post on this newsgroup because of
the wanting format (your "cut and paste" and "evade and run" tactics,
displayed very nicely by this very reply of yours, which are not
criticized by anyone managing the group, are typical of the format's
shortcomings--perhaps because you are a high entry, no-BOH wound myth
conclusionist, ya think?). IMO, your silly views on this stuff does have
perks.
:-)
Does Dr. Zimmerman's name ring any bells for you? He was so interested in
resolving the headshot entry controversy, he spent almost a year trying to
obtain permission to examine the originals in the archives. Luckily, he
finally received permission and his after-action report is valuable
information helpful to resolving the headshot controversies.
>And, actually, that's pretty obvious to every LNer (except John
>Canal). And, as stated a thousand times before, the biggest reason to
>KNOW that this is true (i.e., there's NO WOUND in the BOH except the
>small wound of entry) is the lateral autopsy X-ray of JFK's head.
Ha, maybe, if you came face to face with some BOH eyewitnesses, you could
wave a copy of that x-ray in front of them as your main basis for calling
them hallucinators or liars (that's right, sorry, I forgot, you stay clear
of the "L" word) because they testified under oath they saw a BOH wound.
Be sure not to mention, though, that Boswell testified under oath that he
replaced bone pieces before the x-rays were taken....hell, I don't have to
tell you that..leaving out little tidbits of pertinent information like
that is part of your M/O, IMHO.
:-)
>John Canal couldn't work a "BOH" wound (which supports the Parkland
>witnesses and some of the Bethesda witnesses) into this photo below if
>his life depended on it. But that won't stop him from trying:
[...]
Gee, was that photo taken when the body was first received...or much later
that night? Duh, DVP doesn't really know or care. Another missing tidbit
of pertinent information, eh, David? At least you're consistent leaving
out little goodies like that.
:-)
>>>> "I'm off this silly merry-go-round." <<<
>
>
>Me too. I think seven go-rounds is probably enough. (Although I liked
>my "mulberry bush" verbiage better.) ;)
You're so locked in to your views that VB drumed into your head that your
mindset and openmindedness on these issues is a gross oxymoron. Yup, the
precious vews VB put in your head are the ones he parroted from Baden who,
IMO, made a mockery of the investigative system with regard to the head
shot medical evidence.
Yes, Baden was the one who testfied under oath that there was NO brain
damage consistent with a shot entering near the EOP. Oops, we won't call
that a lie or perjury because maybe he just didn't have a chance to read
the autopsy report......which said there was a longitudinal laceration
through the brain that began at the tip of the occipital lobe. Oh, while
others here know, let me explain to DVP that the tip of the occiptal lobe
is very close to the level of the EOP.
That's just one of the many gaffs (I didn't use the "L" word) in Baden's
testimony that VB didn't notice or care about. :-)
>See ya,
I'll probably pop up every now and then when I notice you spreading your
silly VB headshot B/S....least you convince some newbies that you're
making sense regarding the head wounds. I might even ask you the same
questions that you ran from here.
:-)
John Canal
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>>>> "But he told NOVA that there was no discrepancy." <<<
>
>
>At the 7:40 mark of this video:
>
>www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv9ifW_Fs3Y&fmt=18
McClelland's further ... and clarifying comments ... begin at .50
seconds into Part 6, found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLySFeypkgM&feature=related
McClelland says,re only a small wound showing in the back of the head
photo:
"The pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp which is hanging
back this way in most of the pictures exposing this large wound and
has pulled the scalp forward to take a picture, naturally, the scalp
appears to be in its normal state and there doesn't seem to be any
sort of wound in this area where I had drawn the picture that shows
the large hole. "
Which is exactly what the autopsist told the HSCA ... scalp was being
held up over the damage in the skull to take a picture of the entry
wound in the scalp.
Fancy that.
John always fails to note this when he posts what McClelland said.
Were you unaware of this as well? :-)
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <gc0qh4he73dtfpj4g...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 13 Nov 2008 23:41:26 -0500, marki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 11, 10:59 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
>>>> I'll just post the link:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>>Thanks, Dave! I enjoyed reading that, as I've always drawn attention
>>>to McClelland's firm conviction regarding the discrepancy between the
>>>autopsy images versus what he saw directly.
>>
>>But he told NOVA that there was no discrepancy:
>
>What would you have expected him to say? Perhaps, "I hereby formally accuse the
>USG of doctoring the JFK autopsy photos....my career wasn't going anywhere
>anyway!" I don't think so. He gave the politically correct answer to Nova. That
>said, read his ARRB testimony during which he obviously felt less intimidated as
>his colleagues also said they recalled a BOH wound.
Hi John!
Actually, McClelland is one who NOVA included additional comments of
... and McClelland said scalp had been pulled forward covering the
hole seen in the back of the head to take that picture.
I posted the link, time and quote to DVP just a minute ago.
Was out of town last week ... have just started going through posts.
Interesting to see a McClelland thread ... and, of course, I knew I'd
find the usual comment about what McClelland said to NOVA .... sans
the additional quote. :-)
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>Honest question, .john. Do you think, for Nova, it was explained to McClelland
>that before the BOH autopsy photo was taken the scalp had been reflected, rear
>bones had been allowed to fall out, and a possibly repaired rear scalp held back
>up? I'll bet the farm it wasn't.
>Remember, the testimony clearly tells us that
>some time before the body left the morgue Humes assisted the morticians as they,
>among other things, stretched and closed the scalp (in preparation for a
>possible open casket funeral)......and there is no way of knowing if that photo
>was taken before or after that event. The fact is the autopsy docs reported that
>the great defect extended somewhat into the occipital and the BOH photo shows no
>such damage....not even a hint of it.
>
>That leaves us with one of two explanations: either the autopsy docs were lying
>or that photo was taken after the aforementioned repair to the rear scalp.
>Myself, I usually don't call people liars unless I can prove they lied.
>
>BTW, especially considering a BOH wound doesn't hardly have to mean such damage
>wasn't caused by the Z312 bullet from the SN, while it's up to you, I think it'd
>be nice if you'd refrain from calling the autopsy docs either liars or
>idiots...unless of course you can prove that's what they were.
>
>:-)
>
>John Canal
>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
>>
>>>I don't participate in
>>>other forums, as most are self-fulfilling conspiratorial prophecies.
>>>One of the statements that caught my attention was the frontal neck
>>>wound described as "quarter size", when Perry's estimates on actual
>>>size were significantly smaller.
>>>
>>
>>But McClelland didn't arrive in time to see the throat wound in its
>>unaltered condition.
>>
>>.John
>>--------------
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as
>credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and
>O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
>
>When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
>Answer: Never.
They sure as heck did ... drew it and measured it too. How much real
estate does 17cm ( or 13cm, save the quibble) cover forward from your
eop? How much does 10cm commencing 1" right of midline cover?
>
>They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in the
>RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
>
>
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and RIGHT
>SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Emphasis is
>DVP's]
LOL! Oh no you don't ...
That is their comment on the anatomically identifiable (look bullet
touched here) EXIT wound ... not on the size of the wound OVERALL.
They explicitly reported the wound was chiefly parietal ... but that
it also extended into temporal and occipital.
Temporal, parietal and the phobia causing occipital come together on
the rear of the head behind the ear. Here:
http://www.drwastl.org/files/skull.gif
Orange (temporal), pepto pink (parietal) and lime green (occipital)
come together at one place on each side of the skull.... lateral rear,
behind the ear.
Don't refer to one thing and post a quote about something else.
Tsk.Tsk.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <c24ab3c4-7d72-44ad...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Nice one, John, and this sums the whole problem up in a typical LN
shell, imo:
>The reason Humes et. al weren't invited to that "party" is obvious--Fisher
>thought the low, near-EOP entry was inconsistent with a shot from six
>floors up and that an entry in the cowlick was [consistent with such a
>shot]...and had his mind made up early on he was going to refute the
>autopsists' conclusion on that.
