Mitch Todd, and/or Dr. McAdams, question for you.
John Canal
an answer, so I've simplified the question a lot and will for now just ask
you [two] to answer it.
If the bullet did penetrate JFK's BOH near the EOP (I know neither of you
think it did, but just for argument's sake, say it did),..... considering
that the EOP is typically only 2.0 - 2.5 inches above the hairline on an
adult male, can you think of any plausible explanation other than that the
BOH scalp was undermined and stretched, for why the entry in the BOH
photos is roughly 5. - 5.5 inches above his hairline?
Thank you.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Because they stitched in someone else's hair to move it up?
> Thank you.
>
paul seaton
ok this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a counter question for you while
you are here.
I just tried an experiment.
A skin stretching experiment.
First I tried it with a couple of inches of cheek. My cheek. ( Only cheek
i had handy & trying to explain to someone else why I wanted to stretch
their cheek was a bit much ).
The result of this first experiment was that I discovered it's almost
impossible to stretch cheek skin.
So i thought, ok maybe scalp skin is different, & had a go at stretching
that.
No luck there either.
Conclusion : Stretching scalp skin is decidedly NOT easy. In fact, I
reckon if you applied enough pull to do anything, you would just rip the
scalp apart.
OTOH I can see that MOVING a loose chunk of scalp would be child's play.
Now back to the BOH photos.
Humes first identified the HIGH 'blob' as the entry ( in the 'Panel
review' in 1967 I think ). Boswell & Finck seem to have agreed.
Then with the HSCA FPP he decided no, it was the LOW ( white) 'blob'.
Curiously Boswell & Finck seem to have agreed again. ( Strange how they
all changed their minds together, as one).
Then back with the ARRB Humes vaguely goes for the HIGH blob again.
IOW Humes is as confused as everyone else.
He hasn;t really got a clue which it is, if either. And I have to say (
considering the lack of ANY photo of the wound of entry in the skull in
the bone - external aspect - & the lack of any reasonable photo that even
Humes himself could identify of the head entry in the bone INTERNAL aspect
..) that either Humes found a perfectly clear & obvious little round entry
there but was incredibly careless with his directions to Stringer that day
OR he was perfectly clear in his instructions to Stringer & the problem
really is that they didn';t find much of an entry wound.
IE they got great photos of nothing much, because there wasn't much there
to get great photos of.
paul s
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hls42...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> John,
>
> ok this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a counter question for you while
> you are here.
>
> I just tried an experiment.
> A skin stretching experiment.
>
> First I tried it with a couple of inches of cheek. My cheek. ( Only
> cheek i had handy & trying to explain to someone else why I wanted to
> stretch their cheek was a bit much ).
>
Anecdotal evidence is worthless. Talk to a plastic surgeon who stretches
skin daily.
John Canal
>
>John,
>
>ok this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a counter question for you while
>you are here.
But Paul, does that mean you're going to give me a reason (besides the
scalp being undermined/stretched) for the difference between the distance
the entry is above the hairline (5.0 - 5.5 inches) in the photos and the
distance we know the EOP is above our hairline (2.0 - 2.5 inches)?
>I just tried an experiment.
>A skin stretching experiment.
>First I tried it with a couple of inches of cheek. My cheek. ( Only cheek
>i had handy & trying to explain to someone else why I wanted to stretch
>their cheek was a bit much ).
Did you undermine your cheek.... you do know that there are five layers to
the scalp and undermining means separating the top layer from the other
four, right?
>The result of this first experiment was that I discovered it's almost
>impossible to stretch cheek skin.
Okay....and?
>So i thought, ok maybe scalp skin is different, & had a go at stretching
>that.
You separated the top layer and tried to stretch it? You're serious about
this stuff.
>No luck there either.
I hope you'll heal well.
>Conclusion : Stretching scalp skin is decidedly NOT easy. In fact, I
>reckon if you applied enough pull to do anything, you would just rip the
>scalp apart.
Right, that's why some bloak came up with this undermining stuff....the
top layer of the scalp, once separated from the muscles an tough tissue
below it stretches much more easily...so they say. But don't try that at
home....as they say. In layman's terms, undermining maximizes the
"stretchability" of the scalp.
>OTOH I can see that MOVING a loose chunk of scalp would be child's play.
But if you move the whole scalp, even if it's child's play, you're not
going to change the distance the entry was from the hairline at Z-312
(about 2.25 inches or so) so that it's about 5.25 inches or so above the
hairline.
IOW, if you move the entire scalp the distance the entry is from the
hairline wouldn't change that much....certainly not 3 inches or so.
>Now back to the BOH photos.
>
>Humes first identified the HIGH 'blob' as the entry ( in the 'Panel
>review' in 1967 I think ). Boswell & Finck seem to have agreed.
>
>Then with the HSCA FPP he decided no, it was the LOW ( white) 'blob'.
>Curiously Boswell & Finck seem to have agreed again. ( Strange how they
>all changed their minds together, as one).
>
>Then back with the ARRB Humes vaguely goes for the HIGH blob again.
>
>IOW Humes is as confused as everyone else.
>
>He hasn;t really got a clue which it is, if either. And I have to say (
>considering the lack of ANY photo of the wound of entry in the skull in
>the bone - external aspect - & the lack of any reasonable photo that even
>Humes himself could identify of the head entry in the bone INTERNAL aspect
>..) that either Humes found a perfectly clear & obvious little round entry
>there but was incredibly careless with his directions to Stringer that day
>OR he was perfectly clear in his instructions to Stringer & the problem
>really is that they didn';t find much of an entry wound.
>
>IE they got great photos of nothing much, because there wasn't much there
>to get great photos of.
Paul, when they saw the photos for the first time since (1967) I'm betting
they really didn't pay a lot of attention to how high the entry in the BOH
photos was.....they probably naively thought that, because they did the
autopsy, others were going to accept their findings.
The next time the saw them was when Baden shoved them in front of their
faces (with only 48 hours notice)...and he asks them to exlain how the red
splotch got to be that high up, if the entry was near the EOP.
I assure you Humes et al. were at a loss for an explanation and were
obviously confused (Humes even said later he was confused).......maybe
they didn't even realize just ow much they (them and the morticians) had
stretched that scalp on 11-22-63.
In fact when they examined the photos in 1967 and read the title of F3
which says it was a picture of the entry, they didn't question whether
that red splotch was they entry....but they sure as hell did years
later....when they were finally asked to explain why that "entry" was so
high up in the back of his head if the bullet hit near the EOP. IOW, the
only explanation they could think of wsa that the ed splotch wasn't the
entry.......the other explanation, which they didn't think of under the
gun, was the right one---the scalp had been undermined....probably by the
morticians.
Which brings up an interesting possibility.
S & O left about 1:00 AM, right....and they didn't get to see the BOH in
the repaired state, right? Yes, Paul, that's right. Kellerman and Hill
said that about 2:45 AM they looked at the President (Hill says he saw a
right rear BOH wound...but I believe he was thinking of the BOH he saw
earlier). I strongly believe the BOH scalp had been repaired
(undermined/stretched/stitched/AND PHOTOGRAPHED) at that time.....that
would still have given the morticians enough time to stitch down the
already undermined/stretched scalp oover the top/right/front wound and
dress him up....by 4:00 AM which is when the ody left for the WH.
Okay, here's where I'm going with that...I believe Kellerman recalled
McHugh, Hill and the morticans being there.....IOW I'm thinking that H & B
weren't there with the body when the BOH scalp was undermined
stretched....and photographed. An remember, Stringer said he left about
3:15 AM or so.
Look, I know it sounds far-fetched...I asked a lot of morticians about the
undermining process and was actually surprised to hear several of them say
the BOH scalp could have been stretched (+undermined) as much as three
inches. Sure, I know what you're thinking...they told me what I wanted to
hear...but that doesn't account for some of them saying, "no way".
How about my qustion, Paul?
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
WhiskyJoe
I'll just make a comment about the scalp stretching.
Perhaps the scalp could be stretched. So the bullet
hole might appear several inches higher than it was.
But wouldn't the hair appear pretty thin below the
bullet wound? I suppose he had a pretty thick head
of hair, but I'm surprised the scalp below the wound
could be stretched so much and still have the hair
below the wound appear just as thick as the hair
above it.
So of the three possibilities:
1. Bullet struck near the EOP, the scalp was
stretched so the wound appeared high.
or:
2. Bullet struck near the EOP, but the "bullet wound"
is really a drop of blood and the real bullet wound
is hidden in the thick hair.
or:
3. Bullet struck near the cowlick the and photograph
shows a real bullet wound, right where it was.
I'm not certain if Possibility 2 or 3 is the most
likely, but Possibility 1 is a distance third.
I'm not certain the scalp could be stretched that
much and if it could, that the hair in the region
stretched would still appear as thick as ever.
John Fiorentino
I relayed this before to John and confirmed it the best I could myself.
1. I also tried my own rather amateurish experiments such as you did. My
conclusion from those, is that scalp skin can be "stretched" approx. 1/2 in.
2. I consulted 2 morticians and presented the notion that scalp could be
stretched 2-3 inches. Essentially they were very amused and stated it can't
be done. They also questioned the necessity of taking ANY photos POST
"reconstruction."
3. I consulted 2 forensic pathologists and presented the same idea. They
were not only amused, but 1 actually laughed in my face.
All four of these professionals indicated that MY guesstimate of approx. 1/2
in. was (pardon the pun) stretching it a bit.
ALL indicated the scalp would "tear" and NOT stretch, LONG before you ever
get to 2-3 inches.
One interesting note was from 1 FP who discussed some tribes in Africa who
perform various stretching rituals, such as one on the ear for instance. But
he noted the ear lobe it not the scalp and that these procedures are
accomplished over long periods of time, i.e., weeks, months (and in some
cases even longer) and certainly NOT in hours as would have to be the case
here.
