For "Research": the questionnaires, yet again

[John King]

Yep, I'm doing it again. If ya don't like it, get over yerself. ;-)

This addresses the provable myth, most recently espoused yet again by
one "Research," that I, of all people, merely because I believe in a
single shooter and for literally no other reason, do nothing but
mindlessly repeat all the conclusions of the WC.

As if.

Let us all join virtual hands and examine one of the two main
Discrepancies That Weren't in the JFK assassination. This one is number
two, although I never tire of talking about number one either, since I
have also talked about it extensively and recently. It is of course the
supposed discrepancy between Parkland and Bethesda on whether or not
there was a hole in the back of JFK's head after a bullet struck him in
the head. The following two questionnaires were posted by me about a
year ago. At that time not one LN, not one, gave any answer, plausible
or implausible, to even as many as half of these questions. And let me
be clear on what I mean by "plausible."

I do NOT mean what, in my opinion only, would be considered to be
"plausible."

I do NOT mean what, in your opinion only, would be considered to be
"plausible."

I do NOT mean what, in the opinions of the majority of posters to this
newsgroup would be considered to be "plausible."

I instead mean what the majority of humans on this planet would consider
to be "plausible," including those who do not know who John Kennedy was.

So here go the questionnaires. Maybe at long last, for the first time
ever, just one LN, just one, will give answers to more than half of
these questions which the majority of humans worldwide would consider to
be plausible. And I shall now insert my own honest answers, which I am
supremely confident would be considered to be "plausible" by the
majority of living humans on this planet.

QUESTIONNAIRE #1

1. True or false: The average ten-year-old child, without a day of
medical training, can easily identify which part of a person's head is
the "back" or "rear" without the slightest possibility of being even
slightly mistaken. If your answer is "false," please explain in detail
why you think it's false.

My answer: this is so obviously true that it is embarrassing for me to
explain, aloud or in written form, *why* it is true. I seem to recall
that I knew the difference at a much younger age than ten.

2. If you stop people at random on the street and ask them to point to
the back of their heads will they be more likely or less likely to point
to the correct area? If your answer is "less likely," please explain in
detail why you think so.

My answer: I would think that the vast majority of people in every
country, who speak any language, who are of any race, ethnicity,
culture, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, religious
belief, and age of at least ten, would point to the correct part of
their head, if the word for "back" or "rear" in whatever language they
speak was used in the request.

3. True or false: An adult with years of medical training is even more
likely to correctly identify any part of a person's head, no matter what
part that is, than the average ten-year-old child or random person on
the street. If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you
think it's false.

My answer: true, *obviously*.

4. True or false: The Parkland medical personnel were giving their
professional opinions on the locations of President Kennedy�s wounds,
which is normally considered more reliable than a lay person�s opinion.
If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you think the
answer is false.

My answer: true, *obviously*

5. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, but
also others who saw JFK at Parkland such as the SS agents, and would
also include Clint Hill who saw JFK's wounds before Parkland, were all
mistaken about seeing a hole in the back of his head, where on his head
was the correct location of that hole, which they mistakenly identified
as being in the back or rear? Please explain your answer in detail.

My answer: the likelihood of that many witnesses who were all older than
ten being mistaken is so astronomically low as to be unworthy of serious
consideration.

6. If you believe them to have been mistaken about where on his head the
hole was, why do you think that this many of them would make this same
mistake? Please explain your answer in detail.

My answer: it would be considered implausible by most humans worldwide
that this many people older than ten could possibly be mistaken,
especially when a smaller number of people of any age specifically
disputed them.

7. If, however, just for the sake of argument, there really was a hole
in the right rear of JFK's head, AND his head was turned somewhat to the
left while on the operating table, would witnesses be able to see the
hole? If your answer is "no" please explain in detail why they couldn't.

My answer: if the hole was practically *anywhere* in the right half of
the rear half of his head, it would be absurdly, plainly, and
horrifyingly visible to any human of any age with even average eyesight,
even with the person lying supine upon any flat surface, as any human
can easily demonstrate on Youtube and I sure as hell can.

8. If there really was a hole in the right rear of JFK�s head whose
margins extended a little way into the right side of his head, then even
if his head was not turned to the right or left but was directly face-up
would witnesses be able to see any portion of the hole? If your answer
is "no," please explain in detail why.

My answer: exactly the same as my answer to #7 without the slightest
difference in meaning or wording.

9. When the "back door" in the head was open, there was a hole in the
back of the head. When the "back door" in the head was closed, there was
no hole in the back of the head. Do you understand this concept? If your
answer is "no," please explain in detail what it is about this concept
that you don't understand.

My answer: if the hole was created by a displacement of fractured, but
not missing, bone, in combination with a tear in the scalp, but
otherwise with no scalp or hair missing in that area, then this concept
is absurdly easy to understand.

10. Do you think the average ten-year-old child would be able to
understand the concept expressed in question 9 above? If your answer is
"no," please explain in detail why you believe this.

My answer: this time it might take a bit of explaining to the average
ten-year-old, but I rather doubt that the majority of them could not
eventually understand it. And the average person who is at least twenty
has no legitimate excuse not to understand it.

QUESTIONNAIRE #2

The name of Dr. Malcolm Perry has, of course, become well-known since
1963, as he was the doctor who performed a tracheotomy across a bullet
wound in JFK's throat. Of that wound he said this to the WC:
"I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior
lateral right side."
In lay terms, a bit to the right (JFK's right) of the windpipe.
But that was not the only wound he noticed. He also made these two
statements to the WC:
"Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound
on the right posterior cranium."
"I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in
which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe
laceration of underlying brain tissue."
Now, there has been some disagreement over the years (and "some" might
be putting it mildly) about the usage of "occipital" in this and other
statements made by various Parkland personnel.
But Perry here was plain that, whether or not he was correct about
"occipital," he described this as well as being a "right posterior"
wound, in other words, "right rear," and also was plain about being able
to see brain tissue, indicating that in fact he was claiming this to be
an actual opening in the cranium or skull.
Since 1963 there has been just a tiny (!) bit of debate among the
erudite scholars of the assassination as to whether or not Perry and
c.40 other people who saw JFK's head wounding at any time at Parkland
and Bethesda prior to the beginning of the process at the autopsy of
peeling away hair and scalp. The debate is whether or not all these
people were "mistaken" about a major wound, or opening, or hole anywhere
remotely close to the "right rear" of JFK's head. The following
questions are therefore respectfully and humbly offered to you so that
you may
demonstrate that your honest answers do not conflict in the slightest
with your own stated position on this matter, whatever that position may
be.

1. In your opinion did Dr. Perry correctly identify the location of the
throat wound? If your answer is "no," please explain in detail why you
think not.

My answer: he did indeed correctly identify the location of that wound,
which even the majority of CTs ***AND*** LNs worldwide freely admit, no
matter what language(s) they read/speak, and no matter what country they
live in.

2. In your opinion, did Dr. Perry know where the front of a human throat
or neck is, at least in general terms? If your answer is "no," please
explain in detail why you think not.

My answer: I'd be astonished if he didn't. ;-)

3. In your opinion, did Dr. Perry probably know where the back of a
human neck is, at least in general terms? If your answer is "no," please
explain in detail why you think not.

My answer: yes, how couldn't he know?

4. True or false: the average ten-year-old child, without a day of
medical training, can identify which part of a person's neck is the
"front" and which part is the "back" without the slightest possibility
of being even slightly mistaken. If your answer is "false," please
explain in detail why you think not.

My answer: no matter what language the child understands, whenever the
words for "front of the neck" and "back of the neck" are used in that
language, more than 50% (more than 50% is called a "majority" in
English) will correctly identify the right part of the neck without the
slightest possibility of being slightly mistaken.

5. Do you believe Dr. Perry to have been more than ten years old in
1963? If your answer is "no"...well, you know the drill by now.

My answer: according to Wikipedia (I have taught numerous children
*younger* than ten who knew what "Wikipedia" is before I told them) Dr.
Perry was born on September 3, 1929, and if that is true, he would have
been "just a bit older" than ten in 1963.

6. Do you believe Dr. Perry to have had at least one day of medical
training in his life prior to 11- 22-63? If your answer is
"no"...lather, rinse, repeat.

My answer: as medical training in the United States (the country that
appears to be the country of Dr. Perry's residence) typically lasts more
than one day in most cases, I would be inclined to answer yes. That
thing called "Wikipedia" sez that Perry received his medical training at
the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which is also said
on the same "Wikipedia" to be "one of the leading medical school [sic]
and biomedical research institutions in the United States and the
flagship medical school of the University of Texas System." Since I
suspect that it takes longer than 24 hours to attain a medical degree
there, I am superbly confident that his total time there lasted at least
one hour longer, if not much more so, thus more than one day. ;-)

7. If Dr. Perry had not known where the front of the throat is, would he
have made the incision for the tracheotomy in the right place? If your
answer is "yes"...explain.

My answer: no. I base this on the fact that I have yet to come across
any credible evidence that Dr. Perry was sued for malpractice in regard
to any tracheotomy, in a lawsuit that he lost, and was most definitely
not sued by the Kennedy family for this particular tracheotomy, meaning
that the family did not sue him for performing the tracheotomy on the
back of JFK's neck instead of the front. Your mileage may vary.

8. Is it plausible to you that Dr. Perry would correctly identify the
location of a wound on the front of the throat just to the right of the
trachea, but did not know where the right rear or the left rear of a
human head is? If your answer is "yes," you'll be needing to explain
that one.

My answer: no, it is not at all plausible to me, and it would not have
been plausible to me forty-four years ago when I was ten, nor is it
plausible to me today, even without me having received a day of medical
training in my life, other than one CPR course that lasted six hours,
which I think most humans worldwide agree is far less than a day, which
is twenty-four hours. Most of my ten-year-old students in my 29 years
of teaching could solve 24 - 6 = 18.

9. Is it your opinion that the average ten-year-old child would have
been more likely to have correctly identified the locations of these two
wounds than Dr. Perry? If your answer is "yes"...please make a video of
yourself stopping at least ten people at random on any street in any
city or town in any English-speaking country in the world and asking
them if a ten-year-old child is better at anatomy than a doctor with a
medical degree. Please post this on Youtube and post the link in this
newsgroup.

My answer: I would rather walk on my own lips than make such a video,
since my credibility worldwide would instantly plummet, for obvious
reasons. Well, unless it was for a joke only. ;-)

10. Can you find the right half of the rear of your own head? If your
answer is "no," please make a video of yourself with at least nine other
persons of your choosing present where we can hear you making this claim
and also hear that there is no laughter in the background IN WHICH YOU
HAVE LEFT THE AUDIO INTACT AND UNFAKED. Please post this on Youtube and
post the link in this newsgroup so we can go see how many hits and
comments and likes and dislikes it gets.

My answer: worldwide, in any country, in any language, no one would be
able to make such a video in which laughter is not clearly audible
unless the video was rehearsed how ever many times it would take for
there to finally, at long last, be no laughter, and/or all nine other
participants were younger than three or so old as to be senile,
suffering from dementia, Alzheimer's, insane etc. meaning that they are
either too young or so mentally incompetent that they have no
understanding of the obvious humor of what you're doing in the video.
As for me, I will post no such video unless it is as an obvious joke or
parody only, and I won't do even that unless I say specifically in the
description that it is a joke or parody. I am superbly confident that
the majority of CTs and LNs worldwide would prefer to slit their own
wrists rather than make such a video in seriousness.



So much for the provable myth that I, of all people, mindlessly repeat
every conclusion of the WCR. I didn't do such a ridiculous thing even
when I first began posting here, in these two newsgroups, the civilized
newsgroup and the slum newsgroup (guess which is which) in 2002, and I
have not done it once in the thousands of articles I have posted here
since. I have supported CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL CONCLUSIONS ONLY of the WC,
sure. But all of them? Never.

Not even *before* I first posted here.

Research, aren't you the one who lives in Austin? I live in Huntsville.
I will be in Bastrop this weekend. Wanna get together for a beer? I'm
deadly serious.

[Research]

Thanks for you attention (-!) I think.

I do agree with you the Parkland doctors reported a much different wound
than the Dr. Humes. And that the WC claimed they were all wrong. One of
them, maybe. But all the Parkland doctors and nurses was a bit to much.
Humes had the Fox photo series as evidence. The Parkland doctors have never
produced any photos or x-rays. Of course there wasn't time. But even these
doctors should have known Kennedy wasn't going to live with these wounds. I
doubt if Kennedy was alive when he arrived. But the doctors were trying in
vain to revive him. And then the SS stole the body before anyone else could
make any exam of the body. So there is no evidence there was a back of the
skull wound. It is believable there was one. But knowing something and
proving it is two different things.

In the Fox photo, back of the skull is intact. As everyone already knows.
And it does show a wound. But not the blow out as decribed at Parkland. It
is a very small wound and only can be identified as scalp tissue hanging
out. Being referred to as the entrance wound, and the wound on Kennedy's
right skull as the exit wound. A straight through shot. It does seem
peculiar that an entrance wound and the scalp would be hanging out. Was
these pictures taken before the autopsy? Or did the Parkland doctors pull it
out when working on the body? Was this very small wound miscontrived as a
blow out wound? But where is the x-ray showing the small entrance wound?