Amen. LNs ( save well studied and enlightened ones like you),
erroneously equate damage to the back of the head with a shot having
to have come from the front. T'aint so. It's silly.
And I laughed the other night in the new Discovery Channel show when
the shooter took his shot from the "6th floor* scissor lift .... I'm
not sure the bullet touched first at the eop or the cowlick, but
either way the shot showed just how wrong this silly notion of LNs is
.... as the resulting damage from the shot showed obvious damage down
to about the level of where that dummy's eop would be!
When people argue not on the evidence, but on what they think it has
to be to preserve their belief, it's a ridiculous sutuation from the
get go. I know you know that. The good thing is that lurkers and
others not locked into erroneously believing back of had damage =
frontal shot and therefore conspiracy gain a lot from all you have
studied and share.
The others, maybe someday they will stumble across and understand the
destructive power of the bullet shockwave as it travels through the
skull/head.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>Virtually EVERY lone-assassin believer I have ever encountered (except
>John Canal) believes that there was NO WOUND in the BACK of John
>Kennedy's head except the one and only ENTRANCE wound in his head.
And you want to brag about it?
LOL!
WHY do you LNs have this silly idea that damage to the back of the
head = frontal shot/conspiracy? Note the damage halfway down the back
of the head in the Discovery Channel show the other night. If that
show accomplished anything ... I hope it is that LNs realize their
phobia of back of the heasd damage is unfounded ... plain silly.
John Canal, an avowed lone nutter, listened, looked into it, was
puzzled and troubled by what he saw, looked deeper, researched ...
real deep research involving experts (both independent ones and those
who were on the assorted panels; you cite them in snippets, he has
gotten to KNOW them) and simulations, and came to his own conclusions
regarding the back of the head. He is still an LN ... but one with a
deeper understanding and first hand knowledge of the medical evidence
regarding the head wound from his research than just about anyone else
in this arena I can think of. Your condescending and taunting
responses look a bit like you may know it too. :-)
Scary to the old LN fear of c-c-c-conspiracy as regards damage to the
back of the head, I know. It shows. It's also silly and untrue.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>Debra Conway doesn't like it when I quote posts from her forum, so
>I'll just post the link:
>
Very interesting, Dave ... thanks for posting this.
Bests,
Barb :-)
John Canal
says...
Hi Barb,
Great to see you posting again...and this isn't even a Judyth thread. I hope
that signals an improvement with your eye issues.
What you added from the McClelland audio (that I leave out--partially because
this webtv does not have the capability to open audio clips and partly [mostly?]
because I was lazy and/or remiss) pretty much says it all. Add to that he fact
that he endorsed the drawing of the BOH wound (that some call the McClelland BOH
wound drawing) in 1994 and, like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I guess, just as importantly, he reiterated all of what he said about the extent
of the BOH wound and the autopsy doc holding up the scalp over the BOH wound in
his ARRB testimony. He did add in his ARRB testimony that the drawing he
endorsed only shows the posterior portion of the overall wound he saw on
11-22-63.
Barb, the following is an excerpt of an email I just sent to our friend, and
supporter (re. the BOH wound issue), "Mimus", who, for any lurkers, has put
together a superbly done video adding visual support for a BOH wound. To make
his video, which is on Utube, he used mostly, but not entirely, clips from the
Nix and Zapruder films.
Anyway, if you can manage a few moments, FWIW, my overall feelings about this
issue are expressed in the excerpt.
I'll call you soon.
Take care and thanks for the kind words too.
JC
Here's the excerpt (with some minor cleaning up):
IMO, the "Rosseta Stone like" piece of this whole BOH puzzel of a debate was
Humes' innocuously and cleverly exchanging the words, "severely lacerated falx
cerebri" in the autopsy report with the words, "severely lacerated flocculus
cerebri" (part of the cerebellum) in his Warren Commission testimony (a few
months later). This shows that, when they wrote the AR, they were consciously
understating the BOH damage surely under orders from a superior or superiors
(IMO, most likely, from Burkley who I think was "really" in charge of the
procedure and handling of the reports and body, and was a conspiracy theorist
until he died).
The understating extended to more than the exposed and damaged cerebellum being
left out of the report--for instance, the use of the adjective, "somewhat" in
the phrase, "somewhat into the occipital..." was unquestionably
inappropriate--they could have easily measured the depth of the large wound
posteriorly in cm and mm. Indeed, unlike what they cautiously had drawn
(Rydberg's CE-388 dwg), the wound had to have extended down to near the
EOP--that's the only way Humes and the PH docs could possibly have seen
cerebellum. Note that the lower margin of the piece of bone in his right rear
(seen in the lateral) is at that EOP level. Also, the absence of any photos of
his head from the rear when the body was first received or as soon as the scalp
was reflected was certainly part of the effort to downplay the extent of the BOH
damage.
All done, IMO, because, at the time of the autopsy, they either feared there had
been another shooter or feared
a BOH wound could be misinterpreted as proof there was a frontal shooter.
Going back to the "falx-flocculus" switch, it's important to note that Humes
even testified that, after the autopsy (before his WC testimony) he had read the
reports of the PH docs---undoubtedly he realized the "cat was officially out of
the bag" as far as whether or not JFK's cerebellum was exposed. Therefore (since
his autopsy report did not specifically corroborate the PH docs' cerebellum
sightings), he realized it was imperative for him to get the fact that he also
saw an exposed cerebellum into the record--and he did exactly that in his WC
testimony, i.e. they saw a "severely lacerated flocculus".
Lastly, there is overwhelming evidence that, at the very least, the BOH was
fragmented all the way down to near the EOP--the best ev. being F8 and the
jagged edge of the skull at the EOP level. IOW, it's obvious that a saw wasn't
used to remove the pieces of bone above this jagged edge--they fell out when the
scalp was reflected, just as they said. My point is that it is a baby step of a
leap to conclude that one or two of these loose pieces could have moved out of
positon (especially during the transfer of the body from the limo to ER1)
thereby permitting brain matter to exude out from there and for the cerebellum
to be seen through that opening (note that, if there had been sufficient force
to fragment the BOH skull, it makes sense such a force could have been powerful
enough to also make a tear in the scalp in that area--especially considering the
sharp edges of the fragmented bone there).
Now, compare that baby step of a leap to the cavernous leap required to conclude
literally dozens of eyewitnesses, including the autopsy docs, were hallucinating
or lying about seeing a BOH wound....that huge leap is the one that Fisher,
McMeekin, and Baden made (whether or not they knew better is a matter of
conjecture) and the leap (surely an honest one) that Posner, Bugliosi, McAdams,
and the likes of Fiorentino and DVP seemed compelled to make in order to stay
loyal to the official story.
Their motto: "Whatever you do, don't even hint that you agree with anything a CT
says"....even though they know well that neither a high entry nor a BOH wound
are synonymous with shots fired from other than the sixth floor of the TSBD.
The sad part of this story, IMO, is that those who started this no-BOH wound
mistake (or hoax) are not around to properly answer the tough questions from the
Seatons, Junkkarinens, and Canals...no, the ones who started this charade left
that impossible job to McAdams and DVP (although, IMO, the later have perfected
the art of evasion when it comes to honestly adequately answering the questions
we ask them pertaining to those issues).
I could go on, but if you've hung with me through all of the above ranting,
you've got more patience than I--thank you.
JC
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>>>> "McAdams says my arguments are too arcane. Walker says I'm rude.