ALL four indicated their opinions that the photos I showed them, sans "F8"
were taken PRE-brain removal. At the beginning of the autopsy and not after
its conclusion.
One of the FP's (who was more familiar with the JFK case) opined that it was
*possible* F8 may even have been taken pre-brain removal. Indicating that
the apparent absence of brain in that photo may simply be due to the gunshot
wound itself. (Approx. 70% of the right hemisphere was missing or disrupted)
When I mentioned to this FP that the skin over the front of the face had
obviously already been peeled forward he indicated of course he could see
that, but it didn't change his opinion.
ALL four indicated the feature by the ruler in F8 was only a few inches down
from the top of the head at best. NONE would commit or confirm that it
marked an entry of a high speed bullet.
Related: Two radiologists I consulted to whom I showed the AP X-ray scan
indicated my own proposed entry on that X-ray was feasible. Neither saw
"another" entry on the AP and both were slightly perplexed by the 6.5mm
opacity after I showed them my own enhancements of that feature. BOTH
radiologists confirmed my proposed entry on the AP was "consistent" with the
feature in F8. BOTH of the radiologists said they would defer to the FP's as
to whether F8 showed an actual bullet entry.
John F.
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4b81...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Canal
<TOP POST>
IN THE FIRST PLACE, OF COURSE, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION.
IN HE SECOND PLACE, YOU HAVE TO ASK MORTICIANS WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME
ABOUT THE PROCESS OF "UNDERMINING"...AS OPPOSED TO JUST "STRETCHING" THE
SCALP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good gravy, man, what's up with you guys? Have trouble reading much?
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
WhiskyJoe says...
>
>
>I'll just make a comment about the scalp stretching.
>Perhaps the scalp could be stretched. So the bullet
>hole might appear several inches higher than it was.
>But wouldn't the hair appear pretty thin below the
>bullet wound?
Take a close look at a good color copy of autopsy photo #42 (AKA F3, AKA the BOH
phto)...specifically look from about the EOP down to the hairline...if your copy
is any good, you'll be able to see a distinct difference in the hair texture
between the hair above the EOP and below the EOP to the hairline.
>I suppose he had a pretty thick head
>of hair, but I'm surprised the scalp below the wound
>could be stretched so much and still have the hair
>below the wound appear just as thick as the hair
>above it.
But it's not the entire scalp that was stretched....the scalp as five layers.
"Undermining" is separating the top scalp layer (with the hair) from the other
four (with the muscles and other tissue) layers and just stretching that top
layer...which stretches much more easily than the entire five layers of scalp
would stretch.
>So of the three possibilities:
>
>1. Bullet struck near the EOP, the scalp was
>stretched so the wound appeared high.
Yes.
>or:
>
>2. Bullet struck near the EOP, but the "bullet wound"
>is really a drop of blood and the real bullet wound
>is hidden in the thick hair.
No way Jose'. The HSCA used stereoscopic visualization (photos #42 & #43) to
note an abrasion collar...clotted blood doesn't have an abrasion collar......I'd
tell Larry that but I want to stay friends with him.
>or:
>
>3. Bullet struck near the cowlick the and photograph
>shows a real bullet wound, right where it was.
The HSCA (and Chad and Larry) stated that F8 reveals a semicircular BEVELED
defect, which according to four or five replications (including Larry's), is
slightly above the EOP and about one inch right of it....that's not to mention,
of course, the word of the three autopsists who saw it there on the body. Of
course, if you ask the hard-line LNs, like McAdams, DVP, Todd, and Fiorentino,
the evidentiary value of the findings of the autopsy in this case is zero.
>I'm not certain if Possibility 2 or 3 is the most
>likely, but Possibility 1 is a distance third.
Really?
>I'm not certain the scalp could be stretched that
>much and if it could, that the hair in the region
>stretched would still appear as thick as ever.
see above....and also take a look at that same photo...and focus in on the small
handful of scalp that the autopsist is holding...see it? Good. All that scalp
he's holding is over the area where the top/right/front bone was blasted
out...and where the autopsists said scalp and bone were missing....so where do
you think that small handful of scalp came from...they didn't grow it.
Thanks for your comments....such as they were.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Mitch Todd
If the scalp were stretched enough to move the bullet perforation two
inches, I'd expect to see the shape for the perforation very much
distorted from the proportions given in the autopsy report. I'd also
expect to see stress ripples (stretch an uninflated balloon to see what I
mean) running parallel to the axis of stretching. Neither of those are in
evidence in the photo. If you are looking for a way to reconcile the BOH
photo with an EOP entry, you might want to look in some other direction.
John Fiorentino
The simple answer to your "simple" question is that the entry is just
where it shows it is on the photo.
And quite obviously, it is YOU who can't read, based on my post.
I tried John, but you have blinders on......sorry
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hlu5e...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> In article<54e052b3-ef01-40b0...@s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> WhiskyJoe says...
>>
>>
>> I'll just make a comment about the scalp stretching.
>
>> Perhaps the scalp could be stretched. So the bullet
>> hole might appear several inches higher than it was.
>> But wouldn't the hair appear pretty thin below the
>> bullet wound?
>
> Take a close look at a good color copy of autopsy photo #42 (AKA F3, AKA the BOH
> phto)...specifically look from about the EOP down to the hairline...if your copy
> is any good, you'll be able to see a distinct difference in the hair texture
> between the hair above the EOP and below the EOP to the hairline.
WOW!
And this means what exactly?
Maybe it just means that you see that one part is more brightly lit and
the other is more in the shadows. Or maybe the shorter hairs dried faster
than the longer hairs. Whatever. The point is that you will not accept the
most logical solution. You will seek the most conspiratorial explanation.
You'll probably try to claim that it shows someone else's hair.
>
>> I suppose he had a pretty thick head
>> of hair, but I'm surprised the scalp below the wound
>> could be stretched so much and still have the hair
>> below the wound appear just as thick as the hair
>> above it.
>
> But it's not the entire scalp that was stretched....the scalp as five layers.
> "Undermining" is separating the top scalp layer (with the hair) from the other
> four (with the muscles and other tissue) layers and just stretching that top
> layer...which stretches much more easily than the entire five layers of scalp
> would stretch.
>
>> So of the three possibilities:
>>
>> 1. Bullet struck near the EOP, the scalp was
>> stretched so the wound appeared high.
>
> Yes.
>
Silly.
>> or:
>>
>> 2. Bullet struck near the EOP, but the "bullet wound"
>> is really a drop of blood and the real bullet wound
>> is hidden in the thick hair.
>
> No way Jose'. The HSCA used stereoscopic visualization (photos #42& #43) to
> note an abrasion collar...clotted blood doesn't have an abrasion collar......I'd
> tell Larry that but I want to stay friends with him.
>
They had Ida Dox paint in the abrasion collar. A hole means you can see
through it.
>> or:
>>
>> 3. Bullet struck near the cowlick the and photograph
>> shows a real bullet wound, right where it was.
>
> The HSCA (and Chad and Larry) stated that F8 reveals a semicircular BEVELED
> defect, which according to four or five replications (including Larry's), is
Sturdivan is wrong.
> slightly above the EOP and about one inch right of it....that's not to mention,
> of course, the word of the three autopsists who saw it there on the body. Of
The word of The Three Stooges is worthless.
> course, if you ask the hard-line LNs, like McAdams, DVP, Todd, and Fiorentino,
> the evidentiary value of the findings of the autopsy in this case is zero.
>
>> I'm not certain if Possibility 2 or 3 is the most
>> likely, but Possibility 1 is a distance third.
>
> Really?
>
>> I'm not certain the scalp could be stretched that
>> much and if it could, that the hair in the region
>> stretched would still appear as thick as ever.
>
> see above....and also take a look at that same photo...and focus in on the small
> handful of scalp that the autopsist is holding...see it? Good. All that scalp
> he's holding is over the area where the top/right/front bone was blasted
> out...and where the autopsists said scalp and bone were missing....so where do
> you think that small handful of scalp came from...they didn't grow it.
>
What do you suggest, transplant?
Anthony Marsh
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> IN THE FIRST PLACE, OF COURSE, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION.
>
> IN HE SECOND PLACE, YOU HAVE TO ASK MORTICIANS WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME
> ABOUT THE PROCESS OF "UNDERMINING"...AS OPPOSED TO JUST "STRETCHING" THE
> SCALP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Why don't you take your own advice and ask some real morticians if they
stretch scalp 4 inches. Then report back to us with your phony Argument by
Authority that a janitor at some funeral home says they do it all the
time?
>>> i had handy& trying to explain to someone else why I wanted to stretch
>>> their cheek was a bit much ).
>>>
>>> The result of this first experiment was that I discovered it's almost
>>> impossible to stretch cheek skin.
>>>
>>> So i thought, ok maybe scalp skin is different,& had a go at stretching
>>> that.
>>>
>>> No luck there either.
>>>
>>> Conclusion : Stretching scalp skin is decidedly NOT easy. In fact, I
>>> reckon if you applied enough pull to do anything, you would just rip the
>>> scalp apart.
>>>
>>> OTOH I can see that MOVING a loose chunk of scalp would be child's play.
>>>
>>> Now back to the BOH photos.
>>>
>>> Humes first identified the HIGH 'blob' as the entry ( in the 'Panel
>>> review' in 1967 I think ). Boswell& Finck seem to have agreed.
>>>
>>> Then with the HSCA FPP he decided no, it was the LOW ( white) 'blob'.
>>> Curiously Boswell& Finck seem to have agreed again. ( Strange how they
>>> all changed their minds together, as one).
>>>
>>> Then back with the ARRB Humes vaguely goes for the HIGH blob again.
>>>
>>> IOW Humes is as confused as everyone else.