[Sandy McCroskey]

I think your analogy (and the rest of this just beats people over the
head with the same stick) abstracts too much from the concrete
circumstances of the situation to which it is supposed to be relevant.


/sandy

[Robert Harris]

I explained the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw in the
BOH on 11/22/63 and in the autopsy photos, in my very first Youtube
presentation back in 2007. Over the years I made several other
presentations on the same subject.

A large piece of broken skull sitting at the upper rear of the head was
blown backward, ripping out scalp and hair from the upper-forward part
of the head, which folded back over part of its inner surface. The
damage can be easily seen in this blowup of Zapruder frame 337.

http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg

Since the skull piece remained attached to the scalp, it could be easily
pushed back into place, covering over and hiding much of the damage.
That is why the damage is not visible in the autopsy photos that the
Parkland doctors were shown.

Dr. Boswell fully corroborated my analysis in his testimony before the ARRB.

"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from
the remainder of the skull."

These are some of my presentations on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&feature=watch_response

and more recently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg




Robert Harris

[John King]

In article <50365f32$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I think your analogy (and the rest of this just beats people over the
> head with the same stick) abstracts too much from the concrete
> circumstances of the situation to which it is supposed to be relevant.

Perhaps, but it still articulates how silly some claims have been about
this matter.

[Anthony Marsh]

The problem is that you are not a fair arbiter. Even YOU can not
identify which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear."

> 2. If you stop people at random on the street and ask them to point to
> the back of their heads will they be more likely or less likely to point
> to the correct area? If your answer is "less likely," please explain in
> detail why you think so.
>
> My answer: I would think that the vast majority of people in every
> country, who speak any language, who are of any race, ethnicity,
> culture, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, religious
> belief, and age of at least ten, would point to the correct part of
> their head, if the word for "back" or "rear" in whatever language they
> speak was used in the request.
>

No. How could they when even YOU can't?
Have you ever looked at the photos of the Parkland personnel putting
their hand on their heads which Groden published?

> 3. True or false: An adult with years of medical training is even more
> likely to correctly identify any part of a person's head, no matter what
> part that is, than the average ten-year-old child or random person on
> the street. If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you
> think it's false.
>
> My answer: true, *obviously*.

Obviously false. Most ER doctors can not tell if a bullet wound is an
entrance or an exit. The autopsy doctors could not even see the bullet
hole on the forehead.

>
> 4. True or false: The Parkland medical personnel were giving their
> professional opinions on the locations of President Kennedy�s wounds,
> which is normally considered more reliable than a lay person�s opinion.
> If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you think the
> answer is false.
>
> My answer: true, *obviously*
>

Obviously false. The Parkland medical personnel had no experience with
rifle wounds.

> 5. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, but
> also others who saw JFK at Parkland such as the SS agents, and would
> also include Clint Hill who saw JFK's wounds before Parkland, were all
> mistaken about seeing a hole in the back of his head, where on his head
> was the correct location of that hole, which they mistakenly identified
> as being in the back or rear? Please explain your answer in detail.
>
> My answer: the likelihood of that many witnesses who were all older than
> ten being mistaken is so astronomically low as to be unworthy of serious
> consideration.
>

So, what is your explanation for them drawing holes on the back of the
head (assuming you know what "back" means) on the ARRB drawings?
How about the fact that they were threatened?

> 6. If you believe them to have been mistaken about where on his head the
> hole was, why do you think that this many of them would make this same
> mistake? Please explain your answer in detail.
>

Which hole?

> My answer: it would be considered implausible by most humans worldwide
> that this many people older than ten could possibly be mistaken,
> especially when a smaller number of people of any age specifically
> disputed them.
>

Why do you insult children by saying that they must be older than 10 to
know the difference between front and back?

> 7. If, however, just for the sake of argument, there really was a hole
> in the right rear of JFK's head, AND his head was turned somewhat to the
> left while on the operating table, would witnesses be able to see the
> hole? If your answer is "no" please explain in detail why they couldn't.
>
> My answer: if the hole was practically *anywhere* in the right half of
> the rear half of his head, it would be absurdly, plainly, and
> horrifyingly visible to any human of any age with even average eyesight,
> even with the person lying supine upon any flat surface, as any human
> can easily demonstrate on Youtube and I sure as hell can.
>

Except for the simple fact that YOU can't see this alleged hole in the
first earliest autopsy photos because it was covered by matted hair and
extrude brain matter and clotted blood.

> 8. If there really was a hole in the right rear of JFK�s head whose
> margins extended a little way into the right side of his head, then even
> if his head was not turned to the right or left but was directly face-up
> would witnesses be able to see any portion of the hole? If your answer
> is "no," please explain in detail why.
>
> My answer: exactly the same as my answer to #7 without the slightest
> difference in meaning or wording.
>

Again, WHEN are they supposed to see this alleged hole? Before or after
it was packed with gauze. When you see a pot hole that has been repaired
you can tell there was a hole there, but you don't actually see the hole
because it has been filled in.

> 9. When the "back door" in the head was open, there was a hole in the
> back of the head. When the "back door" in the head was closed, there was
> no hole in the back of the head. Do you understand this concept? If your
> answer is "no," please explain in detail what it is about this concept
> that you don't understand.
>
> My answer: if the hole was created by a displacement of fractured, but
> not missing, bone, in combination with a tear in the scalp, but
> otherwise with no scalp or hair missing in that area, then this concept
> is absurdly easy to understand.
>

Just because YOU are not smart enough to see it does not prove that
there was never any hole there. You can tell where the pot hole was, but
after it is filled in you can't see it anymore.

> 10. Do you think the average ten-year-old child would be able to
> understand the concept expressed in question 9 above? If your answer is
> "no," please explain in detail why you believe this.
>

Again, what is it that you have against 10-year-old children?

> My answer: this time it might take a bit of explaining to the average
> ten-year-old, but I rather doubt that the majority of them could not
> eventually understand it. And the average person who is at least twenty
> has no legitimate excuse not to understand it.
>

Maybe they were ordered not to understand it.

> QUESTIONNAIRE #2
>
> The name of Dr. Malcolm Perry has, of course, become well-known since
> 1963, as he was the doctor who performed a tracheotomy across a bullet
> wound in JFK's throat. Of that wound he said this to the WC:
> "I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior
> lateral right side."
> In lay terms, a bit to the right (JFK's right) of the windpipe.
> But that was not the only wound he noticed. He also made these two
> statements to the WC:
> "Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound
> on the right posterior cranium."
> "I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in
> which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe
> laceration of underlying brain tissue."
> Now, there has been some disagreement over the years (and "some" might
> be putting it mildly) about the usage of "occipital" in this and other
> statements made by various Parkland personnel.

The inclusion of two distinctly different areas indicate a large wound
which extended into both.

> But Perry here was plain that, whether or not he was correct about
> "occipital," he described this as well as being a "right posterior"
> wound, in other words, "right rear," and also was plain about being able
> to see brain tissue, indicating that in fact he was claiming this to be
> an actual opening in the cranium or skull.

Most people can not correctly diagram exactly where the occipital bone
is. Some people use the word "occipital" to refer to anything on the
back or rear of the head.

> Since 1963 there has been just a tiny (!) bit of debate among the
> erudite scholars of the assassination as to whether or not Perry and
> c.40 other people who saw JFK's head wounding at any time at Parkland
> and Bethesda prior to the beginning of the process at the autopsy of
> peeling away hair and scalp. The debate is whether or not all these
> people were "mistaken" about a major wound, or opening, or hole anywhere
> remotely close to the "right rear" of JFK's head. The following
> questions are therefore respectfully and humbly offered to you so that
> you may
> demonstrate that your honest answers do not conflict in the slightest
> with your own stated position on this matter, whatever that position may
> be.
>
> 1. In your opinion did Dr. Perry correctly identify the location of the
> throat wound? If your answer is "no," please explain in detail why you
> think not.
>
> My answer: he did indeed correctly identify the location of that wound,
> which even the majority of CTs ***AND*** LNs worldwide freely admit, no
> matter what language(s) they read/speak, and no matter what country they
> live in.
>

He was not asked to be precise. For example the size of the hole was not
measured. This was an ER not an autopsy. So lots of people guessed at
the size. My question which you dare not answer is how the tiny trache
incision became the gaping hole photographed at autopsy.
And no, I am not looking for the Paul Krassner explanation.

> 2. In your opinion, did Dr. Perry know where the front of a human throat
> or neck is, at least in general terms? If your answer is "no," please
> explain in detail why you think not.
>
> My answer: I'd be astonished if he didn't. ;-)
>

I'd suggest that you read the Crenshaw book. Perry was a competent ER
surgeon, but he was not a forensic pathologist. His theory was that the
bullet entered the throat, bounced off a vertebra and exited the top of
the head.

> 3. In your opinion, did Dr. Perry probably know where the back of a
> human neck is, at least in general terms? If your answer is "no," please
> explain in detail why you think not.
>
> My answer: yes, how couldn't he know?
>

How could the WC not know the difference between the upper back and the
back of the neck? How could McAdams not know the difference between
ABOVE and BELOW? Yeah, I know your answer: McAdams is not smarter than a
fifth grader.
Out of 20 college students only 1 did not know the difference between
ABOVE and BELOW. Almost every WC here does not know the difference
between ABOVE and BELOW.

> 4. True or false: the average ten-year-old child, without a day of
> medical training, can identify which part of a person's neck is the
> "front" and which part is the "back" without the slightest possibility
> of being even slightly mistaken. If your answer is "false," please
> explain in detail why you think not.
>
> My answer: no matter what language the child understands, whenever the
> words for "front of the neck" and "back of the neck" are used in that
> language, more than 50% (more than 50% is called a "majority" in
> English) will correctly identify the right part of the neck without the
> slightest possibility of being slightly mistaken.
>

I think you mean plurality, not majority. 30% will not know what a neck is.
The WC did not know what a neck is. The vast majority of WC defenders
here do not know what a neck is.

> 5. Do you believe Dr. Perry to have been more than ten years old in
> 1963? If your answer is "no"...well, you know the drill by now.
>

Ever see that TV show Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Sarah Palin lost because she answered that the Earth is flat.

> My answer: according to Wikipedia (I have taught numerous children
> *younger* than ten who knew what "Wikipedia" is before I told them) Dr.
> Perry was born on September 3, 1929, and if that is true, he would have
> been "just a bit older" than ten in 1963.
>

You believe everything on Wikipedia? Even 2-year-olds are smarter.

> 6. Do you believe Dr. Perry to have had at least one day of medical
> training in his life prior to 11- 22-63? If your answer is
> "no"...lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> My answer: as medical training in the United States (the country that
> appears to be the country of Dr. Perry's residence) typically lasts more
> than one day in most cases, I would be inclined to answer yes. That
> thing called "Wikipedia" sez that Perry received his medical training at
> the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which is also said
> on the same "Wikipedia" to be "one of the leading medical school [sic]
> and biomedical research institutions in the United States and the
> flagship medical school of the University of Texas System." Since I
> suspect that it takes longer than 24 hours to attain a medical degree
> there, I am superbly confident that his total time there lasted at least
> one hour longer, if not much more so, thus more than one day. ;-)
>

Did you find any reference to training in forensic pathology?

> 7. If Dr. Perry had not known where the front of the throat is, would he
> have made the incision for the tracheotomy in the right place? If your
> answer is "yes"...explain.
>

How do you as a lay person defind "right place." He had to make the
incision on the bullet wound. He had no choice even if it wasn't what
you call "the right place."

> My answer: no. I base this on the fact that I have yet to come across
> any credible evidence that Dr. Perry was sued for malpractice in regard
> to any tracheotomy, in a lawsuit that he lost, and was most definitely
> not sued by the Kennedy family for this particular tracheotomy, meaning
> that the family did not sue him for performing the tracheotomy on the
> back of JFK's neck instead of the front. Your mileage may vary.
>

How many of his tracheotomies involved bullet holes in the throat?

> 8. Is it plausible to you that Dr. Perry would correctly identify the
> location of a wound on the front of the throat just to the right of the
> trachea, but did not know where the right rear or the left rear of a
> human head is? If your answer is "yes," you'll be needing to explain
> that one.
>

Why did McClelland say the entrance wound was on the LEFT side of the head?

> My answer: no, it is not at all plausible to me, and it would not have
> been plausible to me forty-four years ago when I was ten, nor is it
> plausible to me today, even without me having received a day of medical
> training in my life, other than one CPR course that lasted six hours,
> which I think most humans worldwide agree is far less than a day, which
> is twenty-four hours. Most of my ten-year-old students in my 29 years
> of teaching could solve 24 - 6 = 18.
>
> 9. Is it your opinion that the average ten-year-old child would have
> been more likely to have correctly identified the locations of these two
> wounds than Dr. Perry? If your answer is "yes"...please make a video of
> yourself stopping at least ten people at random on any street in any
> city or town in any English-speaking country in the world and asking
> them if a ten-year-old child is better at anatomy than a doctor with a
> medical degree. Please post this on Youtube and post the link in this
> newsgroup.
>

What was the name of that TV show? Dookie Houser?