> Fiorentino says he's too busy. Durnavich and Mitch Todd quit posting
> entirely..and it goes on and on. Funny thing, though, none of them will
> explain the conflicts I present to them regarding the stupid cowlick entry
> or no-BOH-wound theories....it's just you who stubbornly "tries" to with
> your repetitive already-debunked-trio of so-called evidence, the Z-film,
> the lateral x-ray, and the BOH photo." <<<
>
> LOL. John Canal thinks those three things have been "debunked" in some
> way. That's a real howl!
>
> Those three things being:
>
> 1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows no large-ish hole in the back of JFK's
> head at any point on the film).
>
Nor would we expect to be able to see a hole on the back of the head
from his angle of view.
claviger
Dr. Robert McClelland is the Jean Hill of Parkland Hospital. Over time his
memory bank made depsoits from the media. Ironically the opposing parties
in this case are McClelland vs McClellend. Which one do we believe? The
first McC observed only two wounds: the obvious head wound and the post
tracheotomy throat wound. The second McC added a third wound at a later
date. Was he withholding information the first time or enhancing the story
later to entice the media? Like Jean Hill he became addicted to being a
famous witness. Fame can be a powerful drug. To keep the addiction going
is certainly a strong temptation. Especially when it fuels the mystery
factor.
It was so obvious with Jean Hill and if we read the sequence of reports,
depositions, and testimony compared to later statements made to the media,
we see the same pattern with Dr. McC. To Hill and McC they are not lying
per se, but convinced themselves along the way they actually saw things
speculated in books, newspapers, and TV. With McC there is an additional
element, a threat to his ego as a doctor that he might have missed
something he should have seen. To remedy that problem he convinced himself
there was a third wound, by golly, right where the WC critics said it was!
Unfortunately for Dr. McC his story falls apart with a few simple
questions.
claviger
wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008 14:46:50 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>
> >>>> "I'm off this silly merry-go-round." <<<
>
> >Me too. I think seven go-rounds is probably enough. (Although I liked
> >my "mulberry bush" verbiage better.) ;)
>
> >See ya,
> >David Von Pein
> >November 19, 2008
>
> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Barb,
There is a fascinating presentation on You-Tube about the BOH wound
comparing the enhanced version of the Z-film with the Nix film. I
would be interested to see what you and John Canal have to say after
watching it.
Barb Junkkarinen
claviger
wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2008 00:18:46 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>
> >2.) This autopsy photograph -- which does not do the "BOH" crowd any
> >favors either. And the SCALP of the President's head is COMPLETELY INTACT
> >in this picture, too. Not a sign of damage. Nothing. And not a sign of any
> >stitches or "repair" work having been done to the rear scalp of JFK can be
> >detected either (but John Canal apparently can see the repairs; but he's
> >the only person on the planet who can, evidently):
>
>
> >And since it couldn't be more obvious from the above photo of the back of
> >President Kennedy's head that the SCALP in the ENTIRE BACK of his head was
> >completely intact and totally undamaged....then the next logical question
> >to ask, of course, is -- How in the world would it have been physically
> >POSSIBLE for anyone at Parkland Hospital to have seen a great-big, gaping
> >hole in the back part of JFK's head if his scalp looked like this (in two
> >different photographs) during his autopsy on the night of 11/22/63?:
>
>
> >http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
> >Add up #1 through #5 above. What do you get?
>
> >Do those things add up to the "BOH wound" witnesses being correct?
>
> >Or do they add up to the logical conclusion (via a combination of
> >photographs, X-rays, the Zapruder Film, the official autopsy report, and
> >the words of the autopsists) that President Kennedy did not have a large
> >hole in the back part of his head?
>
> >Amazingly, instead of opting for the latter choice, lone-assassin believer
> >John Canal has decided to choose the first answer shown above.
>
> >And John will choose that first answer even though the second answer is a
> >conclusion that is firmly anchored by the weight of much better and
> >definitive evidence than the eyewitnesses who viewed JFK's head wounds.
>
> >Go figure John Canal's logic on this matter.
>
> >I can't.
>
> >David Von Pein
> >November 15, 2008
>
> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> >=============================================
>
> >RELATED "BOH" STUFF:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
>
> >=============================================
Barb,
Question: on the five way illustration of the skull there is a small
grey area at the margin of the parietal and occipital suture. Is this
supposed to be the entrance wound? If so, who prepared this
illustration?
http://www.drwastl.org/files/skull.gif
I'm having difficulty following your explanation. Are you saying Humes
recognized three different wounds to the skull during the autopsy?
Here is a copy of the autopsy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#The_gunshot_wound_to_the_head
The gunshot wound to the head
______________________________________________________
1. The wound to the back of the head is described by the Bethesda
autopsy as being a laceration measuring 15 x 6 mm, situated to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. In the
underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull showing
beveling (a cone-shaped widening) of the margins of the bone when
viewed from the interior of the skull.[11]
2. The large, irregularly shaped defect in the right side of the head
(chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and
occipital regions) is described as being about 13 cm (5 inches) wide
at the largest diameter.[11]
3. Three fragments of skull bone were received as separate specimens,
roughly corresponding to the dimensions of the large defect. In the
largest of the fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly
circular wound presumably of exit, exhibiting beveling of the exterior
of the bone, and measuring about 2.5 to 3.0 cm in diameter. X-rays
revealed minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin.[11]
4. Minute fragments of the projectile were found by X-ray along a
path from the rear wound to the parietal area defect.[12]
______________________________________________________
From this description I can only identify two wounds to the head:
One "to the back of the head" that is a laceration approximately 1/2"
x 1/4 ". It is located to the right and "slightly" above the EOP.
Humes doesn't define "slightly" with a measurement. The rendering of
the photo clearly shows a small oval puncture that looks to be almost
2" above the EOP. Does that qualify as "slightly"?
The other wound is "The large, irregularly shaped defect in the right
side of the head" that is almost 5" wide. I do not see a 5" wide hole
in the back of the head in the autopsy photo. To be more specific, I
see no 5" hole in the scalp. Are you saying there is a 5" hole in the
skull beneath the scalp in the right occipital region of the skull?
In the X-ray there is a fractured piece of skull in that region that
appears to be loose which looks about 2”x3”. Is this what you are
referring to?
http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
The massive damage to the skull severely fractured the bones enough to
separate from each other and it's possible one of them may have been
sharp enough to lacerate the scalp. JFK fell forward in the seat so
gravity would have closed any flap on the back of the head. When the
body of the President was moved to ER and placed on his back gravity
may have pulled the flap open. That is a plausible explanation.
As to your theory, do you believe this flap was a vertical or
horizontal separation in the scalp? Is it a tear caused by internal
pressure from the shock wave or a laceration by a piece of fractured
skull bone? You and John make it clear neither of you believe this to
be an exit wound, so what is the significance as to whether the entry
wound was in the cowlick or closer to the EOP?
Why is this such a hotly debated topic when there is no way to know
precisely the angle of the head at the instant the bullet struck the
skull? The arc of the bullet trajectory and the physics of the impact
with the skull are factors that may be impossible to measure.
By the way, I see John has already commented on the You-Tube videos. I
would like to hear your opinion as well.
John Canal
says...
Hi Barb,
I think he believes [incorrectly] that "McC" claimed there were three wounds,
i.e. 1) one that looked like the wound in the drawing he endorsed, 2) one in the
top/right/front (al la the Dox drawing), and 3) the entry.
What he evidently doesn't know is that "McC" clarified all that to the ARRB when
he said the wound in the drawing he endorsed was just an extension of the larger
wound, mostly in the top/right/front.....IOW he was saying he believed there was
only two wounds, not three.
Bests,
John C.
>Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Quick top post: Heading out to see the new Bond movie ... have just
looked at the you tube things and scanned quickly thru this post ....
will be later tonight or tomorrow before I get replies up to you on
both. But wanted to say quick like that the link to the colorful
skulls is just some site that hsppens to have those skulls on it ...
nothing added or touched up by anyone.