>>>
>>> He hasn;t really got a clue which it is, if either. And I have to say (
>>> considering the lack of ANY photo of the wound of entry in the skull in
>>> the bone - external aspect -& the lack of any reasonable photo that even
>>> Humes himself could identify of the head entry in the bone INTERNAL aspect
>>> ..) that either Humes found a perfectly clear& obvious little round entry
>>> there but was incredibly careless with his directions to Stringer that day
>>> OR he was perfectly clear in his instructions to Stringer& the problem
Anthony Marsh
> Paul:
>
> I relayed this before to John and confirmed it the best I could myself.
>
> 1. I also tried my own rather amateurish experiments such as you did. My
> conclusion from those, is that scalp skin can be "stretched" approx. 1/2
> in.
>
> 2. I consulted 2 morticians and presented the notion that scalp could be
> stretched 2-3 inches. Essentially they were very amused and stated it
> can't be done. They also questioned the necessity of taking ANY photos
> POST "reconstruction."
>
Oh please! That would be like actual research, something that Canal
refuses to do. How very naughty of you, you silly, silly man. Actually
trying to argue using facts rather than imagination?
> 3. I consulted 2 forensic pathologists and presented the same idea. They
> were not only amused, but 1 actually laughed in my face.
>
> All four of these professionals indicated that MY guesstimate of approx.
> 1/2 in. was (pardon the pun) stretching it a bit.
>
> ALL indicated the scalp would "tear" and NOT stretch, LONG before you
> ever get to 2-3 inches.
>
> One interesting note was from 1 FP who discussed some tribes in Africa
> who perform various stretching rituals, such as one on the ear for
> instance. But he noted the ear lobe it not the scalp and that these
> procedures are accomplished over long periods of time, i.e., weeks,
> months (and in some cases even longer) and certainly NOT in hours as
> would have to be the case here.
>
> ALL four indicated their opinions that the photos I showed them, sans
> "F8" were taken PRE-brain removal. At the beginning of the autopsy and
> not after its conclusion.
>
> One of the FP's (who was more familiar with the JFK case) opined that it
> was *possible* F8 may even have been taken pre-brain removal. Indicating
> that the apparent absence of brain in that photo may simply be due to
> the gunshot wound itself. (Approx. 70% of the right hemisphere was
That's silly. Why didn't you show him the photo of the brain?
John Canal
>
>
>The simple answer to your "simple" question is that the entry is just
>where it shows it is on the photo.
Lurkers, I hope you can see his problem...he doesn't read for
comrehension.
I asked him, "IF THE ENTRY WAS NEAR THE EOP, what could be the reason that
it is about 5.25 inches above the hairline in the BOH photos......if the
explanation wasn't that the scalp below the EOP was unermined and
stretched?"
How on God's green earth can you imagine that you answered that question?
Never mind, don't answer that...it's probably too confusing for you.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Good grief, Mitch...I can understand why maybe Fiorentino can't answer the
question, but I know you can read for comprehension.....so why didn't you
answer the question!
One more time, even more simplified:
"###### IF ####### the bullet did penetrate JFK's BOH near the EOP (I know
neither of you think it did, but "just for argument's sake", say it
did),.......can you think of ## ANY ## explanation, other than that the
BOH scalp was undermined and stretched, for why the entry in the BOH
photos is roughly 5. - 5.5 inches above his hairline?"
MITCH, SAYING IT WASN'T STRETCHED IS NOT AN ANSWER.
Fiorentino, please pass on this...it's obviously too complicated a
question for you.
Mitch will you try again?......if so, really try this time.
Thanks.
Why is getting you guys to answer a simple question like pulling teeth?
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Fiorentino
I will defer to Dr. McAdams on this and reiterate his question to you:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hlv00...@drn.newsguy.com...
paul seaton
The (high, apparent) entry in the BOH photo isn't actually an entry would
be one explanation. ( One that Humes & Boswell & Stringer all went for
with the FPP). Both Stringer & Kellerman , two of the VERY few present at
the autopsy ( aside from HB&F) who claim to have been aware of ANY head
entry being found , both said that whatever it was, it was in or very near
the rear hairline.
But I really don't see that stretching the scalp from 'slightly above '
into '4" above" the EOP is going to be a practical proposition. As Mitch
said you are going to distort everything in a very odd - & noticeable -
way. And having to pare away just the top layer of the scalp in order to
even try to do it strikes me as more likely to get the scalp so thin it
just rips apart than anything 'constructive'.
Plus of course, going along with your scenario for the sake of argument,
they didn't have the Z film at the autopsy, so why would they particularly
care that the entry was at the eop or 4" above it ? They were not aware of
the exact orientation of JFK's head at the instant he was hit.
So why do something as barmy as trying to move it ?
And having moved it, why then undo all your good work by moving it back to
just 'slightly above the eop' in the autopsy report ?
It seems to me like this :
1) Perform the virtually impossible , unlikely very time consuming feat of
moving the entry 4" upwards for the photos, without knowing what kind of
mess this would make of the ballistics.
2) Blow the whole (pointless!) deal ( & ensure that you are going to have
a LOT of explaining to do one day when you are again confronted with those
photos ) by telling everyone in the report that the entry was actually 4"
lower than photographed. !
3) Doh !
Of course, there is actually no evidence on the x-rays of any entry at all
( don't get me started on those ' radiating fractures' ..) nor any
evidence worth the name for any entry *in the skull* in any of the photos.
Nor among the great majority of the morgue witnesses.
Including the FBI.
So the evidence for any skull entry at all being found more or less boils
down to HB&F, Stringer & possibly Kellerman's opinions, & the highly non
informative BOH photos.
Not a whole lot, really, for the crucial / evidential entry site of the
fatal bullet, is it ?
Which explains why my opinion is that HB&F basically created/ invented it,
starting this whole 40 year 'where the blue blazes is the damn entry?'
farce.
paul s
Mitch Todd
> In article <4b82b133$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Recently I asked the group a question and only one person responded with
>>> an answer, so I've simplified the question a lot and will for now just ask
>>> you [two] to answer it.
>>>
>>> If the bullet did penetrate JFK's BOH near the EOP (I know neither of you
>>> think it did, but just for argument's sake, say it did),..... considering
>>> that the EOP is typically only 2.0 - 2.5 inches above the hairline on an
>>> adult male, can you think of any plausible explanation other than that the
>>> BOH scalp was undermined and stretched, for why the entry in the BOH
>>> photos is roughly 5. - 5.5 inches above his hairline?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>>If the scalp were stretched enough to move the bullet perforation two
>>inches, I'd expect to see the shape for the perforation very much
>>distorted from the proportions given in the autopsy report. I'd also
>>expect to see stress ripples (stretch an uninflated balloon to see what I
>>mean) running parallel to the axis of stretching. Neither of those are in
>>evidence in the photo. If you are looking for a way to reconcile the BOH
>>photo with an EOP entry, you might want to look in some other direction.
>
> Good grief, Mitch...I can understand why maybe Fiorentino can't answer the
> question, but I know you can read for comprehension.....so why didn't you
> answer the question!
I answered the question, honestly, truthfully, and correctly. You just didn't
like the answer. If the scalp shows no signs of being stretched significantly,
then there is no reason to believe it so, and you need to direct your
explainations in some other direction. Maybe you could throw your
hat in with Livingstone, Groden, and the rest of the photo-phakery
crowd?
> One more time, even more simplified:
>
> "###### IF ####### the bullet did penetrate JFK's BOH near the EOP (I know
> neither of you think it did, but "just for argument's sake", say it
> did),.......can you think of ## ANY ## explanation, other than that the
> BOH scalp was undermined and stretched, for why the entry in the BOH
> photos is roughly 5. - 5.5 inches above his hairline?"
>
> MITCH, SAYING IT WASN'T STRETCHED IS NOT AN ANSWER.
Saying the scalp is not stretched in the BOH photo is saying the simple plain
truth, and no amount of all-caps test will change that.
You're now down to the point where you are begging everyone to assume
your untimate conclusion in order to try and prove the evidence for that
conclusion...and even then, it runs into a dead end. That's no way to argue.
John Canal
Read slowly. There are many who are 100% convinced the entry was near the
EOP as per Humes et al. They include some pretty good minds, like Dr.
Rahn, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and even one of the former FPP
members. There are more, I assure you, but we'll stop there.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE AND, FWIW, MYSELF #### CAN'T
#### BE RIGHT IF THE ENTRY IN THE SCALP IN THE BOH PHOTOS IS 5.25 INCHES
OR SO ABOVE THE BLEEPING HAIRLINE.
THE POINT THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS, WITH NO SUCCESS, IS THAT
ALL THOSE PEOPLE #### CAN #### BE RIGHT ABOUT THE BULLET ENTERING NEAR THE
EOP......BUT THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EITHER THE DAMN BOH PHOTOS ARE
FAKE, OR, JUST LIKE THE AUTOPSISTS AND MORTICIANS TESTIFIED....THE SCALP
WAS #### UNDERMINED #### AND STRETCHED ABOUT 2.5 - 3.0 INCHES.
THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!...IF THESE PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT THE
RED SPLOTCH IN THE PHOTOS IS IN FACT THE ENTRY (AND UNLESS CLOTTED BLOOD
HAS A BLEEPIN ABRASION COLLAR IT IS!) THEN THEY HAVE TWO CHOICES:
1) THE PHOTOS ARE FAKE, WHICH IS ABSURD...
OR
2) CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY, THE SCALP WAS STRETCHED!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not saying it was stretched to move the wound up....the morticians
#### HAD #### to stretch it....if they ever hoped to cover with hair the
top/right/front area of the President's head where the scalp was either
missing or macerated FOR AN OPEN-CASKET FUNERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it starting to sink in Mitch???????????