> My answer: I would rather walk on my own lips than make such a video,
> since my credibility worldwide would instantly plummet, for obvious
> reasons. Well, unless it was for a joke only. ;-)
>
> 10. Can you find the right half of the rear of your own head? If your
> answer is "no," please make a video of yourself with at least nine other
> persons of your choosing present where we can hear you making this claim
> and also hear that there is no laughter in the background IN WHICH YOU
> HAVE LEFT THE AUDIO INTACT AND UNFAKED. Please post this on Youtube and
> post the link in this newsgroup so we can go see how many hits and
> comments and likes and dislikes it gets.
>
> My answer: worldwide, in any country, in any language, no one would be
> able to make such a video in which laughter is not clearly audible
> unless the video was rehearsed how ever many times it would take for
> there to finally, at long last, be no laughter, and/or all nine other
> participants were younger than three or so old as to be senile,
> suffering from dementia, Alzheimer's, insane etc. meaning that they are
> either too young or so mentally incompetent that they have no
> understanding of the obvious humor of what you're doing in the video.
> As for me, I will post no such video unless it is as an obvious joke or
> parody only, and I won't do even that unless I say specifically in the
> description that it is a joke or parody. I am superbly confident that
> the majority of CTs and LNs worldwide would prefer to slit their own
> wrists rather than make such a video in seriousness.
>
>

Take a plastic skull out and select people at random. Give them a dry
erase marker and ask them to draw the outline of the occipital bone.
Upload your results here.

>
> So much for the provable myth that I, of all people, mindlessly repeat
> every conclusion of the WCR. I didn't do such a ridiculous thing even
> when I first began posting here, in these two newsgroups, the civilized
> newsgroup and the slum newsgroup (guess which is which) in 2002, and I
> have not done it once in the thousands of articles I have posted here
> since. I have supported CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL CONCLUSIONS ONLY of the WC,
> sure. But all of them? Never.
>

WC defenders are constantly required to modify and upgrade the WC myths
because the WC was so vague and covered up so much. So it is not so much
a case of WC defenders defending the Warren Commission because most have
not even read it, but more that they defend the myths created by other
WC defenders who are just as much in the dark.

> Not even *before* I first posted here.
>
> Research, aren't you the one who lives in Austin? I live in Huntsville.
> I will be in Bastrop this weekend. Wanna get together for a beer? I'm
> deadly serious.
>

Emphasis on the word "deadly."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/23/2012 4:05 PM, Research wrote:
> Thanks for you attention (-!) I think.
>
> I do agree with you the Parkland doctors reported a much different wound
> than the Dr. Humes. And that the WC claimed they were all wrong. One of
> them, maybe. But all the Parkland doctors and nurses was a bit to much.
> Humes had the Fox photo series as evidence. The Parkland doctors have never

Humes did not have the Fox photo set. He didn't see it for 4 years.

> produced any photos or x-rays. Of course there wasn't time. But even these
> doctors should have known Kennedy wasn't going to live with these wounds. I
> doubt if Kennedy was alive when he arrived. But the doctors were trying in
> vain to revive him. And then the SS stole the body before anyone else could
> make any exam of the body. So there is no evidence there was a back of the
> skull wound. It is believable there was one. But knowing something and
> proving it is two different things.
>

So close, but just slightly off.
They had time to prepare the body for shipping.
No cameras were allowed. No one took photographs of Connally in the ER.
We only have X-rays because they were looking for bullets to collect as
evidence.

> In the Fox photo, back of the skull is intact. As everyone already knows.
> And it does show a wound. But not the blow out as decribed at Parkland. It
> is a very small wound and only can be identified as scalp tissue hanging

There is no scalp tissue hanging out. What are you smoking? Please stop
inhaling.

> out. Being referred to as the entrance wound, and the wound on Kennedy's
> right skull as the exit wound. A straight through shot. It does seem
> peculiar that an entrance wound and the scalp would be hanging out. Was
> these pictures taken before the autopsy? Or did the Parkland doctors pull it

Which photos? Some autopsy photos were taken before the doctors started
examining the body.

> out when working on the body? Was this very small wound miscontrived as a
> blow out wound? But where is the x-ray showing the small entrance wound?
>

What wound? There is no wound on any kind on the back of the head.

>
>
>

[John King]

In article <5036...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for you attention (-!) I think.

And thank you for your reasonable reply.

> I do agree with you the Parkland doctors reported a much different wound
> than the Dr. Humes.

Well, sort of. I think that Humes did at least obliquely hint at its
existence, or at least it could be interpreted that way, but there may
never be a consensus on that. But one plausible explanation for the
lack of a clearer description of this rear hole, and also the lack of
clear photographic documentation of it, might simply be that at the time
the autopsists would have had no way of knowing that so many witnesses
would claim that it was there. Even by the time they testified for the
WC they might not have known about many these witness statements, as the
WC was still in the process of collecting those statements, and they
would not be published until later, after all of the testimony had been
taken. In other words, at the time the autopsists would have no way of
knowing that all this would turn into such a controversy in subsequent
years and decades. At the autopsy they would have been primarily
concerned with documenting the most major damage to the head, such as
where skull was actually missing and completely blasted out, and
documenting what they believed to be the bullet entry. The back of the
skull, while certainly damaged to some extent, was not nearly as badly
damaged as more forward portions of the skull. Then there are of course
the by now famous (or infamous :P ) photos of the back of JFK's head in
which Boswell's hand is shown holding up the head, and for the purpose
of showing where they believed the entry wound in his scalp was, but not
showing the hole in the skull described by witnesses. Again here, there
is a non-sinister possibility that it simply didn't occur to them to
document that hole, since it would have consisted of more minor damage
to the skull than the much more horrific forward damage, and so they
merely concentrated on showing the bullet entry in the scalp, and what
Boswell was doing was simply holding the scalp in place, covering where
that hole would have been, stretching it even to some extent, to
document the much smaller entry hole in the scalp. Again, they would
not necessarily at the time have had any possible way of knowing, or
even suspecting, that a year later this would start to develop into such
a controversy over their failure to photograph the hole in the rear that
the witnesses described.

> And that the WC claimed they were all wrong.

Well, now, actually, I do not recall any specific statement by the WC on
this matter, such as something like this:

"Some witnesses reported seeing an obvious hole in the rear of the
President's head at Parkland Hospital, but as no such hole was described
at the autopsy, the Commission believes that these witnesses are
mistaken."

I am looking right now as I type this article through the Report in all
the sections that seem to me as if they might contain such a statement,
"Appendix VIII - Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial
Hospital, Dallas, Texas," "Appendix IV - Autopsy Report and Supplemental
Report," and "Appendix XII - Speculations and Rumors," and I am unable
to find any statement that comes even remotely close to that. It seems
to me that probably the WC simply didn't address the issue at all, or
not very directly. What reasons there might have been for that are pure
speculation. I suppose it's possible that it an intentional coverup of
this issue, but it could instead be for a similar reason as what I gave
above for the autopsists: the Commission also would have no possible way
of knowing at this time that there would later be such a controversy
over this. It was only after the Report was written and published,
along with all the other volumes of testimony, that people began reading
the testimony and started to notice that there were an awfully large
number of witnesses saying they had seen a major hole in the back of his
head, quite a few of them giving the additional detail that one could
see his brain through the hole.

> One of
> them, maybe. But all the Parkland doctors and nurses was a bit to much.

I agree. And it wasn't just the Parkland doctors and nurses. It was
also people like Clint Hill, the SS agent who ran up and jumped on the
trunk of the limousine, pushing Jackie back in her seat, and who then
pulled himself forward so that he could look down in the seat and see
JFK's ruined head in her lap, and he described immediately noticing an
obvious hole in the rear of his head. And he was the first person to
see JFK's damaged head up close except for Jackie. If I remember
correctly, when they reached Parkland, but before JFK was taken inside
the hospital, Will Greer, the driver of the limousine, and Roy
Kellerman, the SS agent who sat beside him in the front passenger's
seat, both noticed the rear hole as well. What I find interesting about
these three men is that they *also* saw JFK's body when it was brought
to the autopsy at Bethesda, and they *again* noticed that rear hole
*before* the autopsists began their work. In addition, there were other
people present at Bethesda who saw the body besides the three SS agents
and the autopsists, and most of *them* said the hole indeed was there
too. In all, if I am recalling correctly, the total number of witnesses
who saw JFK's head at any time between when the shot hit his head, and
the moment his coffin was closed for the last time who said there was
such a hole numbers approximately *forty* people, with a far fewer
number of those people claiming that they had not noticed such a hole,
or making no mention of it in their statements.

The hole was *obviously* there. There are simply far, far, far too many
witnesses saying it was there, and far too few specifically disputing
them for it to be at all plausible that there was no such hole.

I hope you are finally clear that I am *not* a person who agrees with
100% of the conclusions reached by the WC. I do not, not by a long
shot. I will freely admit that I do agree with *some* of their
conclusions, but all of them? No. And I feel that this is possibly the
most serious flaw of all in their investigation of this assassination.
Whether intentional or unintentional, this is an issue that they
*should* have resolved, and perhaps *could* have resolved conclusively
had they tried hard enough. And had they done so, it might have been
that this whole controversy would have never arisen in the first place,
or that it would at least be less of a controversy than it is today.
Sadly, they apparently did not even try to resolve it.

And as far as I know neither did the later HSCA investigation, and they
had far less excuse. By then it was well-known that most witnesses had
said there was a hole in the rear of his head. I have not studied the
HSCA nearly as much as I've studied the WC, so I suppose I could be
wrong about that, but I doubt it, because had they adequately resolved
it the same thing would be the case today: it would be less of a
controversy than it still is.

> Humes had the Fox photo series as evidence. The Parkland doctors have never
> produced any photos or x-rays. Of course there wasn't time.

Correct, and that wasn't their job anyway. Their role was to do
everything they could to save the President's life, futile as it was.
The moment he was pronounced dead, that role ended. It was not
otherwise their job to document his wounds.

> But even these
> doctors should have known Kennedy wasn't going to live with these wounds. I
> doubt if Kennedy was alive when he arrived.

Well, he was still *technically* alive, because they were still able to
get a pulse, but it was obvious from the beginning that he was not going
to survive. Nevertheless they did their job and did everything that
could be done to save him.

> But the doctors were trying in
> vain to revive him. And then the SS stole the body before anyone else could
> make any exam of the body.

Well, I hope you understand the full circumstances of that. The SS did
not take that decision upon themselves. Kenny O'Donnell, one of JFK's
closest friends and aides testified that he gave the actual order to
have the body taken to Air Force One, instead of leaving the body in
Texas for an autopsy, even though that was technically a violation of
Texas law, and of course that resulted in the famous scuffle between the
SS agents who were carrying out O'Donnell's instructions and the Texas
officials who were (correctly) insisting that by Texas law the body had
to remain in Texas until after an autopsy was performed. This, at
least, the Report does acknowledge:

"After the President was pronounced dead, O'Donnell tried to persuade
Mrs. Kennedy to leave the area, but she refused. She said that she
intended to stay with her husband. A casket was obtained and the
President's body was prepared for removal. Before the body could be
taken from the hospital, two Dallas officials informed members of the
President's start that the body could not be removed from the city until
an autopsy was performed. Despite the protests of these officials, the
casket was wheeled out of the hospital, placed in an ambulance, and
transported to the airport shortly after 2 p.m."

I remember that I was quite surprised when in 2002 I first came across
O'Donnell's statement in his testimony that he had ordered the removal
of the body, because no mention of this had been made in any of the
books about the assassination that I had read up to that time. (This
was one of the many things that caused me to never again trust any book
that has ever been written about the assassination, whether it is
conspiracy oriented or lone nut oriented.) People have of course
suggested that O'Donnell could not possibly have made this decision on
his own authority but that instead he was acting on orders from higher
up, because of the additional circumstances of LBJ supposedly refusing
to leave Dallas without Mrs. Kennedy, and Mrs. Kennedy herself refusing
to leave Dallas without her husband's body.

But I remain unconvinced. I am again reading O'Donnell's testimony now
as I am typing this article, which you can see for yourself here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm

It's quite long, and the part I'm talking about is about three-fourths
to four-fifths of the way down the page. This is where he explains in
detail why he came to the decision to have the President's body removed,
even after he was told that it violated Texas law. I continue to find
it an interesting read. He makes no mention of being told by anyone
else, such as LBJ, to give this order to remove the body from Texas
before the autopsy. That, of course, does not automatically mean that
he was revealing the full truth here; he may well not have been. But he
is giving what I feel to be a plausible, and non-sinister, explanation
for the decision. For example I see him saying that he was not at all
clear how long a Dallas autopsy would take and thus how long they might
all have to wait for it to be concluded, and I see him saying that he
was under the impression at the time that it might take more than
twenty-four hours (I even see him saying at one point the word "week"!)
for the local authorities to release the body to be returned to
Washington, and to that matter he also said here, "I realized we were
talking not about hours, but perhaps even days, which was an impossible
situation for Mrs. Kennedy." A few lines farther down these are his
exact words:

"I in my own mind determined that we had no alternative but to just
depart."

Also quite a few lines farther up O'Donnell describes his conversation
with LBJ just after Kennedy was declared dead, and claims that Johnson
said to him, "I am in your hands now," as if Johnson was leaving these
decisions to O'Donnell.