The same skulls, with an interactive feature are also on a Chico State
site, I've used this in the past, I like the colored bones for easy
viewing here:
http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Module/skull.html
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <8pigi4p8v9u58brar...@4ax.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
I sure hope not, John, because that's just silly.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 11:34 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
As noted in my quickie reply yesterday, the skulls are just from some
medical site. Again, just so it's in this reply, here's the same
skulls, with an interactive feature on a Chico State
site, I've used this in the past, I like the colored bones for easy
viewing here:
http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Module/skull.html
>
>I'm having difficulty following your explanation. Are you saying Humes
>recognized three different wounds to the skull during the autopsy?
When they reflected the scalp at autopsy, some pieces of bone were
missing (not present with the body at Bethesda), others stuck to the
underside of the scalp, others fell out onto the table. What they had
was one huge wound that encompassed virtually the entire right side of
his head .... from slightly above the EOP forward 17cm, and from 1"
right of the EOP lateral 10 cm.
You can see this area marked as "missing" on one of Boswell's autopsy
diagrams. You can find this drawing, as well as other info, on Paul
Seaton's site ... but the drawing I am referring to is on this page:
Click on the "see full size image" at the top, or scroll down and you
will find it there too.
That was the size of the overall wound/destruction.
Scalp (severely lacerated in stellate fashion as described by the
sutopsists), and hair matted in blood, held a lot together until the
scalp was reflected.
At the bottom edge of that, slightly above the EOP, was the bottom
part of the entry wound ... the complete circumference was not there.
Finck testified about this to the WC, also see Humes and Boswell in
session with the HSCA FPP.
Later in the autopsy, as Boswell also noted to the HSCA FPP, they were
able to fit a piece of bone down in there that completed the entry
hole, and a 4" piece of bone took away 4cm of that 17cm
hole...essentially bridging the gap between what was now a completed
entry hole and what remained of the wound/hole ... 13cm.
Later, after fitting back in all the bone pieces they had, as best
they could, bone they had in the morgue already and bone pieces that
arrived from other places, they lacked only about 25% of completely
being able to fill in the entire wound. On some of the bone that came
in later, they were able to identify places where bullet had passed
out through the skull. So now they had an exit (bullet touched and
passed right here) as well as an entrance and most of the rest of the
bone pieces were filled back in.
Thus one giant hole became an antrance and an exit, with most of the
rest of broken pieces of bone filling in most of the rest of what had
been, when they started, one giant hole.
The Rydberg drawing gave the WC the bottomlime ... a bullet went in
near the eop, and came out in the top front. That drawing does not,
and was never meant to, depict the overall size of the destruction
that they saw when they reflected the scalp at autopsy.
>
>Here is a copy of the autopsy:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#The_gunshot_wound_to_the_head
>The gunshot wound to the head
>______________________________________________________
>
> 1. The wound to the back of the head is described by the Bethesda
>autopsy as being a laceration measuring 15 x 6 mm, situated to the
>right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. In the
>underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull showing
>beveling (a cone-shaped widening) of the margins of the bone when
>viewed from the interior of the skull.[11]
Yes, the entry in the scalp ... and in the skull AFTER they were able
to piece it back together.
>
> 2. The large, irregularly shaped defect in the right side of the head
>(chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and
>occipital regions) is described as being about 13 cm (5 inches) wide
>at the largest diameter.[11]
The overall size of the wound that was left after the entry hole was
completed and a 4cm piece of bone put bacjk in turning a 17cm wound
into a 13cm wound. Gary Aguilar has Boswell on tape telling about
this. I don't know that it is online.
>
> 3. Three fragments of skull bone were received as separate specimens,
>roughly corresponding to the dimensions of the large defect.
There ya go .... they are saying they had a hole to reconstruct with
bone pieces...
>In the
>largest of the fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly
>circular wound presumably of exit, exhibiting beveling of the exterior
>of the bone, and measuring about 2.5 to 3.0 cm in diameter. X-rays
>revealed minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin.[11]
The pieces I mentioned above that showed evidence of bullet exit.
>
> 4. Minute fragments of the projectile were found by X-ray along a
>path from the rear wound to the parietal area defect.[12]
Indeed. Do some reading on where that emanated from and went to.
>______________________________________________________
>
>From this description I can only identify two wounds to the head:
>
>One "to the back of the head" that is a laceration approximately 1/2"
>x 1/4 ". It is located to the right and "slightly" above the EOP.
>Humes doesn't define "slightly" with a measurement. The rendering of
>the photo clearly shows a small oval puncture that looks to be almost
>2" above the EOP. Does that qualify as "slightly"?
See what I wrote at the beginning. Essentially there was one wound ...
a huge one ... and it contained an identifiable entrance, and an
identifiable area of bullet exit.
>
>The other wound is "The large, irregularly shaped defect in the right
>side of the head" that is almost 5" wide. I do not see a 5" wide hole
>in the back of the head in the autopsy photo. To be more specific, I
>see no 5" hole in the scalp. Are you saying there is a 5" hole in the
>skull beneath the scalp in the right occipital region of the skull?
Ditto....see above. And the autopsists said so ... and measured it and
drew it.
Have you never seen the autopsy diagrams and read the testimonies,
panel discussions, depositions, etc?
>
>In the X-ray there is a fractured piece of skull in that region that
>appears to be loose which looks about 2”x3”. Is this what you are
>referring to?
>http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>
>The massive damage to the skull severely fractured the bones enough to
>separate from each other and it's possible one of them may have been
>sharp enough to lacerate the scalp. JFK fell forward in the seat so
>gravity would have closed any flap on the back of the head. When the
>body of the President was moved to ER and placed on his back gravity
>may have pulled the flap open. That is a plausible explanation.
>
>As to your theory,
None of this is my theory ... it was what the documents say and the
testimonies, etc say.
>do you believe this flap was a vertical or
>horizontal separation in the scalp? Is it a tear caused by internal
>pressure from the shock wave or a laceration by a piece of fractured
>skull bone?
Could be both ... the right side of his head essentially exploded,
devastating destruction from aft to fore. See the autopsy and scalp
flaps and tears.
> You and John make it clear neither of you believe this to
>be an exit wound,
Basically, the entire right side of his head was an exit ... due to
the temporaary cavity pressure. That bullet packed a lot of energy.
But only a small area of bone, that was not in the head when received
at Bethesda, had the markings, evidence of an area where actual bullet
touched bone on its way out.
Was the gaping wound in the back of the head an "exit"? NOT in the way
LNs use it ... LNs are the ones who call it an "exit" ... meaning
where bullet came out.
>so what is the significance as to whether the entry
>wound was in the cowlick or closer to the EOP?
Accuracy. The wound was where the wound was. John Canal gave a good
run down on the genesis of the wound moving up to the cowlick. It
appears to have been because Fisher erroneously thought that a shot
entering at the EOP didn't "work" for a shot from the 6th floor...or
worse yet, that damage to the rear of the head meant a shot had come
from the front. A fish tale, one passed down ... ultimately promoted
by Baden, then adopted by loyal LNs everywhere, including Posner and
most recently Bugliosi ... neither of whom seem to have a real
knowledge or grasp on the medical evidence and merely took the daisy
chain Fisher seems to have started's word for it.
>
>Why is this such a hotly debated topic when there is no way to know
>precisely the angle of the head at the instant the bullet struck the
>skull? The arc of the bullet trajectory and the physics of the impact
>with the skull are factors that may be impossible to measure.
It ahouldn't be a bone ... so to speak ... of contention....damage to
the back of the head was documented six ways from Sunday at Parkland,
Clint Hill wrote it in his report of what he saw in DP that day .....
and the autopsy corroborated it.