No, why am I not surprised?......but take comfort in the fact that
Fiorentino and the other hard-line LNs don't see the light either....and
they take comfort in the fact you don't. You can comfort each other all
you want but that doesn't make you right.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
<Top Post>
Paul, it's not that we're just not on the same page, re. my scalp
stretching scenario, we're not in the same book.
Please see my reply to Mitch that I just submitted....if you do read it,
maybe we can at least get in the same book.
And, as far as your theory there was no distinct entry goes, well, I still
need your explanation for how a beveled semi-circular defect (as seen
stereo-scopically in F8) got in the back of JFK's skull.....and for why a
short trail of tiny bone-density opacities can be seen on the lateral
extending from that area.......if a boody bullet didn't cause all that.
Your honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
Paul, what will come first, you answer to that or Fiorentino's acceptable
replication of F8?
:-)
John C.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Probably at least partially, because of my frustration, I misspoke...let
me re-rewite the first paragraph.
sORRY ABOUT THAT.
Read slowly. There are many who are 100% convinced the entry was near the
EOP as per Humes et al. They include some pretty good minds, like Dr.
Rahn, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and even one of the former FPP
members. There are more, I assure you, but we'll stop there.
>
>DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE AND, FWIW, MYSELF #### CAN'T #### BE
>RIGHT IF, AT Z-312, THE BULLET PENETRATED THE REAR SCALP 5.25 INCHES OR SO ABOVE
>THE BLEEPING HAIRLINE....WHICH IS ABOUT WHERE THE BOH PHOTOS SHOW THE ENTRY TO
>BE IN THE SCALP.
THE POINT THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS, WITH NO SUCCESS, IS THAT
ALL THOSE PEOPLE #### CAN #### BE RIGHT ABOUT THE BULLET ENTERING THE
SCALP AN SKULL NEAR THE EOP (ROUGHLY 2.25 INCHES ABOVE THE
HAIRLINE)........BUT THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EITHER THE DAMN BOH
John Fiorentino
actual research and are only met with Large CAPITAL LETTERS in response.
Oh yes, and multiple exclamation points, let's not forget those.
Also please note that Canal below ONLY offers 2 choices to us. He of
course conveniently omits #3 and that being the entrance is where the
photos show it to be.
The entrance IS NOT the blob of fatty tissue at the base of JFK's
hairline. The entrance is not down near the EOP. The scalp is not
"stretched" 2.5 - 3in. for that photo. The entrance is where you can see
it on the photos and that is in what is commonly called the "cowlick"
region.
My repost of some real research. ...........Why not try that sometime
Canal?
Paul:
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hm14l...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
No, please, we need him right where he is. When the WC defenders keep
saying that conspiracy believers think up kooky theories that are
impossible, we can point to some of their own doing exactly the same
thing. We don't have a cute term for his theory the way we do for those we
call alterationists. So I propose that we all agree to call Canal a
"scalpist."
>
>> One more time, even more simplified:
>>
>> "###### IF ####### the bullet did penetrate JFK's BOH near the EOP (I know
>> neither of you think it did, but "just for argument's sake", say it
>> did),.......can you think of ## ANY ## explanation, other than that the
>> BOH scalp was undermined and stretched, for why the entry in the BOH
>> photos is roughly 5. - 5.5 inches above his hairline?"
>>
>> MITCH, SAYING IT WASN'T STRETCHED IS NOT AN ANSWER.
>
> Saying the scalp is not stretched in the BOH photo is saying the simple plain
> truth, and no amount of all-caps test will change that.
>
> You're now down to the point where you are begging everyone to assume
> your untimate conclusion in order to try and prove the evidence for that
> conclusion...and even then, it runs into a dead end. That's no way to argue.
>
>
>
Canal doesn't know from arguing. He just declares and pretends he is
right.
paul seaton
>
> Read slowly. There are many who are 100% convinced the entry was near the
> EOP as per Humes et al. They include some pretty good minds, like Dr.
> Rahn, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and even one of the former FPP
> members. There are more, I assure you, but we'll stop there.
>
> DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE AND, FWIW, MYSELF #### CAN'T
> #### BE RIGHT IF THE ENTRY IN THE SCALP IN THE BOH PHOTOS IS 5.25 INCHES
> OR SO ABOVE THE BLEEPING HAIRLINE.
That's not the only reason they can't be right, of course. Another is that
there are some amazing gymnastics any eop bullet has to do to avoid
damaging the cerebellum ( which an eop bullet would be heading straight
for ).
Another is that there is ( again, amazingly) no photographic evidence or
x-ray evidence for an eop entry, despite the autopsists having all the
time they needed to thoroughly document it. ( Indeed, they actually seem
to have come to believe that they DID document it).
As I said somewhere else, the only evidence that ANY entry wound was found
boils down to HB&F saying 'it was so', and the assumption that the BOH
photos show one ( some way from the eop) which is just that, an
assumption. (The upper 'blob' in the BOH photos does not demonstrate an
actual penetration. You can assume it IS a penetration, but it remains an
assumption).
We are stuck with the fact that the skull entry is ( mysteriously ) pretty
well entirely undocumented. We might put this down to bad luck - say, 5
photos of the entry (internal aspect ) just vanished & ditto for the
external aspect ( in the skull). Or we might begin to wonder whether HB&F
really found a whole lot that was worth photographing *at all*.
Then we might go on to wonder why the FBI witnesses left the morgue with
no idea any entry wound had been found.
They were not alone. Reading the following, it's amazing to me how the
discovery of this 'head entry' was kept such a closely guarded secret. :-
L1FTON: I see. So you didn't actually see an entry wound, per se, but it's
inferred that it was somewhere towards the bottom of that big hole-or
something like that?
OSBORNE: It had to be. Otherwise it couldn't have hit the inside of the
skull where it did."
(Lifton, "Best Evidence", pbk,656-657)
Mr. Specter. Did you observe any other opening or hole of any sort in the
head itself?
Mr. Greer. No, sir; I didn't. No other one .
Mr. Specter. Specifically did you observe a hole which would be below the
large area of skull which was absent? [ie the supposed eop 'entry']
Mr. Greer. No, sir; I didn't .
(Greer, WC)
"Regarding CE 386 (Volume 16, page 977), Jenkins
said the wound at the top part of the head looked familiar
but said he had no recollection of the little bullet hole
in the head. "
(HSCA interview)
Floyd Reibe was a student of medical photography at the time of the
autopsy. He worked with John Stringer, the autopsy photographer :
" Riebe recalled seeing one wound in the lower neck near the front of the
body and one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the
top. He could not recall any other wounds. " (30/4/78 interview, hsca)
Jan Rudnicki was lab assistant to Boswell.
He knew nothing & heard nothing of any entry wound to the head being found
: "He did not recall any entry wound in the back of the head . was asked
if he personally has a chance to examine the wounds..he said yes he was
working with Boswell" (Interview, Livingstone, HT2 p203.)
Q: So, they said it entered the back of thehead.
A: Yes
Q: But nothing more specific.
A: Correct.
Q: Did they ever attempt, or did you hear any discussion about attempting
to measure the size of the entry wound?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever hear any discussion aboutbeveling of the skull? Sound
familiar?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear any discussion about the estimated size of the bullet that
struck the head?
A: No.
(sibert, arrb)
Purdy: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in
the right temple area, and the big one in the back?
Robinson: That's all (HSCA interview)
"Regarding commission exhibit 386, O'Connor said
it did " ..,not reflect what I saw. The little head
hole was not there."
(HSCA interview)
Just to put my cards on the table : I don't think they found ANY head entry
wound they were entirely sure WAS a head entry wound.
I think they photographed all they found.
I think that at the end of the autopsy, they had no exact entry point in
mind. ( Since they had no firm evidence on which to come up with such a
point , aside from a small tear in the rear scalp near the eop, which
MIGHT have indicated a point of entry, but might well not. In any case it
wasn't seen as so significant that it was worthy of a photo or 5 )
They never found any 'corresponding' wound in the skull ( see the strange
language of the autopsy report) because the skull was in pieces & they
couldn't do the reconstruction, and even if they had they would probably
not have found 'it' as 'it' was very probably distributed in small
fragments over dealey Plaza.
The reason there are no specific measurements for the skull entry is that,
of course, they never had one to measure.
The reason there are no photos of any clean entry to the skull is that
they never had one to photograph.
The reason the witnesses ( including the FBI , who might be expected to
have been told esp re calibre of bullet etc etc ) are predominantly
ignorant of any entry is because nobody ( at the time) actually found
one. ( Although they found various odd bits & pieces that might be taken
as possible signs of location of entry - or not )
The reason for them allowing themselves to 'sex up' the autopsy results to
imply a pretty well 6.5mm entry hole in the bone was that by the time the
autopsy report was finalised, LHO was dead. Therefore, no trial, no cross
examination. Plus of course they were working without the photos or
x-rays & thus their minds were free to conjour up whatever was perhaps
even possible ( in their minds) & certainly what was politically
convenient. ( Recall Humes stating that they were writing the report in
Galloway's office on the Sunday when they heard that LHO had been shot
dead. He says they stopped to figure out what this would mean for them,
making one wonder, why should it mean anything for them ? They were
responsible for JFK's autopsy, not LHOs. )
At that point, a little 'sexing up' became psychologically bearable &
infinitely desirable.
I'm sure by 1967 / 1978 / 1996 ( Panel Review, HSCA, ARRB) HB&F were all
totally convinced they really had found a 7mm little hole in the skull at
the eop.
Their testimony that THEY HAD FOUND AND DOCUMENTED THE ENTRY led to all
sorts of later comedies, as all later Panels ( & buffs) implicitly assumed
( why not ? ) that HB&F really had found a head entry wound, and thus,
although the photographic record of same was apparently dire, ANYTHING
THAT LOOKED REMOTELY LIKE IT MIGHT BE AN ENTRY WOUND IN THOSE PHOTOS MUST
THEREFORE BE 'THE ' ENTRY WOUND.