Again, I freely admit that O'Donnell might simply have not revealed the
whole truth, and that he did not make this decision on his own.
However, it is also possible that he did, and this whole matter of there
being a more sinister explanation for the abrupt removal of the body
from Dallas, against Texas law, might just be another of the many myths
that have grown up around the assassination during the past 48+ years.

> So there is no evidence there was a back of the
> skull wound.

There's plenty of evidence for it, actually. ;-) I have given only a
small amount of it here. I have given much more of it in past articles,
most especially in a very long article that I posted in both of these
newsgroups, of more than 1000 lines, on August 10 of last year.
Curiously, not one person, CT or LN ever replied to that article in
either newsgroup, which is confirmed by looking at it, and the thread it
was posted in, on the Google archives, which I have just confirmed
today. In fact, one poster in the thread claimed that I had not made
very convincing arguments to support my position. When I told him that
I had just posted a *very* long article in reply to him which I felt
*did* more adequately support my position, and that he had not yet
replied to it, even though he had replied to several much shorter
articles by me in the same thread, he abruptly fell silent, and not only
never replied to the long article or anywhere else even addressed the
majority of points made in it, and did not even reply to my shorter
article in which I had told him about the longer article, or acknowledge
in any way, shape, or form, that I had told him about it.

Curious. ;-)

Again, this can all still be seen today on the Google Groups archives.

Less than a month later my computer crashed, and it turned out to be
unsalvageable, and it took me another month after that before I was able
to buy another computer, which is part of the reason for my long absence
from this newsgroup starting in early September of last year, and I was
additionally in Bastrop, Tx visiting friends on the day that horrible
fire started and we were forced to evacuate. My computer died the day
after I got home, just when I was desperately trying to find out more
news about the fire on the Internet, so that complicated matters still
further. It also took more than three weeks to find someone who could
retrieve my files off the hard drive of the computer for a price that I
could afford (the first price that was quoted to me was $1400!) so that
was yet another complication. But as it turned out I had indeed saved
that article, and only today did I notice that I still had it, and using
the Message-ID I found it today on the Google archives.

I think I need to repost it here very soon, and we'll see if we can't
get some discussion of it this time. The Subject should probably be
this:

"The BOH Hole: The Second Discrepancy That Wasn't."

You may wish to look for that soon, possibly as early as tomorrow. ;-)

> It is believable there was one.

It is quite believable, and to my mind a virtual certainty.

> But knowing something and
> proving it is two different things.

Actually I think it can come very, very, very close to being proven
conclusively. It badly needs to be done. For close to half a century
the public had labored under some vary serious misconceptions about this
matter, and a much more plausible explanation than has ever been given
before very badly needs to be reported in the mainstream media. This
has been compounded by the fact that the majority of LNs have made some
terribly incorrect assumptions about this, and the majority of CTs have
also made some terribly incorrect assumptions in a different direction.

> In the Fox photo, back of the skull is intact. As everyone already knows.
> And it does show a wound. But not the blow out as decribed at Parkland. It
> is a very small wound and only can be identified as scalp tissue hanging
> out. Being referred to as the entrance wound, and the wound on Kennedy's
> right skull as the exit wound. A straight through shot. It does seem
> peculiar that an entrance wound and the scalp would be hanging out. Was
> these pictures taken before the autopsy? Or did the Parkland doctors pull it
> out when working on the body? Was this very small wound miscontrived as a
> blow out wound? But where is the x-ray showing the small entrance wound?

Ah, now there you're putting your finger on it, and this is all part of
the evidence that could indeed prove firmly that the BOH (back of head)
hole was most definitely there. Several posters here have taken a long
look at exactly when each of these photos and x-rays were taken in the
course of the autopsy, and the timing of these may well be crucial in
resolving this issue at long last. One of these posters whose work I
pay close attention to on this issue is John Canal, who has suggested
that the BOH photos which don't show this hole were taken very late in
the autopsy, and he has discussed extensively why he believes this. I
myself have suggested (including in that long August 10, 2011 article
which everyone ignored and/or for some strange reason "didn't see," even
though they saw all my shorter articles in the same thread) that these
were the final photos ever taken of President Kennedy alive or dead.

Let me make it clear: the resolution of *exactly* how early or late in
the autopsy those *particular* photos were taken, those photos above all
others, may indeed be the key to resolving this controversy at long
last. In my experience, the vast majority of CTs and LNs alike have no
clue about this or why it should be.

[John Canal]

In article <_-KdnSe06vqnNKvNn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
says...

>
>I explained the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw in the
>BOH on 11/22/63 and in the autopsy photos, in my very first Youtube
>presentation back in 2007. Over the years I made several other
>presentations on the same subject.

I resent, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does, you saying you
"explained" that discrepacy...it's like gee, duh, thanks Robert for
straightening us dummies out.

Poor choice of words, i.e. "explained"....no, Robert, what you put on that
Youtube presentation was your opinion....and opinions are like ____,
everyone has one...and your is no better than the next...IMO.

>A large piece of broken skull sitting at the upper rear of the head was
>blown backward,

So, the exiting bullet blew back/open this piece of skull, but did not
leave a beveled out semi-circular or circular defect, much less a defect
with metallic residure on it (you know Robert, similar to the only real
exit that was found...near the coronal suture)?

>ripping out scalp and hair from the upper-forward part
>of the head, which folded back over part of its inner surface. The
>damage can be easily seen in this blowup of Zapruder frame 337.

Oh, now the Z-film shows that blown-back piece of skull, eh? My oh my how
you're able to see such things.....like magic.

>http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>
>Since the skull piece remained attached to the scalp, it could be easily
>pushed back into place,

Was that the skull piece with no beveled out semi-circular or circular
defect (with no metallic resideue around it) in it? That one?

>covering over and hiding much of the damage.
>That is why the damage is not visible in the autopsy photos that the
>Parkland doctors were shown.

And you really think that photo shows the state of JFK's BOH when the body
was first received?

How do you know that? More magic?

>Dr. Boswell fully corroborated my analysis in his testimony before the ARRB.

He did no such thing?

>"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
>posterior to right anterior.

Look at the BOH photos...see the entry wound? By the time that photo was
taken the scalp had been held back, but not in its original place. By the
time they took that photo, their own entry was shifted from 2.5 cm right
of midline to what the photo shows...slightly left of midline....(because
the entire scalp was not being held back in its original position).

Now look close...there's a laceration (closed by the time of the photo)
extending from that entry...that's the laceration Boswell was referring to
(do you see any others in the BOH scalp?)...which is why he said it began
on the left side. IOW, he'd see the photos by the time he testified before
the ARRB and made that testimony comport with the photo...he'd have been
nuts if he didn't.

Fast reverse back to 11-22-63--the entry on the body was 2.5 cm right of
midline, just like they reported and just like F8 shows.....and again that
laceration he was talking about started on the right....like the photo
shows it started at the entry which was 2.5 cm right of midline...on the
body!

>The scalp was separated, but it was folded
>over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound.

Sure the BOH scalp was not badly damaged, just lacerated...and he was
correct it was eventually folded back over the missing skull (the pieces
that fell out when they removed the brain)....just like he
testified....the bone behind the scalp in the photo was missing down to
the base of the ear.

>When
>you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
>there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from
>the remainder of the skull."

Why didn't you mention that he recalled it was "some of these smaller
skull pieces down at the base of the drawing" that he replaced....he
didn't say pieces in the top/rear/left!

>These are some of my presentations on the subject:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&feature=watch_response
>
>and more recently
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg

And here's the biggest hole in your "explanation".....there was no
channel-like laceration through the brain found that even comes close to
being consistent with your imaginary bullet track that exited the top left
rear of his head...none...zilcho...nada!!!

There was only one such laceration an they reported it bagan t the tip of
the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe.

An where did the bullet fragments go that pushed back your top/left/rear
skull piece (not to mention a missing entry defect in the skull)?

Ice bullet? Vanishing bullet? Vaporizing one?

With no channel-like laceration to your exit, no bullet fragments found
behind JFK, and no exit defect in the skull there, your theory would be
much better named, the "Dog Ate My Homework" theory?

And, again, note I didn't say "explanation", I said theory, such as it
is...and that's being incredibly generous, IMO.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <caeruleo-9F8A5C...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John King
says...

Thanks for the kind words.

>who has suggested
>that the BOH photos which don't show this hole were taken very late in
>the autopsy, and he has discussed extensively why he believes this.

As I've posted here, if it can be proved (and it can and will be some day)
that, as reported by the autopsists and other eyewitnesses, the entry was
near the EOP (typically about 2-2.5 inches above ones hairline).....then
the only feasible explanaton for the entry in the scalp (as seen in the
BOH photos) to be roughly six inches above his hairline (near the
cowlick)..........is that the scalp was stretched...just like they
testified it was.


IOW, the relatively undamaged rear scalp was stretched (in preparation for
a possible open-casket funeral) to cover up the severely damaged/missing
part of his head in the top/right/front...and as an unintended cosequence
the entry hole in the scalp was moved up (before the photo was
taken)....creating one of the most argued about controversies in this
case.

Again, the photo was taken after the scalp was stretched.

>I
>myself have suggested (including in that long August 10, 2011 article
>which everyone ignored and/or for some strange reason "didn't see," even
>though they saw all my shorter articles in the same thread) that these
>were the final photos ever taken of President Kennedy alive or dead.
>
>Let me make it clear: the resolution of *exactly* how early or late in
>the autopsy those *particular* photos were taken, those photos above all
>others, may indeed be the key to resolving this controversy at long
>last. In my experience, the vast majority of CTs and LNs alike have no
>clue about this or why it should be.

Like they say, "It's all over but the shoutin".

Patience...this contoversy has gone on for decades...it'll be settled soon
enough...I just hope I'm around to see certain otherwise highly
intelligent individuals [can I call them Badenites ?] eat crow.

:-)

John Canal


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

I should have added that before the scalp was stretched a large laceration
that extended from the entry forward had to be sutured closed.

One can see that laceration (shown closed in the BOH photos) extending
from the entry in the scalp that was once (pre-stretching) down near the
EOP...as shown in F8.

It certainly wouldn't have made any sense to try to stretch the rear scalp
without closing that laceration.

The larger BOH wound (besides the entry) that the PH docs saw was surely a
result of the brain/cerebellum being exposed through a right/rear BOH
hole.

One, PH doctor, Grossman, saw the rear entry as well as cerebellum.

In any case, this hole was undoubtedly caused by the rear entering bullet
shattering the right/rear skull and dislodging one or two of those loose
bone fragments as well as tearing the scalp there.

Those loose bone pieces were not blown out because the scalp held them
somewhat, albeit loosely, nearly in place....until the scalp was reflected
later that night to remove the brain...and that's when those pieces came
out or stuck to the underside of the scalp.

[Research]

"John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-9F8A5C...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

As a result of this post I went to the various sites to review the photo
evidence. The (entry) wound I referred to is exhibited in F8 and again in
BE4_HI. It is as massive as the Parkland personnel described. Some claimed
it to be as large as ones fist. But not in BE4_HI. It appears as a very
small piece of scalp at the base of the skull about 1 inch above the
hairline. It appears as a piece of scalp, protruding out of the hairline. To
me, it seems like it could have been an entrance wound. But if an entrance
wound, why would it be protruding outward? It definitely is something there
cause it is there in two different photos.
But not in the x-rays. I don't think anyone looking at the back of the head
could not see it. And why wasn't it x-rayed? The autopsy doctors had to
intentionally and purposely avoided this area. But I don't understand why?
If it were included, it would certainly support a rear shot. (as an Entrance
wound) Another dilemma. At the point of impact Kennedy's head was pitched
downward as in all the films. And would align the supposed entry and exit
wounds. But the WC selling the headwound as an exit wound doesn't make
sense, simply because there would have had to be an entrance wound. And the
autopsy doctors did not show one.
If an entrance wound, wouldn't it have done so much more damage? I mean the
SBT claims all those wounds. Another shot from the same rifle would make a
much larger entry wound, considering the velocity and the entire impact
pressure to a relatively thin skull bone? It just don't seem likely it could
be an entrance wound from a high powered rifle?

But even more importantly (to me) is that the x-rays do not match the
photos. The stare of death photo BE3_HI (we are familiar with) shows
Kennedy's face in tact and without any damage what-so-ever. But the x-ray
X-AP shows Kennedy's right forehead missing, along with most of the bone
surrounding just above Kennedy's right eye socket? And again in BE4_HI shows
the head (exit) wound to be on the side of the head just above the right ear
as in Zapruder. But Zapruder shows a much larger wound than shown as in
BE4_HI. None of the photos the Zapruder wound to be as sever as Zapruder.
How could the wound be so massive in Zapruder and so minor in the photos?