IMO, it is the fear that damage to the back of the head, and a shot at
the EOP, means conspiracy that has driven this to this day. It really
is nonsense.
>
>By the way, I see John has already commented on the You-Tube videos. I
>would like to hear your opinion as well.
Will do that tomorrow....gotta find a bed just now.
I would recommend you turn away from books that give you nothing but
the usual canards and, at the very least, incomplete info, and do not
prepare you with the kind of knowledge you need if you really want to
know, understand and be able to discuss it. Instead turn to the actual
documents and get to know and understand the medical evidence ....
from Parkland, to Bethesda, to the WC, on to the other panels, the
HSCA and on to the ARRB. These days, virtually everything is available
on line. If you need help finding something, let me know and I would
be happy to help you find it ... i know others would too.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>
John Canal
says...
Barb,
Excellent account of what happened with the head wounds....I'm sure he
appreciates the time you took to spell it out for him in so easy to understand
steps/terms. If you don't mind, I'd like to add only a couple of tiny things.
I think he asked how high the autopsists' "slightly above" was...while
Sturdivan's replications of F8 had it roughly an inch above the EOP, the
replications by Paul, myself, an Hunt had it only about 2-3 mm above the EOP. I
disagree with Larry for two reasons. One, the autopsists already had used 2.5 cm
to account for the one inch right of midline measurement---so, if the entry was
one inch (like Larry determined) above the EOP, it seems to me, unless they lost
their ruler, they would have said it was 2.5 cm above the EOP. The other reason
I disagree with Larry, is that for his replication he used a female's skull,
while Paul, Hunt, and I used adult male model skulls...and I think, for that
reason, Larry's margin for error was greater than ours.
He also questioned the angle of declination of the bullet as it entered. While
no one can ever know precisely what it was, using Z-312 (like Myers did) we can
say it was very close to being about a neg. 16 degree down angle relative to
true horizontal. Note that as the bullet penetrated its nose deformed and the
entire bullet delected up to an up angle of roughly +4 degrees relative to true
horizontal (total deflection [change in direction] of roughly 20
degrees)....that +4 degree up path from near the EOP, if you'll look at Z-312,
put the large fragments on course to hit the windshield. That track is also
consistent with both the tiny trail of opacities seen on the original lateral
x-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP as well as the longitudinal
laceration through the right cerebrum.
Anyway, after the nose slowed, in layperson's terms, the base tried to compress
into it [the slowed nose] causing the bullet to break up (a few inches into his
head)....but the two larger, and much, much heavier, pieces continued out the
exit notch Barb mentioned which the HSCA's, Dr. Angel determined was just
forward of the coronal suture [where the large late-arriving piece of frontal
bone (with the beveled out corner that had metallic residue on it]) fit.
Metallic debris from when the bullet fragmented was so light and tiny it was
carried up to the top (much of it out) of his head with the brain matter that
exploded (up/and out) in that direction (which was the path of least resistence,
i.e. the largest opening in the skull). Two other fragments, that were too heavy
to be carried up, but too light to exit the skull, curved from where they came
off the bullet when it fragmented and ended up on the surface of the right
cerebrum above the frontal sinus (they were recovered).
I think he also said or implied that he woundered why this is so important. For
me, it's important because they (Fisher started it and Baden did the final
polishing of the hoax) made three decent military dotors appear to be buffoons
in order to explain their erroneous movement of the entry up.......not to
mention the blatant audacity they had to deceive the American people, not only
with their entry location hoax, but also with their denying there was a BOH
wound (besides the small entry at its lower margin). I guess I ought to be
careful not to imply that the larger [than the entry] BOH wound was a seperate
one....as Barb nicely articulated, the BOH wound was just the posterior portion
of the larger wound that reached all the way forward into the frontal bone,
mostly on the right side. The posterior portion, though, had no bone "blown out"
(like the top/right/front had), just pushed out of position (exposing
brain/cerebellum tissue),......more or less as in collateral damage.
See ya, Barb.
:-)
John
>Bests,
>Barb :-)
>>
>>
Anthony Marsh
And extended well into the left side of the head.
> You can see this area marked as "missing" on one of Boswell's autopsy
> diagrams. You can find this drawing, as well as other info, on Paul
> Seaton's site ... but the drawing I am referring to is on this page:
>
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/face-sheet/graphics/bos-toh.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm&usg=__UCkP4c2iN6gXJi-9NGy7hdOYMVw=&h=414&w=452&sz=33&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=1lF1Bm3OeFO3yM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkennedy%2Bautopsy%2Bface%2Bsheet%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN
>
> Click on the "see full size image" at the top, or scroll down and you
> will find it there too.
>
> That was the size of the overall wound/destruction.
>
> Scalp (severely lacerated in stellate fashion as described by the
> sutopsists), and hair matted in blood, held a lot together until the
> scalp was reflected.
>
> At the bottom edge of that, slightly above the EOP, was the bottom
> part of the entry wound ... the complete circumference was not there.
> Finck testified about this to the WC, also see Humes and Boswell in
> session with the HSCA FPP.
>
> Later in the autopsy, as Boswell also noted to the HSCA FPP, they were
> able to fit a piece of bone down in there that completed the entry
> hole, and a 4" piece of bone took away 4cm of that 17cm
> hole...essentially bridging the gap between what was now a completed
> entry hole and what remained of the wound/hole ... 13cm.
>
> Later, after fitting back in all the bone pieces they had, as best
> they could, bone they had in the morgue already and bone pieces that
> arrived from other places, they lacked only about 25% of completely
> being able to fill in the entire wound. On some of the bone that came
> in later, they were able to identify places where bullet had passed
Bullet? One intact bullet? Maybe you mean a fragment.
> out through the skull. So now they had an exit (bullet touched and
> passed right here) as well as an entrance and most of the rest of the
> bone pieces were filled back in.
>
Try making the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone the one and only
exit of an intact bullet and see what type of trajectory that would be.
There were several exits.
Anthony Marsh
You make a lot of false assumptions. Why would those incompetent autopsy
doctors quantify exactly where the head wound was when they were just
guessing? Sure, they can guess where the midline of the head was and
measure 2.5 cm to the right of that. Guess what we find there? The dab of
fat on top of the hair. No hole. They can guess where the EOP might be,
but they can't measure from an unknown landmark.
> I disagree with Larry, is that for his replication he used a female's skull,
> while Paul, Hunt, and I used adult male model skulls...and I think, for that
> reason, Larry's margin for error was greater than ours.
>
> He also questioned the angle of declination of the bullet as it entered. While
> no one can ever know precisely what it was, using Z-312 (like Myers did) we can
> say it was very close to being about a neg. 16 degree down angle relative to
> true horizontal. Note that as the bullet penetrated its nose deformed and the
> entire bullet delected up to an up angle of roughly +4 degrees relative to true
> horizontal (total deflection [change in direction] of roughly 20
Cute scenario, but no where do I see you acknowledging that the bullet
broke up into several fragments. If you have an intact bullet exiting in
only one place, the only bullet hole is the semi-circular defect and that
does not agree with your 20 degree upward path. Nor can that intact bullet
cause all the damage to the limo.
> degrees)....that +4 degree up path from near the EOP, if you'll look at Z-312,
> put the large fragments on course to hit the windshield. That track is also
> consistent with both the tiny trail of opacities seen on the original lateral
> x-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP as well as the longitudinal
> laceration through the right cerebrum.
>
> Anyway, after the nose slowed, in layperson's terms, the base tried to compress
> into it [the slowed nose] causing the bullet to break up (a few inches into his
> head)....but the two larger, and much, much heavier, pieces continued out the
> exit notch Barb mentioned which the HSCA's, Dr. Angel determined was just
THE exit notch? Only one exit?