Since the only possible candidate just happened to be a nondescript red
blob relatively high on the BOH ( 'cowlick' ) this was consequently &
understandably taken to represent 'it'. ( What choice was there ? They
said they took photos of 'it' after all , and there is only one possible
'it' there..)
And all this has led you, John, into imagining all sorts of weird &
wonderful ways in which the scalp could be stretched to move their
imaginary eop entry to the site of the equally imaginary 'cowlick' entry.
paul s
Herbert Blenner
I would expect to see a significant decrease in the density of hair
along the direction of the alleged stretch.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> In article<hm14l...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>>
>> In article<4b837e10$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>
> Probably at least partially, because of my frustration, I misspoke...let
> me re-rewite the first paragraph.
>
> sORRY ABOUT THAT.
>
> Read slowly. There are many who are 100% convinced the entry was near the
> EOP as per Humes et al. They include some pretty good minds, like Dr.
> Rahn, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and even one of the former FPP
> members. There are more, I assure you, but we'll stop there.
>
In the first place, if you are citing those men as "pretty good minds"
you've already lost the argument. They are biased WC defenders. In the
second place none of them agree with your wacky theory. None. You
continually play this Argument by Authority card by making false
representations of who agrees with you. No one in this universe agrees
with you.
>>
>> DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE AND, FWIW, MYSELF #### CAN'T #### BE
>> RIGHT IF, AT Z-312, THE BULLET PENETRATED THE REAR SCALP 5.25 INCHES OR SO ABOVE
>> THE BLEEPING HAIRLINE....WHICH IS ABOUT WHERE THE BOH PHOTOS SHOW THE ENTRY TO
>> BE IN THE SCALP.
>
> THE POINT THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS, WITH NO SUCCESS, IS THAT
> ALL THOSE PEOPLE #### CAN #### BE RIGHT ABOUT THE BULLET ENTERING THE
> SCALP AN SKULL NEAR THE EOP (ROUGHLY 2.25 INCHES ABOVE THE
And WHO THE HELL said 2.25 inches above the hairline?
> HAIRLINE)........BUT THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EITHER THE DAMN BOH
> PHOTOS ARE FAKE, OR, JUST LIKE THE AUTOPSISTS AND MORTICIANS
> TESTIFIED....THE SCALP WAS #### UNDERMINED #### AND STRETCHED ABOUT 2.5 -
> 3.0 INCHES.
>
Physically impossible and no one said that.
Mitch Todd
> In article <4b837e10$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>
> Read slowly. There are many who are 100% convinced the entry was near the
> EOP as per Humes et al. They include some pretty good minds, like Dr.
> Rahn, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and even one of the former FPP
> members. There are more, I assure you, but we'll stop there.
>
> DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE AND, FWIW, MYSELF #### CAN'T
> #### BE RIGHT IF THE ENTRY IN THE SCALP IN THE BOH PHOTOS IS 5.25 INCHES
> OR SO ABOVE THE BLEEPING HAIRLINE.
I understand that *perfectly*. Maybe you're the one who seems to have
missed the implications.
> THE POINT THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS, WITH NO SUCCESS, IS THAT
> ALL THOSE PEOPLE #### CAN #### BE RIGHT ABOUT THE BULLET ENTERING NEAR THE
> EOP......BUT THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EITHER THE DAMN BOH PHOTOS ARE
> FAKE, OR, JUST LIKE THE AUTOPSISTS AND MORTICIANS TESTIFIED....THE SCALP
> WAS #### UNDERMINED #### AND STRETCHED ABOUT 2.5 - 3.0 INCHES.
>
> THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!...IF THESE PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT THE
> RED SPLOTCH IN THE PHOTOS IS IN FACT THE ENTRY (AND UNLESS CLOTTED BLOOD
> HAS A BLEEPIN ABRASION COLLAR IT IS!) THEN THEY HAVE TWO CHOICES:
>
> 1) THE PHOTOS ARE FAKE, WHICH IS ABSURD...
>
> OR
>
> 2) CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY, THE SCALP WAS STRETCHED!!!!!!!!!!!!
John, the reason for you lack of success is that your arguments just don't
hold up. They don't get any better in all caps, nor do they improve in
proportion to the number of exclamation points you spit out. The fact that
you have spiralled into full-blown Rossleysim should tell you something,
if you are willing to step back and look at what you've been posting.
The fundamental issue is that stretching the scalp 3+ inches (and we're
really talking about stretching the edge of the scalp 4+ inches in order
to move the hole 3 inches) is going to be pretty obvious. The bullet hole
would have been noticably elongated. you are going to see warps and
ripples and distortions, especially where the fingers grip and pull at the
edge. The section taken of the wound is another matter. The supplemental
autopsy report mentions tiny bone fragments in the subcutaneous tissue.
The point of undermining the scalp is to remove the subcutaneous tissue
from the scalp; ergo, the section must have been removed before the
underminig took place. But there is no sign of it in the BOH photo.
And there is the question of why Stringer and the autopsists whould take
a photo for the record that grossly mislocates the position of the wound.
Theories create predictons of behavior. If those behaviors are not
observed, then the theory is erroneous and must be modified or scrapped
for something else. It's as simple as that. Saying "there is no
explanation" is, in this case, an admission of failure.
> I'm not saying it was stretched to move the wound up....the morticians
> #### HAD #### to stretch it....if they ever hoped to cover with hair the
> top/right/front area of the President's head where the scalp was either
> missing or macerated FOR AN OPEN-CASKET FUNERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This isn't the issue. The issue is whether the BOH photo shows the scalp
being
sssssssssssstttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeecccccccccchhhhhhhhhhheeeeeddddd
3+ inches. BTW, keep in ,imd that the cranium is about 6"x6"x9" along its
axes. We're talking about a lot of stretching here.
> Is it starting to sink in Mitch???????????
I'd say that something is definately sinking.
Anthony Marsh
No, but they did have Humes's guess that the downward angle into the back
was 45-60 degrees and they had been told that the lone nut shooter was
shooting from a high building behind the limo. I don't see how they could
get a sufficiently downward angle into the EOP and out the top of the
head. Unless they hire a government hack artist to lie and show Kennedy
leaning over by 45 degrees.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Feb 22, 4:50=A0pm, "Mitch Todd" <recipien...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>h
>> > an answer, so I've simplified the question a lot and will for now just =
>ask
>> > you [two] to answer it.
>>
>ou
>> > think it did, but just for argument's sake, say it did),..... consideri=
>ng
>> > that the EOP is typically only 2.0 - 2.5 inches above the hairline on a=
>n
>> > adult male, can you think of any plausible explanation other than that =
>the
>> > BOH scalp was undermined and stretched, for why the entry in the BOH
>> > photos is roughly 5. - 5.5 inches above his hairline?
>>
>> > Thank you.
>>
>> If the scalp were stretched enough to move the bullet perforation two
>> inches, I'd expect to see the shape for the perforation very much
>> distorted from the proportions given in the autopsy report. I'd also
>> expect to see stress ripples (stretch an uninflated balloon to see what I
>> mean) running parallel to the axis of stretching. Neither of those are in
>> evidence in the photo. If you are looking for a way to reconcile the BOH
>> photo with an EOP entry, you might want to look in some other direction.
>
>I would expect to see a significant decrease in the density of hair
>along the direction of the alleged stretch.
You don't see a difference in the texture of the hair between that which
is above the EOP and that which is below it? I do.
>Herbert
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Perhaps that's why the hole in the scalp is so elliptical as opposed to
the shape of the hole in the skull as described by Humes? He said the hole
in the skull was "almost round".
>you are going to see warps and
>ripples and distortions, especially where the fingers grip and pull at the
>edge. The section taken of the wound is another matter. The supplemental
>autopsy report mentions tiny bone fragments in the subcutaneous tissue.
>The point of undermining the scalp is to remove the subcutaneous tissue
>from the scalp; ergo, the section must have been removed before the
>underminig took place. But there is no sign of it in the BOH photo.
How can you possibly see that detail in the copies. Look, I didn't make
this stretching theory up out of whole cloth.....once again, I'm going by
the testimony...and I don't immediaately assume they were lying, like you
and the others.
> And there is the question of why Stringer and the autopsists whould take
>a photo for the record that grossly mislocates the position of the wound.
That we'll never know for sure. What we do know is that they didn't take
any photos of the BOH when the body was first received....but did so at
about 1:00 AM or so when the reconstruction was in progress.
But you must agree that they had to cover with hair the top/right/front
area where the scalp was either missing or heavily damaged, don't
you?......and the only place they could stretch the scalp from to make
that possible was from the BOH.
>Theories create predictons of behavior. If those behaviors are not
>observed, then the theory is erroneous and must be modified or scrapped
>for something else. It's as simple as that. Saying "there is no
>explanation" is, in this case, an admission of failure.
The difference in where the entry is on the skull (re. F8) and where it is
in the scalp (re. F3) has to be explained. One way is to say there is no
difference, but then where is your replication of F8, Mitch? And why can a
trail of bone-density opacities be seen on the original lateral film
extending from near the EOP? And why did the ARRB forensic experts fat
refute Baden's claim an entry could be seen on the lateral in the cowlick?
Mitch, answers?
>> I'm not saying it was stretched to move the wound up....the morticians
>> #### HAD #### to stretch it....if they ever hoped to cover with hair the
>> top/right/front area of the President's head where the scalp was either
>> missing or macerated FOR AN OPEN-CASKET FUNERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>This isn't the issue. The issue is whether the BOH photo shows the scalp
>being
>sssssssssssstttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeecccccccccchhhhhhhhhhheeeeeddddd
It is "an" issue for some who have been arguing against my stretching
theory....IOW, they don't see any motive for doing that....I just
explained why I think they did it.