[Research]

When making that comment, Stringer might have been thinking of Lt. Cmdr.
William Bruce Pitzer, Chief of the
Educational Television Division of the Naval Medical School, Bethesda.
Pitzer was found dead in his office at
Bethesda on October 29th, 1966. The official conclusion was that he had
committed suicide by firing a gun
through his head, but his family and friends didn't believe this. In
addition to an entry wound in the right temple
and an exit wound behind his left ear, the autopsy revealed damage to the
skull in the left temple. The latter
damage suggests that Pitzer was knocked unconscious with a blow to his head,
and then killed by a shot through
his head.
Pitzer's death might very well have been related to the autopsy of President
Kennedy. Pitzer's friend Dennis
David (First Class Petty Officer at Bethesda Medical School) told ARRB that
3 or 4 days after Kennedy's autopsy
Lt. Cmdr. Pitzer had shown him portions of a black and white 16 mm movie
film, 35 mm color slides and black
and white prints from the autopsy. According to David, these photographic
images showed the following:

He said he witnessed only a short section of the film, which appeared to
show the President's body
during initial examinations, and before any incisions. He said the film was
clearly shot in the
morgue at Bethesda, but not from immediately adjacent to the autopsy table;
instead, it was shot
from a distance --either from the gallery, or from well back in the room.
[....] He said that the
motion picture film, although somewhat grainy, clearly showed a gaping wound

in the back of the

President's head, and that the top of the head looked intact. [....] Like
the color slides, he said these
prints "made it very clear that President Kennedy was hit from the front as
well as from the rear."
When I asked him what it was about the B&W prints, and color slides, which
made him say this, he
said that first, in both the B&W prints and color slides, he could see a
round or oval wound, about
one quarter to three-eighths of an inch in diameter, in the right front
temporal area of the
President's head, just below the hairline, which he immediately interpreted
as a bullet entry wound;
he also said that, just as in the movie film, there was a gaping hole in the
back of the head. When
asked, Mr. David clarified that the top of the head looked intact in these
photographs. He specified
that the print and color slide images were straight on, profile, and oblique
images of the upper torso

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/23/2012 10:12 PM, John King wrote:
> In article <5036...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for you attention (-!) I think.
>
> And thank you for your reasonable reply.
>
>> I do agree with you the Parkland doctors reported a much different wound
>> than the Dr. Humes.
>
> Well, sort of. I think that Humes did at least obliquely hint at its
> existence, or at least it could be interpreted that way, but there may
> never be a consensus on that. But one plausible explanation for the
> lack of a clearer description of this rear hole, and also the lack of
> clear photographic documentation of it, might simply be that at the time
> the autopsists would have had no way of knowing that so many witnesses
> would claim that it was there. Even by the time they testified for the

One possible explanation for the lack of clear documentation of a real
hole is that there was none. Humes never saw a hole on the back of the
head. What he saw was a dab of tissue on top of the hair, as proven by the
HSCA photographic panel by studying stereographic pairs. Humes saw that
tissue and ASSUMED it was brain tissue oozing out of the entrance wound.
This whole case is based on incompetence.

> WC they might not have known about many these witness statements, as the
> WC was still in the process of collecting those statements, and they
> would not be published until later, after all of the testimony had been
> taken. In other words, at the time the autopsists would have no way of
> knowing that all this would turn into such a controversy in subsequent
> years and decades. At the autopsy they would have been primarily
> concerned with documenting the most major damage to the head, such as
> where skull was actually missing and completely blasted out, and
> documenting what they believed to be the bullet entry. The back of the

The top of the skull fell apart into many pieces when they removed the
wrapping around the head.

> skull, while certainly damaged to some extent, was not nearly as badly
> damaged as more forward portions of the skull. Then there are of course
> the by now famous (or infamous :P ) photos of the back of JFK's head in
> which Boswell's hand is shown holding up the head, and for the purpose
> of showing where they believed the entry wound in his scalp was, but not
> showing the hole in the skull described by witnesses. Again here, there
> is a non-sinister possibility that it simply didn't occur to them to
> document that hole, since it would have consisted of more minor damage

They were too incompetent to document the hole they thought they saw. The
ONLY correct autopsy procedure is to SHAVE all the hair around the wound
and photograph it with a forensic ruler just above or below the hole.

> to the skull than the much more horrific forward damage, and so they
> merely concentrated on showing the bullet entry in the scalp, and what
> Boswell was doing was simply holding the scalp in place, covering where
> that hole would have been, stretching it even to some extent, to
> document the much smaller entry hole in the scalp. Again, they would
> not necessarily at the time have had any possible way of knowing, or

But we have a kook who says that Humes was trying to stretch the scalp to
move the hole up from the EOP to the cowlick area to get a trajectory from
the sniper's nest to line up.

> even suspecting, that a year later this would start to develop into such
> a controversy over their failure to photograph the hole in the rear that
> the witnesses described.
>

What hole? What witnesses described what hole where exactly?

>> And that the WC claimed they were all wrong.
>
> Well, now, actually, I do not recall any specific statement by the WC on
> this matter, such as something like this:
>
> "Some witnesses reported seeing an obvious hole in the rear of the
> President's head at Parkland Hospital, but as no such hole was described
> at the autopsy, the Commission believes that these witnesses are
> mistaken."
>

There you go, right there in black and white. The WC itself said that
there was NO HOLE on the back of President Kennedy's head. Case closed.

> I am looking right now as I type this article through the Report in all
> the sections that seem to me as if they might contain such a statement,
> "Appendix VIII - Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial
> Hospital, Dallas, Texas," "Appendix IV - Autopsy Report and Supplemental
> Report," and "Appendix XII - Speculations and Rumors," and I am unable
> to find any statement that comes even remotely close to that. It seems
> to me that probably the WC simply didn't address the issue at all, or
> not very directly. What reasons there might have been for that are pure
> speculation. I suppose it's possible that it an intentional coverup of
> this issue, but it could instead be for a similar reason as what I gave
> above for the autopsists: the Commission also would have no possible way
> of knowing at this time that there would later be such a controversy
> over this. It was only after the Report was written and published,

Maybe you just refused to read the internal WC memos where the lawyers
discuss this issue and point out that at some time in the future the
critics would point out the discrepancies.

> along with all the other volumes of testimony, that people began reading
> the testimony and started to notice that there were an awfully large
> number of witnesses saying they had seen a major hole in the back of his
> head, quite a few of them giving the additional detail that one could
> see his brain through the hole.

How many used the word "major"?
Look at the earliest autopsy photos. Can YOU see any hole? Can you see
the brain through any hole?
If there was no hole then what was the nurse stuffing all those gauze
strips into?

>
>> One of
>> them, maybe. But all the Parkland doctors and nurses was a bit to much.
>
> I agree. And it wasn't just the Parkland doctors and nurses. It was
> also people like Clint Hill, the SS agent who ran up and jumped on the
> trunk of the limousine, pushing Jackie back in her seat, and who then
> pulled himself forward so that he could look down in the seat and see
> JFK's ruined head in her lap, and he described immediately noticing an
> obvious hole in the rear of his head. And he was the first person to
> see JFK's damaged head up close except for Jackie. If I remember
> correctly, when they reached Parkland, but before JFK was taken inside
> the hospital, Will Greer, the driver of the limousine, and Roy
> Kellerman, the SS agent who sat beside him in the front passenger's
> seat, both noticed the rear hole as well. What I find interesting about

And what did Kellerman's drawing made for the ARRB look like? Why do you
never upload it so that the innocent reader can see what Kellerman said?
What are you trying to hide?

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/piks/kellerman_wound.jpg

Just for one second let's play devil's advocate and pretend the wound on
the back of the head is an exit wound. Now let's pretend to be stupid WC
defenders who say that an exit wound is always directly opposite the
entrance wound. So this exit wound on the LEFT REAR of the head would
indicate that the shot struck the RIGHT FRONT of the head.
Case Solved. But then we need Jacob Cohen to step in to claim that such
a frontal shot came from the sniper's nest when JFK turned around to
look back at the TSBD.

> these three men is that they *also* saw JFK's body when it was brought
> to the autopsy at Bethesda, and they *again* noticed that rear hole
> *before* the autopsists began their work. In addition, there were other
> people present at Bethesda who saw the body besides the three SS agents
> and the autopsists, and most of *them* said the hole indeed was there
> too. In all, if I am recalling correctly, the total number of witnesses
> who saw JFK's head at any time between when the shot hit his head, and
> the moment his coffin was closed for the last time who said there was
> such a hole numbers approximately *forty* people, with a far fewer
> number of those people claiming that they had not noticed such a hole,
> or making no mention of it in their statements.
>
> The hole was *obviously* there. There are simply far, far, far too many
> witnesses saying it was there, and far too few specifically disputing
> them for it to be at all plausible that there was no such hole.
>

That's right. You think that if a witness says something that makes it a
fact. That's why you've never gotten anywhere in this case.

> I hope you are finally clear that I am *not* a person who agrees with
> 100% of the conclusions reached by the WC. I do not, not by a long
> shot. I will freely admit that I do agree with *some* of their
> conclusions, but all of them? No. And I feel that this is possibly the

That's right. You will never freely admit anything. We have to
waterboard you to get you to admit your real name.

> most serious flaw of all in their investigation of this assassination.
> Whether intentional or unintentional, this is an issue that they
> *should* have resolved, and perhaps *could* have resolved conclusively
> had they tried hard enough. And had they done so, it might have been
> that this whole controversy would have never arisen in the first place,
> or that it would at least be less of a controversy than it is today.
> Sadly, they apparently did not even try to resolve it.
>

IMHO there would be absolutely no controversy about the autopsy if Dr.
Rose had been allowed to do the autopsy, if people had simply obeyed the
law. Earl just picks up the phone and asks Dr. Perry to come in and
document what he had done to try to save the President.

> And as far as I know neither did the later HSCA investigation, and they
> had far less excuse. By then it was well-known that most witnesses had
> said there was a hole in the rear of his head. I have not studied the
> HSCA nearly as much as I've studied the WC, so I suppose I could be
> wrong about that, but I doubt it, because had they adequately resolved
> it the same thing would be the case today: it would be less of a
> controversy than it still is.
>

You, wrong about anything? Say it ain't so, Joe.

>> Humes had the Fox photo series as evidence. The Parkland doctors have never
>> produced any photos or x-rays. Of course there wasn't time.
>
> Correct, and that wasn't their job anyway. Their role was to do
> everything they could to save the President's life, futile as it was.
> The moment he was pronounced dead, that role ended. It was not
> otherwise their job to document his wounds.
>

I am not sure, but wouldn't it be illegal in most states to do an
autopsy on a person while that person is still alive?

>> But even these
>> doctors should have known Kennedy wasn't going to live with these wounds. I
>> doubt if Kennedy was alive when he arrived.
>
> Well, he was still *technically* alive, because they were still able to
> get a pulse, but it was obvious from the beginning that he was not going
> to survive. Nevertheless they did their job and did everything that
> could be done to save him.
>

For the state of the science at that time.

>> But the doctors were trying in
>> vain to revive him. And then the SS stole the body before anyone else could
>> make any exam of the body.
>
> Well, I hope you understand the full circumstances of that. The SS did
> not take that decision upon themselves. Kenny O'Donnell, one of JFK's
> closest friends and aides testified that he gave the actual order to
> have the body taken to Air Force One, instead of leaving the body in
> Texas for an autopsy, even though that was technically a violation of
> Texas law, and of course that resulted in the famous scuffle between the
> SS agents who were carrying out O'Donnell's instructions and the Texas
> officials who were (correctly) insisting that by Texas law the body had
> to remain in Texas until after an autopsy was performed. This, at
> least, the Report does acknowledge:
>

So again we have yet another WC defender finally admitting that the
Secret Service obeyed the orders of a Presidential aide in place of
directly from the President.

> "After the President was pronounced dead, O'Donnell tried to persuade
> Mrs. Kennedy to leave the area, but she refused. She said that she
> intended to stay with her husband. A casket was obtained and the
> President's body was prepared for removal. Before the body could be
> taken from the hospital, two Dallas officials informed members of the
> President's start that the body could not be removed from the city until
> an autopsy was performed. Despite the protests of these officials, the
> casket was wheeled out of the hospital, placed in an ambulance, and
> transported to the airport shortly after 2 p.m."
>
> I remember that I was quite surprised when in 2002 I first came across
> O'Donnell's statement in his testimony that he had ordered the removal
> of the body, because no mention of this had been made in any of the
> books about the assassination that I had read up to that time. (This
> was one of the many things that caused me to never again trust any book
> that has ever been written about the assassination, whether it is
> conspiracy oriented or lone nut oriented.) People have of course
> suggested that O'Donnell could not possibly have made this decision on
> his own authority but that instead he was acting on orders from higher
> up, because of the additional circumstances of LBJ supposedly refusing
> to leave Dallas without Mrs. Kennedy, and Mrs. Kennedy herself refusing
> to leave Dallas without her husband's body.
>

Here is a legal question since you pretend to be a legal expert and
expert researcher. Did President Kennedy have a health proxy and if so
who was his proxy?
Show me his proxy.

Maybe he didn't reveal the whole truth because the FBI told him not to.

> However, it is also possible that he did, and this whole matter of there
> being a more sinister explanation for the abrupt removal of the body
> from Dallas, against Texas law, might just be another of the many myths
> that have grown up around the assassination during the past 48+ years.
>

You need to watch more science fiction movies. I would recommend Salt.
Maybe they needed Kennedy's body to launch the nuclear missiles. How
would you know?

So NOW you see the value of the Google Archives. Are you also aware that
the NSA has copies of every one of your messages AND also every one of
your files?