> forward of the coronal suture [where the large late-arriving piece of frontal
> bone (with the beveled out corner that had metallic residue on it]) fit.
>
> Metallic debris from when the bullet fragmented was so light and tiny it was
> carried up to the top (much of it out) of his head with the brain matter that
> exploded (up/and out) in that direction (which was the path of least resistence,
Metallic debris is never carried up forming a downward slopping line
high in the brain.
> i.e. the largest opening in the skull). Two other fragments, that were too heavy
> to be carried up, but too light to exit the skull, curved from where they came
> off the bullet when it fragmented and ended up on the surface of the right
> cerebrum above the frontal sinus (they were recovered).
>
> I think he also said or implied that he woundered why this is so important. For
> me, it's important because they (Fisher started it and Baden did the final
> polishing of the hoax) made three decent military dotors appear to be buffoons
> in order to explain their erroneous movement of the entry up.......not to
> mention the blatant audacity they had to deceive the American people, not only
> with their entry location hoax, but also with their denying there was a BOH
> wound (besides the small entry at its lower margin). I guess I ought to be
> careful not to imply that the larger [than the entry] BOH wound was a seperate
> one....as Barb nicely articulated, the BOH wound was just the posterior portion
Then what the Hell are you talking about with a BOH wound? A second
entrance wound? A fourth exit wound? What?
claviger
Thanks for the detailed response.
Paul Seaton may have solved the riddle why so many witnesses claim
there was a major wound at the “back of the head.” Seaton’s 'one wound/
three flaps' theory would explain the confusion. There might even be
evidence to support this in the Z-film. If Seaton is correct his
analysis extinguishes the Groden theory once and for all. A flap is
not a hole.
Seaton suggests there were three flaps created by the explosive exit
wound. These flaps connected to the scalp opposite to each other, not
in the middle of the gaping wound, which could explain when the
President was placed on the operating table, one flap may have closed
and the other opened when influenced by gravity. If this did indeed
happen it would give the appearence of a major wound further back in
the head and as such, provide a plausible scientific explanation for
all the confusion.
Still Dr. McClelland comes away as a questionable observer in the
Parkland Hospital ER. The drawing he endorsed was wrong in several
ways and his story kept being modified through the years. He was the
first to jump to conclusions early on and admits his memory was
influenced by what he saw in the media. For these reasons and more,
McClelland is not a credible witness.
It’s important to locate with precision the entry wound. However, I’m
not sure how much impact it will have on the SN theory. The
President’s head only needs to move slightly to change the entry by
2”.
In conclusion, the Seaton Theory debunks the Groden theory, the EOP vs
cowlick debate may be irrelevant, and McClelland is not a reliable
witness.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Barb,
>
>Thanks for the detailed response.
No prob.
>
>Paul Seaton may have solved the riddle why so many witnesses claim
>there was a major wound at the “back of the head.” Seaton’s 'one wound/
>three flaps' theory would explain the confusion. There might even be
>evidence to support this in the Z-film. If Seaton is correct his
>analysis extinguishes the Groden theory once and for all. A flap is
>not a hole.
I don't know what you mean by the "Groden Theory."
As for Paul, he acknowledges a large wound in the right rear of the
head as noted by Parkland and at autopsy.
>
>Seaton suggests there were three flaps created by the explosive exit
>wound. These flaps connected to the scalp opposite to each other, not
>in the middle of the gaping wound, which could explain when the
>President was placed on the operating table, one flap may have closed
>and the other opened when influenced by gravity. If this did indeed
>happen it would give the appearence of a major wound further back in
>the head and as such, provide a plausible scientific explanation for
>all the confusion.
The major disrution of the bones is what lacerated and tore the scalp.
Bone was disrupted all over the right side of his skull ... including
back to the level of the eop ... and extending 10cm lateral right from
the eop. See the Boswell drawing. That includes the area behind the
right ear where parietal, temporal and occipital bones come togeher,
in keeping with the autopsy report ... and quite in keeping with the
part of the wound Parkland was able to see.
>
>Still Dr. McClelland comes away as a questionable observer in the
>Parkland Hospital ER.
How so?
>The drawing he endorsed was wrong in several
>ways
At the ARRB Parkland session, the 5 doctors participating, including
McClelland, noted that the drawing does depict what they saw, but that
the placement would just be a little higher.
> and his story kept being modified through the years.
For example?
>He was the
>first to jump to conclusions early on
For example?
> and admits his memory was
>influenced by what he saw in the media.
He recorded, as all the key Parkland players did, his notes for the
medical record that afternoon. What he saw is quite in keeping with
what the others reported. Years later, because of all the ballyhoo
calling them incorrect, mistaken, etc, some did conform to the
politically correct wound ... Jenkins, a prime example. Not so
McClelland.
> For these reasons and more,
>McClelland is not a credible witness.
Hogwash. :-)
>
>It’s important to locate with precision the entry wound. However, I’m
>not sure how much impact it will have on the SN theory. The
>President’s head only needs to move slightly to change the entry by
>2”.
It will have none as the LN theory conforms to whatever it needs to.
For example, when the lapel flip was noticed many years after the
fact, the LN stance went from JFK and JBC having been hit while behind
the sign with Connally reacting late, to both men being hit at 224 and
JFK reacting with lightning speed that is physiologic nonsense. That's
a whole other topic though, let's not get off track here.
>
>In conclusion, the Seaton Theory debunks the Groden theory, the EOP vs
>cowlick debate may be irrelevant, and McClelland is not a reliable
>witness.
Don't know the "Groden Theory" ... do know Paul knows wound in BOH ...
EOP is important because it was what the autopsists found and reported
... no indication McClelland is unreliable at all.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> Barb,
>
> Thanks for the detailed response.
>
> Paul Seaton may have solved the riddle why so many witnesses claim
> there was a major wound at the “back of the head.” Seaton’s 'one wound/
> three flaps' theory would explain the confusion. There might even be
> evidence to support this in the Z-film. If Seaton is correct his
> analysis extinguishes the Groden theory once and for all. A flap is
> not a hole.
>
> Seaton suggests there were three flaps created by the explosive exit
> wound. These flaps connected to the scalp opposite to each other, not
> in the middle of the gaping wound, which could explain when the
> President was placed on the operating table, one flap may have closed
> and the other opened when influenced by gravity. If this did indeed
> happen it would give the appearence of a major wound further back in
> the head and as such, provide a plausible scientific explanation for
> all the confusion.
>
Except for the fact that those doctors could not see that area of the
head resting on the table.
Anthony Marsh
Yes so McClelland. In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, QV, McClelland agrees
with the WC drawing of the head wound showing a large hole on the right
side of the head. You continue to ignore this fact or misrepresent him.
>> For these reasons and more,
>> McClelland is not a credible witness.
>
> Hogwash. :-)
How about his saying that the head wound was on the left side? That's ok
with you?
Anthony Marsh
Can you explain why various witnesses have drawn a wound on the back of
the head, while the autopsy doctors did not?
Herbert Blenner
>
> I'm having difficulty following your explanation. Are you saying Humes
> recognized three different wounds to the skull during the autopsy?
>
> Here is a copy of the autopsy:
>
>
> The massive damage to the skull severely fractured the bones enough to
> separate from each other and it's possible one of them may have been
> sharp enough to lacerate the scalp. JFK fell forward in the seat so
> gravity would have closed any flap on the back of the head. When the
> body of the President was moved to ER and placed on his back gravity
> may have pulled the flap open. That is a plausible explanation.
>
> As to your theory, do you believe this flap was a vertical or
> horizontal separation in the scalp? Is it a tear caused by internal
> pressure from the shock wave or a laceration by a piece of fractured
> skull bone? You and John make it clear neither of you believe this to
> be an exit wound, so what is the significance as to whether the entry
> wound was in the cowlick or closer to the EOP?