>3+ inches. BTW, keep in ,imd that the cranium is about 6"x6"x9" along its
>axes. We're talking about a lot of stretching here.
That's roughly the difference between the location of the entry in the
skull (F8) and the entry in the scalp (F3)....what can I do? Lie about the
three inch difference?
>
>> Is it starting to sink in Mitch???????????
>
>I'd say that something is definately sinking.
It all boils down to one thing, doesn't it Mitch? If the entry in the
skull (F8) is near the EOP, then the scalp (F3) ### had ### to have been
stretched about three inches......doesn't it?
Doesn't it?
Another way of saying it that, unfortunately, all those whoare convinced
the entry was where Humes said it was, must also accept the stretching
theory...as wierd as it sounds, they [we] are stuck with it. They cannot
say that the red splotch is not the entry...because the HSCA said it had
an abrasion collar.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
>I'm going to repost a recent one of mine and comment, that some here do
>actual research and are only met with Large CAPITAL LETTERS in response.
>Oh yes, and multiple exclamation points, let's not forget those.
>
>Also please note that Canal below ONLY offers 2 choices to us. He of
>course conveniently omits #3 and that being the entrance is where the
>photos show it to be.
I had asked that, for argument's sake, you say that the entry was near the
EOP...I didn't omit anything.
>The entrance IS NOT the blob of fatty tissue at the base of JFK's
>hairline.
Of course it isn't...Humes was confused about the photo...just like he
said he was.
>The entrance is not down near the EOP.
Whoa Nellie. You have some pretty smart people who have studied the
medical evidence and are convinced the entry was near the EOP. They
include Dostors Rahn and Zimmerman, and Larry Sturdivan....note that I
left myself out because I described them as being pretty smart.
And what about the fact that the ARRB experts have refuted Baden's claim
that the entry can be seen WITHOUT QUESTION in the cowlick on the lateral?
Somebody wasn't being factual...who do you think it was? Sure, I know, the
ARRB experts, of course....ya right.
>The scalp is not
>"stretched" 2.5 - 3in. for that photo. The entrance is where you can see
>it on the photos and that is in what is commonly called the "cowlick"
And this i a fact because Mr. "I'll never replicate F8" Fiorentino says it
is?
>region.
>
>My repost of some real research. ...........Why not try that sometime
Your opinion of real research is what it is.....how about replicating
F8...isn't that resarch? Bt you refuse...some wonder why....I don't.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:hm14l...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <4b837e10$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Mitch Todd says...
>>
>> Read slowly. There are many who are 100% convinced the entry was near the
>> EOP as per Humes et al. They include some pretty good minds, like Dr.
>> Rahn, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and even one of the former FPP
>> members. There are more, I assure you, but we'll stop there.
>>
>> DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE AND, FWIW, MYSELF #### CAN'T
>> #### BE RIGHT IF THE ENTRY IN THE SCALP IN THE BOH PHOTOS IS 5.25 INCHES
>> OR SO ABOVE THE BLEEPING HAIRLINE.
>
>That's not the only reason they can't be right, of course. Another is that
>there are some amazing gymnastics any eop bullet has to do to avoid
>damaging the cerebellum ( which an eop bullet would be heading straight
>for ).
The key words being "sraight for". The bullet deflected up about 23
degrees as it penetrated the skull near the EOP. The path through the
brain can be roughly plotted using the tip of the occipital lobe as a
starting point. Progressing on, that path passed just above the Thalamus
(re. Finck to Bloomberg). Taking it een further, the bullet's major
fragments exited just forward of the coronal suture. That path, Paul, just
misses the cerebellum.
That said there was some damage done to the cerebellum but it was from the
concussion--the bullet passed close to it.
Lattimer's experiments showed that many of his test bullets deflected as
they penetrated the rear skull.
Ballistics experts will tell you that anything hard enough to deform the
nose of a bullet the way the bullet that enered JFK's BOH was (see
CE-567),....will deflect that bullet. In face there's no way, given the
damage to its nose, that bullet could have continued straight through the
rear skull.
>Another is that there is ( again, amazingly) no photographic evidence or
>x-ray evidence for an eop entry, despite the autopsists having all the
>time they needed to thoroughly document it. ( Indeed, they actually seem
>to have come to believe that they DID document it).
Huh? If you'd try to explain how the semi-circular BEVELED defect seen
near the EOP in F8 as created, if it wasn't created by the bullet that
killed JFK, I could buy your implication...but you haven't and I don't.
Also, you have failed, in spite of my repeated requests, to explain the
existence of the trail of bone-density opacities that can be seen on the
lateral x-ray near the EOP....if they didn't represent the bone beveled
out from around the entry near there.
>As I said somewhere else, the only evidence that ANY entry wound was found
>boils down to HB&F saying 'it was so',
There were other eyewitnesses.....in fact I was told to my face by
Stringer he saw the entry near the EOP...and yes he did pt that in writing
Paul.
>and the assumption that the BOH
>photos show one ( some way from the eop) which is just that, an
>assumption. (The upper 'blob' in the BOH photos does not demonstrate an
>actual penetration.
You're leaving out another little detail, Paul: The HSCA said it had an
abrasion collar.
>You can assume it IS a penetration, but it remains an
>assumption).
Abrason collar.
>We are stuck with the fact that the skull entry is ( mysteriously ) pretty
>well entirely undocumented.
So say you.
>We might put this down to bad luck - say, 5
>photos of the entry (internal aspect ) just vanished & ditto for the
>external aspect ( in the skull).
How many views of an elephant do you need, Paul, before you recognize it's
an elephant?
>Or we might begin to wonder whether HB&F
>really found a whole lot that was worth photographing *at all*.
>
>Then we might go on to wonder why the FBI witnesses left the morgue with
>no idea any entry wound had been found.
Look, the FBI guys had you duped up to as ecently as the other day that
they stayed until the body was put in the casket....you almost had me
believing that until I went bac over my notes and found out that they left
around 1:00 AM and the body was still being examined at 2:45
AM...undoubtedly while construction was going on and pictures were being
taken (stringer left about 3:15 AM). McHugh stayed with the body until it
was put into the casket and the casket was latched closed by Gawler.
McHugh said pictures were being taken all night....and he was correct...a
la the photos showing a partially reconstructed BOH.
>They were not alone. Reading the following, it's amazing to me how the
>discovery of this 'head entry' was kept such a closely guarded secret. :-
We've been over and over your long list of witneses who said they didn't
see any entry. I tried to offer an explanation for that but you won't
accep it and won't tell me why. Here it is again.
When they reflected the rear scalp, the bone fell out in pieces all the
way down to the EO on the right side. One piece (Boswell even drew a
sketch of iton his face sheet) included the top portion of the entry. That
means Paul, all that was left--post-scalp reflection--was a huge hole with
the bottom portion of a small entry (we can see it in F8) along the lower
margin of that huge hole. Your witnesses, unless they were called over to
take a very close look at that bottom margin, would undoubtedly have
focused in on what most normal people would have---the huge hole. IOW,
only a few got to look all that close...Kellerman, was one and, besides
HB&F and Stringer, according to the tesimony, he saw the wounds up close
and often that night...he helped lower the body into the casket.
For all your other, "I didn't see an entry" witnesses, see above.
S & O left early....they indicated the image they had of his BOH was
"stuff" exuding out of it. They were literally shocked when they saw the
BOH photos.
I know your theory backwards and forwards, Paul.
Even though I know I won't get a straiht answer I'll ask you this (for the
benefit of any lurkers):
Isn't it possible that the beveled semicircular defect seen in F8 was
acused by a bullet entering at that point and isn't it possible that the
bone-density tiny opacities seen on the lateral near the EOP, by the FPP's
Dr. Davis, Chad, and Larry, represent the bone that was beveled out from
the aforementioned semicircular defect?
>And all this has led you, John, into imagining all sorts of weird &
>wonderful ways in which the scalp could be stretched to move their
>imaginary eop entry to the site of the equally imaginary 'cowlick' entry.
I sure as hell aren't happy with advocating the seemingly far-fetched
scalp stretching theory, but it comes with the territory, so to speak.
IOW, anyone who advocates a near EOP enry must also accept the scalp
stretching theory....because the difference in the hole in the bone was
only about 2.25 inches above his hairline and the hole in the scalp is
about 5.25 inches above his hairline.....unless. of course, those near-EOP
entry advocates say that the red splotch is only clotted blood...but then
they should have to explain how clotted blood got an abrasion collar.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner
> In article <234b19ca-5871-4b4c-973e-71eeb56d6...@x9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Can you take a hint? Humes and company have pulled the wig over your
eyes.
Herbert
> >Herbert
>
> --
> John Canal
> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Fiorentino
Not going to play games John. Have fun with your theory.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hm27o...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
>
>And some may also wonder why you excised about 80% of my post!
Sorry, did you have some new rhetoric that I cut?
And, speaking of missing something, didn't you tell Paul Seaton that you'd
be replicating F8? I was soooo looking forward to seeing what you came up
with...should I just have some more patience or have you scrubbed the
project?
But don't feel like the Lone Stranger on that, no cowlick entry theorist,
including Mitch or Durnavich has ever exposed the sillyness of Fisher's
and Baden's cowlick entry hoax with such a replication.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Fiorentino
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hm3jq...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Feb 23, 10:50=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <234b19ca-5871-4b4c-973e-71eeb56d6...@x9g2000vbo.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
<TOP POST>
Don't you agree it all boils down to this:
A. If the entry was in the cowlick, then the scalp was not
undermined/stretched.....
or.....