> I think I need to repost it here very soon, and we'll see if we can't
> get some discussion of it this time. The Subject should probably be
> this:
>
> "The BOH Hole: The Second Discrepancy That Wasn't."
>
> You may wish to look for that soon, possibly as early as tomorrow. ;-)
>
>> It is believable there was one.
>
> It is quite believable, and to my mind a virtual certainty.
>
>> But knowing something and
>> proving it is two different things.
>
> Actually I think it can come very, very, very close to being proven
> conclusively. It badly needs to be done. For close to half a century
> the public had labored under some vary serious misconceptions about this
> matter, and a much more plausible explanation than has ever been given
> before very badly needs to be reported in the mainstream media. This
> has been compounded by the fact that the majority of LNs have made some
> terribly incorrect assumptions about this, and the majority of CTs have
> also made some terribly incorrect assumptions in a different direction.
>
>> In the Fox photo, back of the skull is intact. As everyone already knows.

Which Fox photo number? Please post the photo so we know which one you
are talking about.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/24/2012 11:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
> I should have added that before the scalp was stretched a large laceration
> that extended from the entry forward had to be sutured closed.
>

Show us the sutures. No one reported seeing anyone suture the scalp.
So your theory is that this was part of a massive conspiracy?

> One can see that laceration (shown closed in the BOH photos) extending
> from the entry in the scalp that was once (pre-stretching) down near the
> EOP...as shown in F8.
>

No, one can't. You can see 20 monkeys in a tree, but we don't have to.

> It certainly wouldn't have made any sense to try to stretch the rear scalp
> without closing that laceration.
>

It is physically impossible to stretch the scalp as you have suggested.
You are calling up science fiction to avoid an inescapable conclusion.

[John Canal]

In article <5037b640$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/24/2012 11:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
>> I should have added that before the scalp was stretched a large laceration
>> that extended from the entry forward had to be sutured closed.
>>
>
>Show us the sutures. No one reported seeing anyone suture the scalp.
>So your theory is that this was part of a massive conspiracy?

Marsh, try really hard to follow this reasoning.

There was a huge laceration in the BOH scalp...even you can see it (shown
closed) in the BOH photos extending up and to the right from what most
here agree is the entry.

Got that? Boswell said that was a laceration, not that you pay any
attention to anything the autopsists said...which is why you diss off the
medical evidence and put on your forensic pathologist wannabe hat to
create your own.

And we know how that's turned out.

Anyway, gee, duh...they said they prepared the body for an open casket
funeral, right? Still with me...or has your so-called "research" over the
past 20 years led you to believe they didn't?

So not caring what you think, but for lurkers, of course they had to close
that large laceration....again to prepare him for an open-casket funeral.

Now, would you expect them to clumsily leave sutures hanging out so he'd
look Presidential in an open casket?

Well, skip that question because you can't handle the truth.

And BTW they did say the scalp was sutured closed.

Heck, when you start out with a ridiculous comment like that, I'm reminded
that I shouldn't waste any more of my time fielding additional wacky
questions or comments from you.

So how about bothering someone else?

John Canal

[...]


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

[...]

Marsh babbled:

>But we have a kook who says that Humes was trying to stretch the scalp to
>move the hole up from the EOP to the cowlick area to get a trajectory from
>the sniper's nest to line up.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

If the kook you're referring to is me, then get something--at least this
one thing--straight:

I believe they stretched the scalp (would it help convince you that they
did, if there is testimony confirming they did?, No? I didn't think
so)...to cover the large blown-out top/right/front of his head in
preparation for an open casket funeral.

Now if you'll take a minute out from pecking away your silliness on your
keyboard to look at the BOH photos, you can see they covered that part of
his head (where they said the skull and scalp was all but missing) pretty
successfully....AND THEY DIDN'T USE A WIG....THEY STRETCHED THE SCALP
RELATIVELY UNDAMAGED REAR SCALP FORWARD TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

Oh, the part about the al but missing skull and scalp in that
top/right/front area is in the autopsy eport...not that you've ever read
it....or will ever read it.

Was any of that so difficult to comprehend, Marsh?

Yes? Well, I can't help you on that.

In any case, I believe it was the 6.5 mm thing they added to try to move
the entry up.

Take notes if you can't keep up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/25/2012 8:17 PM, John Canal wrote:
> [...]
>
> Marsh babbled:
>
>> But we have a kook who says that Humes was trying to stretch the scalp to
>> move the hole up from the EOP to the cowlick area to get a trajectory from
>> the sniper's nest to line up.
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> If the kook you're referring to is me, then get something--at least this
> one thing--straight:
>
> I believe they stretched the scalp (would it help convince you that they
> did, if there is testimony confirming they did?, No? I didn't think
> so)...to cover the large blown-out top/right/front of his head in
> preparation for an open casket funeral.
>

Ridiculous. Your theory is to cover up the huge hole in the back of the
head and move the entrance wound up to the cowlick from the EOP, not some
cosmetic repair by the funeral home to make the head look ok for an open
casket.

> Now if you'll take a minute out from pecking away your silliness on your
> keyboard to look at the BOH photos, you can see they covered that part of
> his head (where they said the skull and scalp was all but missing) pretty
> successfully....AND THEY DIDN'T USE A WIG....THEY STRETCHED THE SCALP
> RELATIVELY UNDAMAGED REAR SCALP FORWARD TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
>

They? You mean the morticians? Now you want to drag them into your
massive conspiracy? What's their motive?
The autopsy photos do not show torn scalp or sutures or stretched scalp.
All of this comes only from your imagination.

> Oh, the part about the al but missing skull and scalp in that
> top/right/front area is in the autopsy eport...not that you've ever read
> it....or will ever read it.
>
> Was any of that so difficult to comprehend, Marsh?
>

I comprehend that you're make this all up, but I don't know why.

> Yes? Well, I can't help you on that.
>
> In any case, I believe it was the 6.5 mm thing they added to try to move
> the entry up.
>

Who moved up? Do you mean a physical object or just the description?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/25/2012 8:16 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <5037b640$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/24/2012 11:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>> I should have added that before the scalp was stretched a large laceration
>>> that extended from the entry forward had to be sutured closed.
>>>
>>
>> Show us the sutures. No one reported seeing anyone suture the scalp.
>> So your theory is that this was part of a massive conspiracy?
>
> Marsh, try really hard to follow this reasoning.
>
> There was a huge laceration in the BOH scalp...even you can see it (shown
> closed) in the BOH photos extending up and to the right from what most
> here agree is the entry.
>

No, there isn't. You have an overactive imagination.

> Got that? Boswell said that was a laceration, not that you pay any
> attention to anything the autopsists said...which is why you diss off the
> medical evidence and put on your forensic pathologist wannabe hat to
> create your own.
>

You claim that the autopsists were the masterminds of a huge conspiracy
and then you expect me to believe anything they said? Get real.

> And we know how that's turned out.
>
> Anyway, gee, duh...they said they prepared the body for an open casket
> funeral, right? Still with me...or has your so-called "research" over the
> past 20 years led you to believe they didn't?
>

The considered an open casket funeral a possibility. The autopsy doctors
were not morticians.

> So not caring what you think, but for lurkers, of course they had to close
> that large laceration....again to prepare him for an open-casket funeral.
>
> Now, would you expect them to clumsily leave sutures hanging out so he'd
> look Presidential in an open casket?
>

There was no open casket funeral.

> Well, skip that question because you can't handle the truth.
>
> And BTW they did say the scalp was sutured closed.
>
> Heck, when you start out with a ridiculous comment like that, I'm reminded
> that I shouldn't waste any more of my time fielding additional wacky
> questions or comments from you.
>
> So how about bothering someone else?
>

If you can't stand the heat, run away.

> John Canal
>
> [...]
>
>

[Research]

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5036...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Here we have a drawing by a Parkland doctor who saw the BOH wound and
described it as massive.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/mcdrawing.GIF

This is not the wound in the autopsy photos or as described as a quarter
to 3/8 th inch in size. As decribed by the second autopsy report or as
shown in the medical photos. How could this massive wound be misinterputed
by the lamest of the autopsy doctors? IF THIS is a true interrpution, why
isn't it in the photos? If a true interruption wouldn't it be an exit
wound? Wouldn't it therefore be a shot from the front?

[John Canal]

In article <5039b25d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/25/2012 8:17 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Marsh babbled:
>>
>>> But we have a kook who says that Humes was trying to stretch the scalp to
>>> move the hole up from the EOP to the cowlick area to get a trajectory from
>>> the sniper's nest to line up.
>>
>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>>
>> If the kook you're referring to is me, then get something--at least this
>> one thing--straight:
>>
>> I believe they stretched the scalp (would it help convince you that they
>> did, if there is testimony confirming they did?, No? I didn't think
>> so)...to cover the large blown-out top/right/front of his head in
>> preparation for an open casket funeral.
>>
>
>Ridiculous. Your theory is to cover up the huge hole in the back of the
>head and move the entrance wound up to the cowlick from the EOP, not some
>cosmetic repair by the funeral home to make the head look ok for an open
>casket.

Marsh, you might find some of the testimony and statements re. this case
interesting....suggest you read more and post less.

[John Canal]

In article <503a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Research says...

Why don't you ask yourself these simple questions.

What if there was a wound larger than the entry in his BOH when the body
first arrived, something like what the PH docs described.....do you think
it would have been responsible for the autopsy docs to announce to the
world that there may have been a frontal shooter (especially given the
background of Oswald (e.g. the Soviet Union)?

Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?

BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
with JFK faing the camera.

[John Canal]

In article <5039b789$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/25/2012 8:16 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <5037b640$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 8/24/2012 11:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> I should have added that before the scalp was stretched a large laceration
>>>> that extended from the entry forward had to be sutured closed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Show us the sutures. No one reported seeing anyone suture the scalp.
>>> So your theory is that this was part of a massive conspiracy?
>>
>> Marsh, try really hard to follow this reasoning.
>>
>> There was a huge laceration in the BOH scalp...even you can see it (shown
>> closed) in the BOH photos extending up and to the right from what most
>> here agree is the entry.
>>
>
>No, there isn't. You have an overactive imagination.

Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.

>> Got that? Boswell said that was a laceration, not that you pay any
>> attention to anything the autopsists said...which is why you diss off the
>> medical evidence and put on your forensic pathologist wannabe hat to
>> create your own.
>>
>
>You claim that the autopsists were the masterminds of a huge conspiracy
>and then you expect me to believe anything they said?

How would you know what they said?

>Get real.

You're the one who says JFK wasn't hit anywhere in the BOH.

That theory is about as feasible as the flat earth one.

>> And we know how that's turned out.
>>
>> Anyway, gee, duh...they said they prepared the body for an open casket
>> funeral, right? Still with me...or has your so-called "research" over the
>> past 20 years led you to believe they didn't?
>>
>
>The considered an open casket funeral a possibility. The autopsy doctors
>were not morticians.

They worked with the morticians......read more, post less.

>> So not caring what you think, but for lurkers, of course they had to close
>> that large laceration....again to prepare him for an open-casket funeral.
>>
>> Now, would you expect them to clumsily leave sutures hanging out so he'd
>> look Presidential in an open casket?
>>
>
>There was no open casket funeral.

News flash to Marsh: When they were performing the autopsy they didn't
know whether there'd be one or not...neither did the morticians.

Haven't you read anything pertaining to the medical evidence?

>> Well, skip that question because you can't handle the truth.
>>
>> And BTW they did say the scalp was sutured closed.
>>
>> Heck, when you start out with a ridiculous comment like that, I'm reminded
>> that I shouldn't waste any more of my time fielding additional wacky
>> questions or comments from you.
>>
>> So how about bothering someone else?
>>
>
>If you can't stand the heat, run away.

What you bring to the table is hardly heat...it's nuisance babbling that
doesn't make a lick of sense.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Robert Harris]

John Canal wrote:
> In article <_-KdnSe06vqnNKvNn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
>>
>> I explained the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw in the
>> BOH on 11/22/63 and in the autopsy photos, in my very first Youtube
>> presentation back in 2007. Over the years I made several other
>> presentations on the same subject.
>
> I resent, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does, you saying you
> "explained" that discrepacy...it's like gee, duh, thanks Robert for
> straightening us dummies out.

I'm sorry that you are offended, but I rarely find these days, nutters who
do not go into fits of feigned indignation whenever they are proven wrong.

It is not enough apparently, that they argue the facts and evidence and
come to their own conclusions. The adversary must always be some kind of
fiend, making outlandish claims that are only fit for ridicule:-)

>
> Poor choice of words, i.e. "explained"....

Well then, perhaps you can offer a better verb. As anyone who has viewed
my videos knows, I went into a great deal of detail and posted more
evidence than you have in the last several years:-)

In my dictionary, the definition of the term is:

"to make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing
it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas"

And that is precisely what I did. That you do not like my explanation does
not mean that that is not precisely what it is.

>
> no, Robert, what you put on that
> Youtube presentation was your opinion....and opinions are like ____,
> everyone has one...and your is no better than the next...IMO.

Yes indeed, what I explained and documented is indeed, my "opinion". But
I think that most people who viewed my presentations understood that.

>
>> A large piece of broken skull sitting at the upper rear of the head was
>> blown backward,
>
> So, the exiting bullet blew back/open this piece of skull, but did not
> leave a beveled out semi-circular or circular defect, much less a defect
> with metallic residure on it (you know Robert, similar to the only real
> exit that was found...near the coronal suture)?