>
> Why is this such a hotly debated topic when there is no way to know
> skull? The arc of the bullet trajectory and the physics of the impact
> with the skull are factors that may be impossible to measure.
They hotly debate this topic because they have and ignore a way of
determining the "angle of the head" when shot. In particular analysts
apply the relationship between trajectory angles of the bullet and the
striking angles upon the victim to find the orientation angles of the
head.
Knowing the location of the victim relative to the shooter gives the
trajectory angles. Elementary physics enables them to make the negligible
correction for curvature of the trajectory. From the dimensions and
alignment of the longer axis of the elliptical abrasion with respect to
the spinal column they calculate the striking angles upon the victim. This
information is sufficient to find the orientation angles of the victim.
Herbert Blenner
I have found the testimony where Dr. Giesecke placed the wound on the
left side of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe specifically as to the nature of the
cranial wound?
Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from
the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the
cranium was entirely missing.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-
hand side of the head?
Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it.
Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection?
During his WC, testimony Doctor McClelland located the head wound on
the right side.
Dr. MCCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I
have already described to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a
position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted
that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.
It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the
parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be
fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the
occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open
the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down
into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at
least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the
cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of
bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the
skull which had been blasted open.
End of quotation.
What is your source for claiming that McClelland misplaced the wound
to the left side of the head?
Herbert
John McAdams
wrote:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~klark/leftwounds.html
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Herbert Blenner
> On 26 Nov 2008 00:55:53 -0500, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net>
Thanks for the reference to the report by Dr. McClelland.
I noticed that you asked why Arlen Specter did not pursue some issues. A
similar question arose in my mind while reading the testimonies of the
Parkland doctors on the location of the large head wound. I wondered why
Specter did not ask the doctors which, if any, portions of the wound
perimeter extended beyond their fields of view.
Herbert
paul seaton
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oneoi490o4p1m00jv...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Nov 2008 20:24:45 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Barb,
>>
>>Thanks for the detailed response.
>
> No prob.
>>
>>Paul Seaton may have solved the riddle why so many witnesses claim
>>there was a major wound at the "back of the head." Seaton's 'one wound/
>>three flaps' theory would explain the confusion. There might even be
>>evidence to support this in the Z-film. If Seaton is correct his
>>analysis extinguishes the Groden theory once and for all. A flap is
>>not a hole.
My ears are burning ... :-)
*Sometimes* a flap is a hole - this has caused a lot of confusion. But I
do believe that the large 'right rear *hole*' ( as reported by inumerable
witnesses including the autopsists ) was not an exit wound - it was indeed
a 'flap' . Similar in nature to the very large right front / temple flap
so obvious in the autopsy photos. Open it , you have a 'hole'. Close it
up, you don't.
paul s
Anthony Marsh
Dr. McClelland
Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He
testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note
for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President
received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head
and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6).
At this time he was Assistant Professor of Surgery, he would not be
expected to mistake the site of a wound in any patient. But JFK was not
just any patient, he was the President. I suggest that McClelland would
have written a very carefully considered admission note for this patient.
In a short admission note, this divergence from the "official" line is
easily spotted. Yet Specter did not ask McClelland to clarify this
statement, he directed McClelland away from re-reading his report by
asking him to check his signature. Specter then asked whether McClelland
would stand by his report before bringing questioning to a speedy halt
(7).
In an interview with Gerald Posner, Jenkins claims that McClellands's
impression of a wound to the left temple is mistaken and stems from a
short exchange between the pair when McClelland entered Trauma Room 1.
Jenkins claims that McClelland asked where JFK was hit. Jenkins claims
that he was searching for a temporal pulse at this time and that
McClelland assumed that Jenkins was pointing out a wound. As we can see
previously from Jenkins' own testimony, however, it is quite likely that
Jenkins was indeed pointing to an area he thought was wounded (8).
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Some day, maybe in the next millennium, you will learn to pay attention.
We have been over this several times.
Anthony Marsh
Lawyering 101. Do not ask a question if you do not want to hear the
witness say something damaging to your case.
> Herbert
Herbert Blenner
I see that you have learned a new trick and now know what is source
is. So tell us the source for your earlier statement that officer
Hargis drove into a mist.
Herbert
>
> Dr. McClelland
>
> Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He
> testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note
> for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President
> received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head
> and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6).
>
> At this time he was Assistant Professor of Surgery, he would not be
> expected to mistake the site of a wound in any patient. But JFK was not
> just any patient, he was the President. I suggest that McClelland would
> have written a very carefully considered admission note for this patient.
>
> In a short admission note, this divergence from the "official" line is
> easily spotted. Yet Specter did not ask McClelland to clarify this
> statement, he directed McClelland away from re-reading his report by
> asking him to check his signature. Specter then asked whether McClelland
> would stand by his report before bringing questioning to a speedy halt
> (7).
>
> In an interview with Gerald Posner, Jenkins claims that McClellands's
> impression of a wound to the left temple is mistaken and stems from a
> short exchange between the pair when McClelland entered Trauma Room 1.
> Jenkins claims that McClelland asked where JFK was hit. Jenkins claims
> that he was searching for a temporal pulse at this time and that
> McClelland assumed that Jenkins was pointing out a wound. As we can see
> previously from Jenkins' own testimony, however, it is quite likely that
> Jenkins was indeed pointing to an area he thought was wounded (8).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Analysis.
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:oneoi490o4p1m00jv...@4ax.com...
>> On 24 Nov 2008 20:24:45 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Barb,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the detailed response.
>>
>> No prob.
>>>
>>>Paul Seaton may have solved the riddle why so many witnesses claim
>>>there was a major wound at the "back of the head." Seaton's 'one wound/
>>>three flaps' theory would explain the confusion. There might even be
>>>evidence to support this in the Z-film. If Seaton is correct his
>>>analysis extinguishes the Groden theory once and for all. A flap is
>>>not a hole.
>
>My ears are burning ... :-)
I'm glad ... nice to rattle you out of the rafters.<g>
>
>*Sometimes* a flap is a hole - this has caused a lot of confusion. But I
>do believe that the large 'right rear *hole*' ( as reported by inumerable
>witnesses including the autopsists ) was not an exit wound - it was indeed
>a 'flap' . Similar in nature to the very large right front / temple flap
>so obvious in the autopsy photos. Open it , you have a 'hole'. Close it
>up, you don't.
Yes ... a hole, a wound, bone that could close ... like a flap...a
flapdoor. I don't believe it was an "exit" wound in the sense most
allergic to the very notion of a BOH wound use it either, as I know
you know.
I know you are busy with other pursuits, but, hey, do drop in
sometimes ... often. :-)
Barb :-)
>
>paul s
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Nov 20, 12:33 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 2008 14:46:50 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Virtually EVERY lone-assassin believer I have ever encountered (except
>> >John Canal) believes that there was NO WOUND in the BACK of John
>> >Kennedy's head except the one and only ENTRANCE wound in his head.
>>
>> And you want to brag about it?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> WHY do you LNs have this silly idea that damage to the back of the
>> head = frontal shot/conspiracy? Note the damage halfway down the back
>> of the head in the Discovery Channel show the other night. If that
>> show accomplished anything ... I hope it is that LNs realize their
>> phobia of back of the heasd damage is unfounded ... plain silly.
>>
>> John Canal, an avowed lone nutter, listened, looked into it, was
>> puzzled and troubled by what he saw, looked deeper, researched ...