B. If the entry was ear the EOP, then because the BOH photos show it
(assuming "it" is the entry, based on "it" having an abrasion collar) so
high above his hairline, then the scalp was probably undermined/stretched.
Oh, if Humes succeeded in pulling the wool over my eyes, I sure as hell
tried my very best to avoid that embarrassing event...seeing that I've
been studying the medical evidence, almost exclusively for about 10
years....I know, you're probably thinking I need to start reading for
comprehension, eh?
Oh well, shit happens.
But is there any chance whatsoever that you or any of the others who think
Humes was lying about almost everything he reported or as as qualified to
to the autopsy as say, A. Marsh, could be wrong?
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> In article<4b844b78$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>> I'm going to repost a recent one of mine and comment, that some here do
>> actual research and are only met with Large CAPITAL LETTERS in response.
>> Oh yes, and multiple exclamation points, let's not forget those.
>>
>> Also please note that Canal below ONLY offers 2 choices to us. He of
>> course conveniently omits #3 and that being the entrance is where the
>> photos show it to be.
>
> I had asked that, for argument's sake, you say that the entry was near the
> EOP...I didn't omit anything.
>
>> The entrance IS NOT the blob of fatty tissue at the base of JFK's
>> hairline.
>
> Of course it isn't...Humes was confused about the photo...just like he
> said he was.
>
>> The entrance is not down near the EOP.
>
> Whoa Nellie. You have some pretty smart people who have studied the
> medical evidence and are convinced the entry was near the EOP. They
> include Dostors Rahn and Zimmerman, and Larry Sturdivan....note that I
> left myself out because I described them as being pretty smart.
>
No, we don't. They do not say that. You intentionally misrepresent their
positions to drum up a phony Argument by Authority.
Mitch Todd
>>hole would have been noticeably elongated.
>
> Perhaps that's why the hole in the scalp is so elliptical as opposed to
> the shape of the hole in the skull as described by Humes? He said the
> hole in the skull was "almost round".
The autopsy report measures the scalp perforation at 15mm x 6mm. Are you
now going to start claiming that this measurement was made during your
stretching event?
>>you are going to see warps and
>>ripples and distortions, especially where the fingers grip and pull at
>>the edge. The section taken of the wound is another matter. The
>>supplemental autopsy report mentions tiny bone fragments in the
>>subcutaneous tissue. The point of undermining the scalp is to remove the
>>subcutaneous tissue from the scalp; ergo, the section must have been
>>removed before the underminig took place. But there is no sign of it in
>>the BOH photo.
>
> How can you possibly see that detail in the copies.
The copy I have if the BOH photo is clear enough to see individual hairs.
Ripples and other distortions of the scalp shouldn't be too hard to spot.
The sectioning would be obvious to anyone who looked.
> Look, I didn't make this stretching theory up out of whole cloth.....
Not out of whole cloth. I have no real reason to doubt that the scalp was
undermined and/or stretched during the embalming, but the evidence is very
much against the BOH photos showing the rear scalp being stretche 3+
inches.
> once again, I'm going by the testimony...and I don't immediaately
> assume they were lying, like you and the others.
I don't assume that anyone is lying. However, I've also found that over
the years, the autopsy crew has produced a veritable fount of tall tales.
There is Admiral Osborne's bullet, Jerrol Custer's "king size" bullet
fragment which fell out during the x-raying of the body, Paul O'Connor's
tales of the videotaping of the autopsy and Pitzer's death. Tom Robinson
claimed to see a probe pushed into the skull entry wound that came out of
the throat wound; he also told Jeremy Gunn that he was on the left side of
the body "the whole time" but was on the right side, too. Floyd Reibe said
the he was responsible for the autopsy photos. I doubt I'd have a problem
finding more of these if I wanted to dig through the testimony. The
problem is that people have a habit of juicing up a story, and this on top
of the usual lapses in memory.
>> And there is the question of why Stringer and the autopsists whould
>> take
>>a photo for the record that grossly mislocates the position of the
>>wound.
>
> That we'll never know for sure. What we do know is that they didn't take
> any photos of the BOH when the body was first received....but did so at
> about 1:00 AM or so when the reconstruction was in progress.
And we know this how?
> But you must agree that they had to cover with hair the top/right/front
> area where the scalp was either missing or heavily damaged, don't
> you?......and the only place they could stretch the scalp from to make
> that possible was from the BOH.
The autopsy photos show enough scalp to cover the frontal area and the
parietal area to a position aligned with the back of the ear. Given this
and the Parkland descriptions you have a patch of missing scalp that is
2-3 inches. This space would be spanned by the rear scalp being stretched
forwards, the fronto-parietal flap being stretched backwards, and the
piece of rubber dam that was used to fill any remaining gap.
>>Theories create predictions of behavior. If those behaviors are not
>>observed, then the theory is erroneous and must be modified or scrapped
>>for something else. It's as simple as that. Saying "there is no
>>explanation" is, in this case, an admission of failure.
>
> The difference in where the entry is on the skull (re. F8) and where it
> is in the scalp (re. F3) has to be explained. One way is to say there is
> no difference, but then where is your replication of F8, Mitch? And why
> can a trail of bone-density opacities be seen on the original lateral
> film extending from near the EOP? And why did the ARRB forensic experts
> fat refute Baden's claim an entry could be seen on the lateral in the
> cowlick? Mitch, answers?
..And comes the (expected) change of subject. I don't play the "replicate
F8" game. Without a point of reference to align to it's no different than
arguing over which side of a sphere is the left side.
I find it interesting that this trail is now "bone-density." The only
description I know of only states that they are obviously not metallic.
Why that automatically makes it "bone density" must be one of the
universe's wonders. In the meantime, there is a very obvious trail of
metallic opacities running back-to-front at the top of the skull. If
trails are such important evidence, what of this one?
As for the ARRB contact reports, I believe I've already made my position
clear.
>>> I'm not saying it was stretched to move the wound up....the morticians
>>> #### HAD #### to stretch it....if they ever hoped to cover with hair
>>> the top/right/front area of the President's head where the scalp was
>>> either missing or macerated FOR AN OPEN-CASKET FUNERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>This isn't the issue. The issue is whether the BOH photo shows the scalp
>>being
>>sssssssssssstttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeecccccccccchhhhhhhhhhheeeeeddddd
>>3+ inches
> It is "an" issue for some who have been arguing against my stretching
> theory....IOW, they don't see any motive for doing that....I just
> explained why I think they did it.
I think you grossly overestimate the amount of scalp that was missing,
and how much stretching would be required. Just look at the big, dagged
flap of scalp in the right profile photos and match the dags to the
corresponding v-shaped lacerations on the right side of the head.
>>. BTW, keep in ,imd that the cranium is about 6"x6"x9" along
>>its axes. We're talking about a lot of stretching here.
>
> That's roughly the difference between the location of the entry in the
> skull (F8) and the entry in the scalp (F3)....what can I do? Lie about
> the three inch difference?
I'm saying you need a much better explanation that actually fits what we
see in the BOH photo.
>>> Is it starting to sink in Mitch???????????
>>
>>I'd say that something is definately sinking.
>
> It all boils down to one thing, doesn't it Mitch? If the entry in the
> skull (F8) is near the EOP, then the scalp (F3) ### had ### to have been
> stretched about three inches......doesn't it?
>
> Doesn't it?
For your take on it to work, yes. The problem is, it generates more
problems than it solves.
John Canal
>
>Not unless you consider good research to be "rhetoric."
>
>John F.
Good research would have included replicatng F8 like you told Paul you
were going to do. But I just wonder if you tried and realized that what
you came up with showed you exactly what we've been telling you, i.e. that
all the bone down to near the EOP on the right side, including the
cowlick, had come out when F8 was taken? Hmmmm, did that happen, John? Is
that why you don't plan on posting a useable F8 replication?
How about you, Mitch....did you try replicating F8 as well and end up with
the same results I think JF achieved?
Lurkers, I promise you we'll never know the answer to that one.
John Canal
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:hm3jq...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <4b84fb60$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>>And some may also wonder why you excised about 80% of my post!
>>
>> Sorry, did you have some new rhetoric that I cut?
>>
>> And, speaking of missing something, didn't you tell Paul Seaton that you'd
>> be replicating F8? I was soooo looking forward to seeing what you came up
>> with...should I just have some more patience or have you scrubbed the
>> project?
>>
>> But don't feel like the Lone Stranger on that, no cowlick entry theorist,
>> including Mitch or Durnavich has ever exposed the sillyness of Fisher's
>> and Baden's cowlick entry hoax with such a replication.
>>
>> John Canal
[...]
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
I said "perhaps". I'me just trying to reconcile two pieces of evidence
that seem to conflict, i.e. the 15 x 6 mm elliptical shape of the scalp
hole and Humes' "almost round" description of the skull hole....they do
conflict, Mitch...or haven't you figured that out? I don't like to brush
unusual events under the table, like you seem to be able to do, like three
pathologists mistaking the cowlick for the EOP, etc.?
>>>you are going to see warps and
>>>ripples and distortions, especially where the fingers grip and pull at
>>>the edge. The section taken of the wound is another matter. The
>>>supplemental autopsy report mentions tiny bone fragments in the
>>>subcutaneous tissue. The point of undermining the scalp is to remove the
>>>subcutaneous tissue from the scalp; ergo, the section must have been
>>>removed before the underminig took place. But there is no sign of it in
>>>the BOH photo.
>>
>> How can you possibly see that detail in the copies.
>
>The copy I have if the BOH photo is clear enough to see individual hairs.
>Ripples and other distortions of the scalp shouldn't be too hard to spot.
>The sectioning would be obvious to anyone who looked.
The HSCA said they saw LINEAR lacerations or tears extending from the
margins of the wound...did you see those?