The large skullpiece was already broken loose at 313. That can be easily
seen in Zapruder frames and in the Moorman photo. But it remained in
place, as did hair and scalp in the upper-forward part of the head.

The bullet was probably fired from a low caliber handgun and when it
struck that skull piece there was not enough resistance for it pass
through and make a hole. It flipped back, ripping out the scalp and hair
forward of it.

There can be no doubt that this happened. We see in numerous Zapruder
frames, the large protrusion which sat much higher than the center of the
top of the head, where the skull piece used to sit.

And we can easily see that as late as 317, the hair forward of that
skull piece was still in place. But it was gone in all frames after
about 319.

>
>> ripping out scalp and hair from the upper-forward part
>> of the head, which folded back over part of its inner surface. The
>> damage can be easily seen in this blowup of Zapruder frame 337.
>
> Oh, now the Z-film shows that blown-back piece of skull, eh? My oh my how
> you're able to see such things.....like magic.

Mr. Canal, this kind of childish sarcasm does not serve you or your cause.
You need to realize that the people you are trying to convince and are
following this thread, have already seen the presentations.

The protrusion is ridiculously easy to see as are all of the details I
"explained" to you. We not only see this massive thing in the rear of the
head but we can see the indention at the top of the head where the skull
piece used to be - sitting much lower than the protrusion itself.

>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>>
>> Since the skull piece remained attached to the scalp, it could be easily
>> pushed back into place,
>
> Was that the skull piece with no beveled out semi-circular or circular
> defect (with no metallic resideue around it) in it? That one?

As I already explained to you, the bullet probably didn't make a hole. If
it had, the skull piece very likely, would not have flipped to the rear.

>
>> covering over and hiding much of the damage.
>> That is why the damage is not visible in the autopsy photos that the
>> Parkland doctors were shown.
>
> And you really think that photo shows the state of JFK's BOH when the body
> was first received?

Mr. Canal, unless it is an obvious attempt at humor, I "really" believe
everything I say.

I think you have been "debating" Tony too long:-)

Good analysis and good conclusions will only come when one becomes
absolutely objective and unemotional. I know I have said this before, but
the angry indignation of nutters, which seems to be most prominent when
they present their weakest arguments, is identical to what I hear from
young Earth creationists and other religious radicals.

This is about the facts and evidence. I will be happy to discuss this
further with you, when you are prepared speak in on that level.

In the meantime, you and you should stick with Tony and others like you
and him.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/26/2012 5:21 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <5039b789$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/25/2012 8:16 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <5037b640$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/24/2012 11:15 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> I should have added that before the scalp was stretched a large laceration
>>>>> that extended from the entry forward had to be sutured closed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show us the sutures. No one reported seeing anyone suture the scalp.
>>>> So your theory is that this was part of a massive conspiracy?
>>>
>>> Marsh, try really hard to follow this reasoning.
>>>
>>> There was a huge laceration in the BOH scalp...even you can see it (shown
>>> closed) in the BOH photos extending up and to the right from what most
>>> here agree is the entry.
>>>
>>
>> No, there isn't. You have an overactive imagination.
>
> Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.
>

I've read much more than you have.

>>> Got that? Boswell said that was a laceration, not that you pay any
>>> attention to anything the autopsists said...which is why you diss off the
>>> medical evidence and put on your forensic pathologist wannabe hat to
>>> create your own.
>>>
>>
>> You claim that the autopsists were the masterminds of a huge conspiracy
>> and then you expect me to believe anything they said?
>
> How would you know what they said?
>

Because I have quoted them thousands of times and I have all the files
on my Web site.

>> Get real.
>
> You're the one who says JFK wasn't hit anywhere in the BOH.
>
> That theory is about as feasible as the flat earth one.
>

It says so right in the WC.

>>> And we know how that's turned out.
>>>
>>> Anyway, gee, duh...they said they prepared the body for an open casket
>>> funeral, right? Still with me...or has your so-called "research" over the
>>> past 20 years led you to believe they didn't?
>>>
>>
>> The considered an open casket funeral a possibility. The autopsy doctors
>> were not morticians.
>
> They worked with the morticians......read more, post less.
>

They were not morticians. When you say "they" you mean the morticians.
And now you try to drag the morticians into your massive conspiracy.

>>> So not caring what you think, but for lurkers, of course they had to close
>>> that large laceration....again to prepare him for an open-casket funeral.
>>>
>>> Now, would you expect them to clumsily leave sutures hanging out so he'd
>>> look Presidential in an open casket?
>>>
>>
>> There was no open casket funeral.
>
> News flash to Marsh: When they were performing the autopsy they didn't
> know whether there'd be one or not...neither did the morticians.
>

They knew towards the end when they realized there was no way to make
the head look good.

> Haven't you read anything pertaining to the medical evidence?
>

I've read everything.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, that would have caused WWIII. That's why Humes burned the original
autopsy report. Explain how the fact that Oswald defected to the Soviet
Union proves a frontal shooter. Whether he fired any shots or not your
logic would say that it was a conspiracy because you have a frontal
shooter.

> Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
> first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
> not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?
>

Ok, you think this prove your conspiracy.

> BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
> you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
> with JFK faing the camera.
>

Don't go there. I have Fox 8 oriented exactly as you do. Whenever you
lose an argument you claim that I think things that I never have.

> John Canal
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I've read them all. You haven't.

> John Canal
>
> [...]
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

False. That drawing was not done by McClelland. It was drawn by a
conspiracy researcher for the book.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/mcdrawing.GIF
>
> This is not the wound in the autopsy photos or as described as a quarter
> to 3/8 th inch in size. As decribed by the second autopsy report or as
> shown in the medical photos. How could this massive wound be misinterputed
> by the lamest of the autopsy doctors? IF THIS is a true interrpution, why
> isn't it in the photos? If a true interruption wouldn't it be an exit
> wound? Wouldn't it therefore be a shot from the front?
>
>

Your "wound" is only imaginary.

>
>

[John Canal]

In article <i-udnVwo26t5JKfN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
says...

>
>John Canal wrote:
>> In article <_-KdnSe06vqnNKvNn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>>
>>> I explained the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors saw in the
>>> BOH on 11/22/63 and in the autopsy photos, in my very first Youtube
>>> presentation back in 2007. Over the years I made several other
>>> presentations on the same subject.
>>
>> I resent, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does, you saying you
>> "explained" that discrepacy...it's like gee, duh, thanks Robert for
>> straightening us dummies out.
>
>I'm sorry that you are offended, but I rarely find these days, nutters who
>do not go into fits of feigned indignation whenever they are proven wrong.
>
>It is not enough apparently, that they argue the facts and evidence and
>come to their own conclusions. The adversary must always be some kind of
>fiend, making outlandish claims that are only fit for ridicule:-)
>
>
>>
>> Poor choice of words, i.e. "explained"....
>
>Well then, perhaps you can offer a better verb.

"Explained" makes it seem like the rest of us were lost and you
enlightened us...we are not lost and you just think you have a solution to
what you think is a mystery.

You have a theory, that's all.

>As anyone who has viewed
>my videos knows, I went into a great deal of detail and posted more
>evidence than you have in the last several years:-)

Use Google and see who first posted where Boswell said he replaced bone
fragments before an X-ray or photo.

>In my dictionary, the definition of the term is:
>
>"to make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing
>it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas"
>
>And that is precisely what I did. That you do not like my explanation does
>not mean that that is not precisely what it is.

You think you're like a professor teaching students.....there are hundreds
of theories re. this case and the authors of each one thing they have the
correct one...you are no different.

>> no, Robert, what you put on that
>> Youtube presentation was your opinion....and opinions are like ____,
>> everyone has one...and your is no better than the next...IMO.
>
>Yes indeed, what I explained and documented is indeed, my "opinion". But
>I think that most people who viewed my presentations understood that.
>
>>
>>> A large piece of broken skull sitting at the upper rear of the head was
>>> blown backward,
>>
>> So, the exiting bullet blew back/open this piece of skull, but did not
>> leave a beveled out semi-circular or circular defect, much less a defect
>> with metallic residure on it (you know Robert, similar to the only real
>> exit that was found...near the coronal suture)?
>
>The large skullpiece was already broken loose at 313.

Why wasn't any circular or partially circular beveled out defect in your
skull piece found?

Why wasn't there any metallic residue found on any defect in your skull
piece?

Why wasn't there a channel-like pathway through the brain leading to where
you think the bullet exited.

Huh?

>That can be easily
>seen in Zapruder frames and in the Moorman photo.

B/S, see the above questions...answer them or we're done....again.

>But it remained in
>place, as did hair and scalp in the upper-forward part of the head.

But the autopsy report stated skull and scalp were all but missing from
the large blown-out top/right/front exit area.....didn't you read that in
the report?

>The bullet was probably fired from a low caliber handgun and when it
>struck that skull piece there was not enough resistance for it pass
>through and make a hole.

Oh, really...that's your excuse? So low caliber handguns don't usually
leave any beveled-out exit holes...those bullets just push a bone piece
out of the way?

And low caliber bullets don't make a pathway through the brain?

And low caliber bullets do leave any metallic resideue either?

Is that the B/S you consider part of your explanation?

Get real...we're not stupid.

>It flipped back, ripping out the scalp and hair
>forward of it.

See above!

>There can be no doubt that this happened.

In your mind there's no doubt...but so what.

>We see in numerous Zapruder
>frames, the large protrusion which sat much higher than the center of the
>top of the head, where the skull piece used to sit.

So low caliber handguns don't usually leave any beveled-out exit
holes...those bullets just push a bone piece out of the way?

And low caliber bullets don't make a pathway through the brain?

And low caliber bullets do leave any metallic resideue either?

Is that the B/S you consider part of your explanation?

Get real...we're not stupid.

>And we can easily see that as late as 317, the hair forward of that
>skull piece was still in place. But it was gone in all frames after
>about 319.
>
>
>
>>
>>> ripping out scalp and hair from the upper-forward part
>>> of the head, which folded back over part of its inner surface. The
>>> damage can be easily seen in this blowup of Zapruder frame 337.
>>
>> Oh, now the Z-film shows that blown-back piece of skull, eh? My oh my how
>> you're able to see such things.....like magic.
>
>Mr. Canal, this kind of childish sarcasm does not serve you or your cause.

And you telling us you're explaining to us what really happened....doesn't
suggest we are lost and looking for help from you to tell us what
happened?

>You need to realize that the people you are trying to convince and are
>following this thread, have already seen the presentations.
>
>The protrusion is ridiculously easy to see as are all of the details I
>"explained" to you. We not only see this massive thing in the rear of the
>head but we can see the indention at the top of the head where the skull
>piece used to be - sitting much lower than the protrusion itself.

So low caliber handguns don't usually leave any beveled-out exit
holes...those bullets just push a bone piece out of the way?

And low caliber bullets don't make a pathway through the brain?

And low caliber bullets do leave any metallic resideue either?

Is that the B/S you consider part of your explanation?

Get real...we're not stupid.

No bullet exited there.

>>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>>>
>>> Since the skull piece remained attached to the scalp, it could be easily
>>> pushed back into place,
>>
>> Was that the skull piece with no beveled out semi-circular or circular
>> defect (with no metallic resideue around it) in it? That one?
>
>As I already explained to you, the bullet probably didn't make a hole. If
>it had, the skull piece very likely, would not have flipped to the rear.

And no pathway through the brain either?

Now that's a real magic bullet!

>>> covering over and hiding much of the damage.
>>> That is why the damage is not visible in the autopsy photos that the
>>> Parkland doctors were shown.
>>
>> And you really think that photo shows the state of JFK's BOH when the body
>> was first received?
>
>Mr. Canal, unless it is an obvious attempt at humor, I "really" believe
>everything I say.

Of course you do, so what?

>I think you have been "debating" Tony too long:-)

His theory is just as feasible as your and Speers....and that's not saying
much, IMO.

>Good analysis and good conclusions will only come when one becomes
>absolutely objective and unemotional. I know I have said this before, but
>the angry indignation of nutters, which seems to be most prominent when
>they present their weakest arguments, is identical to what I hear from
>young Earth creationists and other religious radicals.

Get back to the medical evidence that doesn't comport, even one iotawith
your theory.

>This is about the facts and evidence. I will be happy to discuss this
>further with you, when you are prepared speak in on that level.
>
>In the meantime, you and you should stick with Tony and others like you
>and him.

So low caliber handguns don't usually leave any beveled-out exit
holes...those bullets just push a bone piece out of the way?

And low caliber bullets don't make a pathway through the brain?

And low caliber bullets do leave any metallic resideue either?

Is that the B/S you consider part of your explanation?

Get real...we're not stupid.

John Canal



>Robert Harris


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <503ac33e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/26/2012 5:21 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.
>>
>
>I've read much more than you have.

So you're read the autopsy report and just disagree with every significant
finding they reported, eh?

Or did you conjur up a wild theory about no hits to the BOH and a frontal
shot missed by the autopsists and then decide to read their report?

And when their report conflicted with your wacky theory you then had to
claim they were incompetent..as Moe, Curly, and Larry, right?

Get serious Marsh, you're always asking me for citations because you're
lost on the medical evidence.