>> real deep research involving experts (both independent ones and those
>> who were on the assorted panels; you cite them in snippets, he has
>> gotten to KNOW them) and simulations, and came to his own conclusions
>> regarding the back of the head. He is still an LN ... but one with a
>> deeper understanding and first hand knowledge of the medical evidence
>> regarding the head wound from his research than just about anyone else
>> in this arena I can think of. Your condescending and taunting
>> responses look a bit like you may know it too. :-)
>>
>> Scary to the old LN fear of c-c-c-conspiracy as regards damage to the
>> back of the head, I know. It shows. It's also silly and untrue.
>>
>> Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> >And, actually, that's pretty obvious to every LNer (except John
>> >Canal). And, as stated a thousand times before, the biggest reason to
>> >KNOW that this is true (i.e., there's NO WOUND in the BOH except the
>> >small wound of entry) is the lateral autopsy X-ray of JFK's head.
>>
>> >John Canal couldn't work a "BOH" wound (which supports the Parkland
>> >witnesses and some of the Bethesda witnesses) into this photo below if
>> >his life depended on it. But that won't stop him from trying:
>>
>> >http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>>
>> >>>> "I'm off this silly merry-go-round." <<<
>>
>> >Me too. I think seven go-rounds is probably enough. (Although I liked
>> >my "mulberry bush" verbiage better.) ;)
>>
>> >See ya,
>> >David Von Pein
>> >November 19, 2008
>>
>> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>Barb,
>
>There is a fascinating presentation on You-Tube about the BOH wound
>comparing the enhanced version of the Z-film with the Nix film. I
>would be interested to see what you and John Canal have to say after
>watching it.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igMVdcT3FCo
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1UPmELGNc
Hi,
I hope better late than never counts ... I got captured by
Thanksgiving and some other things. :-)
I am familiar with some of his work. On this, I know he worked long,
hard and carefully, and I commend him for that.
I do think he has quite effectively shown what several of us have
noted over the years ... the change in the look of that part of JFK's
head after the head shot .... a little distorted, the change in the
hair, etc.
The Nix film doesn't give us much of a view, and on the outlines he
draws around sections even on the Z film view ... I don't know. He may
have something, but I don't think it's conclusive. When pixels get too
big, it's difficult and I don't read tea leaves. So whether he has
actually been able to show blood, wound there ... I don't find it
definitive.
As you know, I thoroughly believe there was wound in the right rear of
JFK's head. The weight of the evidence tells us that, the changes we
can see somewhat to the contour and definitely to the hair in that
area post Z313 show us something different there.
I have never expected to be able to actually see wound in that area of
his head on the Zfilm due to lighting, angle, hair,etc ... but that
doesn't mean it can't be done. Whether mimus has achieved that, I
cannot say for certain... he's done good work here, I just don't see
it as definitive in that respect. I wish someone could show it
definitively ... would be nice to get past this.
Am interested in your impression on what he has shown in these two
videos?
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "You change a BOH wound into a "huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge."
> YOU made that up."<<<
>
>
> LOL.
>
LOL. There must be something wrong with my new newsreader program. It does
not show the name of the person you are quoting nor to whom you are
replying. But the words look suspiciously like mine and I doubt that
anyone else would be able to catch your subtle tricks. How about if you
learn to quote correctly some day?
> The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
> "huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses.
>
Yeah, which wound?
John Canal believes ONLY the witnesses he needs for his wacky theory.
> Hence, I used a synonym for "very large" -- "Huge".
>
Hence you admitted that I was correct and you changed the words.
You are becoming a Harris.
> Or do you think that John Canal would now like to pretend that Dr.
> McClelland's drawing (showing an enormous--i.e., "huge"--hole in the back
> of Kennedy's head is a fake drawing of some kind)?
>
What do you mean by McClelland's drawing? Can you show it to me? If you
mean the drawing from Six Seconds in Dallas, I told you a long time ago
that McClelland did not draw that.
> And we all know that John C. believes McClelland's story about the BOH
> wound....right?
>
John C. will believe whatever supports his wacky theory.
> In short: Mr. Canal is making up theories as he goes along....not unlike
> most CTers, of course.
>
Mr. Canal is free to make up theories as he goes along. He is not free to
misrepresent the evidence as he does to mold it to support his wacky
theory.
John Canal
>
>On 11/17/2008 5:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>> "You change a BOH wound into a "huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge."
>> YOU made that up."<<<
>>
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>
>LOL. There must be something wrong with my new newsreader program. It does
>not show the name of the person you are quoting nor to whom you are
>replying. But the words look suspiciously like mine and I doubt that
>anyone else would be able to catch your subtle tricks. How about if you
>learn to quote correctly some day?
>
>> The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
>> "huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses.
You can be wrong, David--we all are sometimes-- but you ought not talk like an
idiot....if one PH witness said the BOH wound was the size of a quarter and
another said it was the size of an orange....how the F___ can anyone simply say
they agree with the PH witnesses on the zize of the BOH wound?
For your edification, there was NO photograph taken of the BOH from the rear
when the body was first received at Betheda (for reasons that are too
complicated for you to understand), much less the BOH wound. So, all we have to
go by on the size is witness testimony...thus, we can never be certain how big
it was. I didn't say it was huge, so please don't misquote me anymore...like
someone misquoted me to VB. That said, I'm glad you (oops, I meant to say,
"they") did, because our telephone exchanges began because of that misquote and
are continuing (and are paying dividends).
The bottom line on the size is that it was probably somehere between the size of
a quarter and a small orange.
John Canal
claviger
Anthony,
> > Or do you think that John Canal would now like to pretend that Dr.
> > McClelland's drawing (showing an enormous--i.e., "huge"--hole in the back
> > of Kennedy's head is a fake drawing of some kind)?
>
> What do you mean by McClelland's drawing? Can you show it to me? If you
> mean the drawing from Six Seconds in Dallas, I told you a long time ago
> that McClelland did not draw that.
I believe the WCR or HSCR lists the exhibit as "McClelland's drawing".
Unless McC had a talent for drawing I assume some artist did the
sketch based on his description and Dr. McC approved it.
Here is another opinion by Rex Bradford:
"A drawing by Dr. McClelland, made for Josiah Thompson and Six Seconds
in Dallas, shows the wound centered nearly in the back of the head.
[The ARRB misnamed this drawing somewhat. It was actually made for
someone on behalf of Josiah Thompson based on Dr. McClelland's
testimony. Mr. Bradford pointed out, though, that five Dallas doctors,
including McClelland, verified its general accuracy in 1998.]"
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>> Or do you think that John Canal would now like to pretend that Dr.
>>> McClelland's drawing (showing an enormous--i.e., "huge"--hole in the back
>>> of Kennedy's head is a fake drawing of some kind)?
>> What do you mean by McClelland's drawing? Can you show it to me? If you
>> mean the drawing from Six Seconds in Dallas, I told you a long time ago
>> that McClelland did not draw that.
>
> I believe the WCR or HSCR lists the exhibit as "McClelland's drawing".
Guessing again, eh? The drawing did not exist when the WCR was written.
It was years later. That is called anachronism.
I don't know what you mean by HSCR, but I don't think the HSCA said much
about the drawing in Six Seconds in Dallas.
> Unless McC had a talent for drawing I assume some artist did the
> sketch based on his description and Dr. McC approved it.
>
You assume? Well, someone else did. I don't know if that someone can be
called an artist though. Let's just call it a conspiracy researcher.
> Here is another opinion by Rex Bradford:
>
> "A drawing by Dr. McClelland, made for Josiah Thompson and Six Seconds
> in Dallas, shows the wound centered nearly in the back of the head.
> [The ARRB misnamed this drawing somewhat. It was actually made for
> someone on behalf of Josiah Thompson based on Dr. McClelland's
> testimony. Mr. Bradford pointed out, though, that five Dallas doctors,
> including McClelland, verified its general accuracy in 1998.]"
>
>
Yes, Rex is only allowed to hint. I think he knows the name, but is not
supposed to reveal it.
>