>> Look, I didn't make this stretching theory up out of whole cloth.....
>
>Not out of whole cloth. I have no real reason to doubt that the scalp was
>undermined and/or stretched during the embalming, but the evidence is very
>much against the BOH photos showing the rear scalp being stretche 3+
>inches.
If the scalp wasn't stretched then the entry was in the cowlick.....but
you know the evidence for your cowlick entry is collapsing like a house of
cards. Are you going to replicate F8...of course you won't because you
know the replications clearly show that the bone was out on the right side
down to near the EOP when that photo was taken...and the semicircular
beveled defect remaining is precisely where Humes et al. said it was.
Quit your rhetoric Mitch and put your cards on the table--replicate F8.
>> once again, I'm going by the testimony...and I don't immediaately
>> assume they were lying, like you and the others.
>
>I don't assume that anyone is lying. However, I've also found that over
>the years, the autopsy crew has produced a veritable fount of tall tales.
>There is Admiral Osborne's bullet, Jerrol Custer's "king size" bullet
>fragment which fell out during the x-raying of the body, Paul O'Connor's
>tales of the videotaping of the autopsy and Pitzer's death. Tom Robinson
>claimed to see a probe pushed into the skull entry wound that came out of
>the throat wound; he also told Jeremy Gunn that he was on the left side of
>the body "the whole time" but was on the right side, too. Floyd Reibe said
>the he was responsible for the autopsy photos.
But those arn't the individuals who performed the autopsy!
>I doubt I'd have a problem
>finding more of these if I wanted to dig through the testimony.
I don't doubt that either. Paul Seaton quoted me testimony by S & O that
indiscated they were there when the body was placed in the casket, but we
now know they left the morgue at about 1:00 Am and the body wasn't placed
in the casket until about 3:45 AM.
But the autopsists took notes and made drawings--for you to compare their
findings with O'Connor's body bag story or some of the other crazy ones is
B/S, Mitch and you know it.
>The
>problem is that people have a habit of juicing up a story, and this on top
>of the usual lapses in memory.
HB&F didn't make many mistakes...and suely not any that you hard-line LNs
accuse them of. Replicate F8 and post the results Mitch...and make my
point for me.
>>> And there is the question of why Stringer and the autopsists whould
>>> take
>>>a photo for the record that grossly mislocates the position of the
>>>wound.
>>
>> That we'll never know for sure. What we do know is that they didn't take
>> any photos of the BOH when the body was first received....but did so at
>> about 1:00 AM or so when the reconstruction was in progress.
>
>And we know this how?
The testimony. Even S & O said the last memory they had of JFK's BOH was
one were "stuff" was hanging out. This is consistent with what many others
said...and even Humes said they saw cerebellum whebn the body was first
received......do you think the BOH photos reflect all that? What do you
think Stringer was doing until 3:15 AM, playing ping-pong? McHugh and
Kellerman were with the body up until the time it was placed in the
casket...McHugh said they were taking pictures all night long. The receipt
Kellerman received from Stover was modified to inlude several moe
photographs....and Kellerman doesn't even recall when those changes were
made. Look through the inventory Mitch and you select anyphotos that could
have been taken after the original receipt was signed....they ahve to be
all the ones shwin an intact BOH....and that's just what S & O
said...those BOH pictures must ave been taken later.....and they were
correct.
>> But you must agree that they had to cover with hair the top/right/front
>> area where the scalp was either missing or heavily damaged, don't
>> you?......and the only place they could stretch the scalp from to make
>> that possible was from the BOH.
>
>The autopsy photos show enough scalp to cover the frontal area and the
>parietal area to a position aligned with the back of the ear.
But that scalp the autopsist is holding is over the area where the bone
was blasted out from...do you think the bone left his head and the scalp
stayed there? If so, once again you're accusing Humes et al. of
misremembering, because the autopsy report says that scalp & bone was
missing from where the large exit wound was.
Good God, Mitch..give them a little credit for remembering something
correctly!
>Given this
>and the Parkland descriptions you have a patch of missing scalp that is
>2-3 inches. This space would be spanned by the rear scalp being stretched
>forwards, the fronto-parietal flap being stretched backwards, and the
>piece of rubber dam that was used to fill any remaining gap.
The rubber was placed over the top of the plaster of paris...the rubber
was used to stitch he scalp to. At least you admit they did stretch the
scalp....your best fan, Fiorentino denies that.
But I'm saying that the morticians undermined and stretched the
scalp...that's what morticians do....and they started their reconstruction
a little after midnight....and the BOH photos were taken during that
reconstruction....which reconciles the fact that the entry in those photos
is too high above his hairline for an EOP entry. Look, Zimmerman and
Sturdivan have maintained that the entry they saw on the originals in F8
was about one inch above the EOP....I've disagreed with them saying it was
only about 3 mm above it....but the differenec was within a margin for
error. If they're right, and I've always said it's possible they were,
that means the rear scalp could have been stretched only about two
inches...to make the location of the entry in the scalp reconcile with a
near (one inch above) EOP entry in the bone.
>>>Theories create predictions of behavior. If those behaviors are not
>>>observed, then the theory is erroneous and must be modified or scrapped
>>>for something else. It's as simple as that. Saying "there is no
>>>explanation" is, in this case, an admission of failure.
>>
>> The difference in where the entry is on the skull (re. F8) and where it
>> is in the scalp (re. F3) has to be explained. One way is to say there is
>> no difference, but then where is your replication of F8, Mitch? And why
>> can a trail of bone-density opacities be seen on the original lateral
>> film extending from near the EOP? And why did the ARRB forensic experts
>> fat refute Baden's claim an entry could be seen on the lateral in the
>> cowlick? Mitch, answers?
>
>..And comes the (expected) change of subject. I don't play the "replicate
>F8" game. Without a point of reference to align to it's no different than
>arguing over which side of a sphere is the left side.
>
>I find it interesting that this trail is now "bone-density." The only
>description I know of only states that they are obviously not metallic.
Chad an Larry say they are bone chips...do you want me to get you that in
writing? An if they're not metallic, what do you think they are Mitch?
>Why that automatically makes it "bone density" must be one of the
>universe's wonders. In the meantime, there is a very obvious trail of
>metallic opacities running back-to-front at the top of the skull.
Some trail...have you looked at the AP film? Those opacities are speard
out horizontally across his head...that's no trial. heck, I'm going from
memory but didn't one of the HSCA's radiologists even said one or two of
the opacities were outside his cranium.
>If
>trails are such important evidence, what of this one?
See above. You'll also notice that all the ones that are up the top were
small and light...none were recvered...they got up there because of their
light weight...they were carried up (many out of his head) with the brain
matter that exploed up. The heavier ones went forward, not up.
>As for the ARRB contact reports, I believe I've already made my position
>clear.
I missed that....I'll have to go back and look....yes or no, did they see
the entry in the cowlick like Baden et al. supposedly did?
If they didn't doesn't that send you a message about Baden's agenda?
>>>> I'm not saying it was stretched to move the wound up....the morticians
>>>> #### HAD #### to stretch it....if they ever hoped to cover with hair
>>>> the top/right/front area of the President's head where the scalp was
>>>> either missing or macerated FOR AN OPEN-CASKET FUNERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>This isn't the issue. The issue is whether the BOH photo shows the scalp
>>>being
>>>sssssssssssstttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeecccccccccchhhhhhhhhhheeeeeddddd
>>>3+ inches
>
>> It is "an" issue for some who have been arguing against my stretching
>> theory....IOW, they don't see any motive for doing that....I just
>> explained why I think they did it.
>
>I think you grossly overestimate the amount of scalp that was missing,
>and how much stretching would be required. Just look at the big, dagged
>flap of scalp in the right profile photos and match the dags to the
>corresponding v-shaped lacerations on the right side of the head.
>
>
>>>. BTW, keep in ,imd that the cranium is about 6"x6"x9" along
>>>its axes. We're talking about a lot of stretching here.
>>
>> That's roughly the difference between the location of the entry in the
>> skull (F8) and the entry in the scalp (F3)....what can I do? Lie about
>> the three inch difference?
>
>I'm saying you need a much better explanation that actually fits what we
>see in the BOH photo.
I see an entry that is from 2-3 inches (I'll back off by one ich because
of Larry's anbd Chad's findings) further aboe his hairline than where the
autopsists said the entry was and where the replications of F8 show that
it was....and, Mitch, for the seemingly kazillionth time, if you'd perform
a simple replication of F8 you'd agree.
>>>> Is it starting to sink in Mitch???????????
>>>
>>>I'd say that something is definately sinking.
>>
>> It all boils down to one thing, doesn't it Mitch? If the entry in the
>> skull (F8) is near the EOP, then the scalp (F3) ### had ### to have been
>> stretched about three inches......doesn't it?
>>
>> Doesn't it?
>
>For your take on it to work, yes. The problem is, it generates more
>problems than it solves.
Do the replication of F8 and save us and the moderators from having to
post these repetitive writings.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Cute. Let's expand on the idea and have them stretch an 7 mm wide hole
into an oval 15 x 6 mm wound.
>
>>> you are going to see warps and
>>> ripples and distortions, especially where the fingers grip and pull at
>>> the edge. The section taken of the wound is another matter. The
>>> supplemental autopsy report mentions tiny bone fragments in the
>>> subcutaneous tissue. The point of undermining the scalp is to remove the
>>> subcutaneous tissue from the scalp; ergo, the section must have been
>>> removed before the underminig took place. But there is no sign of it in
>>> the BOH photo.
>>
>> How can you possibly see that detail in the copies.
>
> The copy I have if the BOH photo is clear enough to see individual hairs.
Can you see the sutures that Canal thinks Humes used in order to stitch
up that huge hole in the back of the head?
John Fiorentino
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hm4s7...@drn.newsguy.com...