Do you know for example where Boswell stated that defect in the scalp in
the BOH photos was a laceration?

So why would you tell us there waas no laceration?

Maybe you were there in your dreams...but had your blinders and ear-muffs
on so you didn't see any lacerations or hear them saying there was one?


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <503ac534$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Again, you just don't read for comprehension.

I've always agreed there was a BOH wound besides the entry and that most
of the PH docs were correct...but I've also said there's no evidence to
suggest it was an exit defect as a result of a frontal shot.

>> Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
>> first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
>> not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?
>>
>
>Ok, you think this prove your conspiracy.

I make a damn good case for a cover-up...that wasn't necessary. They just
didn't know it at the time...(that night).

>> BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
>> you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
>> with JFK faing the camera.
>>
>
>Don't go there. I have Fox 8 oriented exactly as you do. Whenever you
>lose an argument you claim that I think things that I never have.
>
>> John Canal
>>
>>
>
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <503a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Then why do you say silly things like they didn't stretch the scalp, and
there was no BOH laceration, and they didn't think there was going to be
open casket funeral when the record clearly shows they stretched the
scalp, there was a BOH laceration, and that they thought there was going
to be an open-casket funeral?

Huh?

Pray tell!


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Research]

"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:k1e1l...@drn.newsguy.com...

Maybe you are right. Maybe I did misorientate F8. I don't know how you
come to that. The PH doctor's drawing shows a gigantic blow out. And the
autopsy photo shows an almost pin prick, comparatively. That's a problem I
and probably, a lot of citizens have with this issue. Because none of the
medical evidence supports the collaborating medical evidence. Just pick
one issue?

Look at Zapruder. It shows the side of the head exploded. Not the back of
the head. F8 shows this tiny little whole. The autopsy calls it an entry.
OK. But the previous shot was so powerful, it (supposedly) went through
both men causing a lot of damage. Persay. But here we have a rifle shot to
the BOH. Full impact to a thin skull bone with almost no damage. Even if
the impact was as large as the Parkland doctors said, It would make more
since than a quarter inch size hole.

Again looking at the Zapruder wound compared the F8 medical evidence to
the side wound. The F8 example is much smaller. When the X-rays are added,
the mud thickens.

Compare the stare of death photo to the X-rays. The photo shows the front
of the face and forehead intact. The X-rays show the forehead and top of
the head bone missing. But not the side of the skull bone where the
Zapruder shows the head exploded outward.

Sorry about the plain talk. I'm not expert and don't know all those legal
and medical rig-a-ma-raw terms. But even to me and most of the public,
this medical evidence JUST don't add up. And you all don't have any
definitive answers.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503ac534$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>

How silly! The autopsy didn't reveal a Russian bullet.

Nor is there inherently any requirement to have a foreign government
involved merely by demonstrating that more than one person was firing.

It's just as possible that it was the death of Oswald that allowed for the
re-writing of the autopsy report - a theory that you "refuted" with a
statement that you've *NEVER* been able to cite for.

>Explain how the fact that Oswald defected to the Soviet
>Union proves a frontal shooter. Whether he fired any shots or not your
>logic would say that it was a conspiracy because you have a frontal
>shooter.
>
>> Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
>> first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
>> not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?
>>
>
>Ok, you think this prove your conspiracy.
>
>> BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
>> you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
>> with JFK faing the camera.
>>
>
>Don't go there. I have Fox 8 oriented exactly as you do. Whenever you
>lose an argument you claim that I think things that I never have.

Of course, should someone start QUOTING your exact words, you simply
refuse to respond any more... isn't that true, Tony?



>> John Canal


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Research]

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i-udnVwo26t5JKfN...@earthlink.com...

The Moorman I have seen did not show the head wound. It was supposedly
taken a split second before the head shot.

>
> The bullet was probably fired from a low caliber handgun and when it
> struck that skull piece there was not enough resistance for it pass
> through and make a hole. It flipped back, ripping out the scalp and hair
> forward of it.

Here you are suggesting a frontal shooter. And not a creep with a high
powered rifle.

>
> There can be no doubt that this happened. We see in numerous Zapruder
> frames, the large protrusion which sat much higher than the center of the
> top of the head, where the skull piece used to sit.
>
> And we can easily see that as late as 317, the hair forward of that skull
> piece was still in place. But it was gone in all frames after about 319.
>

Then why is the skull bone intact in the X-rays?

>
>>> ripping out scalp and hair from the upper-forward part
>>> of the head, which folded back over part of its inner surface. The
>>> damage can be easily seen in this blowup of Zapruder frame 337.
>>
>> Oh, now the Z-film shows that blown-back piece of skull, eh? My oh my how
>> you're able to see such things.....like magic.
>

> The protrusion is ridiculously easy to see as are all of the details I
> "explained" to you. We not only see this massive thing in the rear of the
> head but we can see the indention at the top of the head where the skull
> piece used to be - sitting much lower than the protrusion itself.
>
>>> http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
>>>
>>> Since the skull piece remained attached to the scalp, it could be easily
>>> pushed back into place,
>>
>> Was that the skull piece with no beveled out semi-circular or circular
>> defect (with no metallic resideue around it) in it? That one?
>
> As I already explained to you, the bullet probably didn't make a hole. If
> it had, the skull piece very likely, would not have flipped to the rear.

It didn't flip to the rear. It flipped out and hung down.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:30:30 PM UTC-4, John King wrote:
> Yep, I'm doing it again. If ya don't like it, get over yerself. ;-)
>
>
>
> This addresses the provable myth, most recently espoused yet again by
>
> one "Research," that I, of all people, merely because I believe in a
>
> single shooter and for literally no other reason, do nothing but
>
> mindlessly repeat all the conclusions of the WC.
>
>
>
> As if.
>
>
>
> Let us all join virtual hands and examine one of the two main
>
> Discrepancies That Weren't in the JFK assassination. This one is number
>
> two, although I never tire of talking about number one either, since I
>
> have also talked about it extensively and recently. It is of course the
>
> supposed discrepancy between Parkland and Bethesda on whether or not
>
> there was a hole in the back of JFK's head after a bullet struck him in
>
> the head. The following two questionnaires were posted by me about a
>
> year ago. At that time not one LN, not one, gave any answer, plausible
>
> or implausible, to even as many as half of these questions. And let me
>
> be clear on what I mean by "plausible."
>
>
>
> I do NOT mean what, in my opinion only, would be considered to be
>
> "plausible."
>
>
>
> I do NOT mean what, in your opinion only, would be considered to be
>
> "plausible."
>
>
>
> I do NOT mean what, in the opinions of the majority of posters to this
>
> newsgroup would be considered to be "plausible."
>
>
>
> I instead mean what the majority of humans on this planet would consider
>
> to be "plausible," including those who do not know who John Kennedy was.
>
>
>
> So here go the questionnaires. Maybe at long last, for the first time
>
> ever, just one LN, just one, will give answers to more than half of
>
> these questions which the majority of humans worldwide would consider to
>
> be plausible. And I shall now insert my own honest answers, which I am
>
> supremely confident would be considered to be "plausible" by the
>
> majority of living humans on this planet.
>
>
>
> QUESTIONNAIRE #1
>
>
>
> 1. True or false: The average ten-year-old child, without a day of
>
> medical training, can easily identify which part of a person's head is
>
> the "back" or "rear" without the slightest possibility of being even
>
> slightly mistaken. If your answer is "false," please explain in detail
>
> why you think it's false.
>
True
>
>
> My answer: this is so obviously true that it is embarrassing for me to
>
> explain, aloud or in written form, *why* it is true. I seem to recall
>
> that I knew the difference at a much younger age than ten.
>
>
>
> 2. If you stop people at random on the street and ask them to point to
>
> the back of their heads will they be more likely or less likely to point
>
> to the correct area? If your answer is "less likely," please explain in
>
> detail why you think so.
>
More likely
>
>
> My answer: I would think that the vast majority of people in every
>
> country, who speak any language, who are of any race, ethnicity,
>
> culture, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, religious
>
> belief, and age of at least ten, would point to the correct part of
>
> their head, if the word for "back" or "rear" in whatever language they
>
> speak was used in the request.
>
>
>
> 3. True or false: An adult with years of medical training is even more
>
> likely to correctly identify any part of a person's head, no matter what
>
> part that is, than the average ten-year-old child or random person on
>
> the street. If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you
>
> think it's false.
>
True
>
>
> My answer: true, *obviously*.
>
>
>
> 4. True or false: The Parkland medical personnel were giving their
>
> professional opinions on the locations of President Kennedy�s wounds,
>
> which is normally considered more reliable than a lay person�s opinion.
>
> If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you think the
>
> answer is false.
>
True
>
>
> My answer: true, *obviously*
>
>
>
> 5. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, but
>
> also others who saw JFK at Parkland such as the SS agents, and would
>
> also include Clint Hill who saw JFK's wounds before Parkland, were all
>
> mistaken about seeing a hole in the back of his head, where on his head
>
> was the correct location of that hole, which they mistakenly identified
>
> as being in the back or rear? Please explain your answer in detail.
>

We see in the Z-film a massive blowout in the upper right side of JFK's
head and that is perfectly consistent with the findings at Bethesda. This
casts doubt on the accuracy of the Parkland observations. It makes me
believe they never saw the true extent of the wound. There are several
reasons for the apparent anomaly. First of all, no one at Parkland
actually treated the head wound. It was not looked at closely. Most of the
ER team would have done nothing more than glanced at the bloody mess.
Parkland reported a laceration in the area where we see a blowout in JFK's
head. Jackie testified that on the way to Parkland, she was trying to keep
his brains inside his head. While she didn't speciifically state she
closed the flaps, that would be the natural thing to do if she was trying
to keep his brains from oozing out of his head. There was one piece she
couldn't close, the Harper fragment which was blown completely away. That
would have been toward the rear of the blowout area. With JFK lying on his
back on the guerney, blood and brain would have oozed from that opening
and gravity would have taken it to the guerney creating the impression
that the blowout was confined to the back of the head when in fact the
entire upper right side had been blown out. While this explaination is
somewhat speculative, it is consistent with the Z-film, the observations
and Parkland and the findings at Bethesda. I have yet to hear another one
that meets that same criteria.

>
>
> My answer: the likelihood of that many witnesses who were all older than
>
> ten being mistaken is so astronomically low as to be unworthy of serious
>
> consideration.
>
>
>
> 6. If you believe them to have been mistaken about where on his head the
>
> hole was, why do you think that this many of them would make this same
>
> mistake? Please explain your answer in detail.
>

I believe I did just that. Had any of them actually examined the head
wound, they would probably have understood the true extent of it, but none
of them did. At a glance, the wound would have appeared to be confined to

the back of the head.

>
>

> My answer: it would be considered implausible by most humans worldwide
>
> that this many people older than ten could possibly be mistaken,
>
> especially when a smaller number of people of any age specifically
>
> disputed them.
>

Not implausible at all given the circumstances.

>
>
> 7. If, however, just for the sake of argument, there really was a hole
>
> in the right rear of JFK's head, AND his head was turned somewhat to the
>
> left while on the operating table, would witnesses be able to see the
>
> hole? If your answer is "no" please explain in detail why they couldn't.
>
>
>
> My answer: if the hole was practically *anywhere* in the right half of
>
> the rear half of his head, it would be absurdly, plainly, and
>
> horrifyingly visible to any human of any age with even average eyesight,
>
> even with the person lying supine upon any flat surface, as any human
>
> can easily demonstrate on Youtube and I sure as hell can.
>

The hole they saw in the back of the head was a portion of a much larger
hole that had been mostly closed.

>
>
> 8. If there really was a hole in the right rear of JFK�s head whose
>
> margins extended a little way into the right side of his head, then even
>
> if his head was not turned to the right or left but was directly face-up
>
> would witnesses be able to see any portion of the hole? If your answer
>
> is "no," please explain in detail why.
>
>
>
> My answer: exactly the same as my answer to #7 without the slightest
>
> difference in meaning or wording.
>
>
>
> 9. When the "back door" in the head was open, there was a hole in the
>
> back of the head. When the "back door" in the head was closed, there was
>
> no hole in the back of the head. Do you understand this concept? If your
>
> answer is "no," please explain in detail what it is about this concept
>
> that you don't understand.
>
>
>
> My answer: if the hole was created by a displacement of fractured, but
>
> not missing, bone, in combination with a tear in the scalp, but
>
> otherwise with no scalp or hair missing in that area, then this concept
>
> is absurdly easy to understand.
>
>
>
> 10. Do you think the average ten-year-old child would be able to
>
> understand the concept expressed in question 9 above? If your answer is
>
> "no," please explain in detail why you believe this.
>
>
>
> My answer: this time it might take a bit of explaining to the average
>
> ten-year-old, but I rather doubt that the majority of them could not
>
> eventually understand it. And the average person who is at least twenty
>
> has no legitimate excuse not to understand it.
>
>

As I am pressed for time, I am skipping question #2.

[John Canal]

In article <503b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Research says...

Not maybe...I am right...but don't credit me for getting the orientation
correct. Dr. Lawrence Angel (deceased), the HSCA's forensic anthropologist
from the Smithsonian made drawings from the photo F8 that show the correct
orientaion [7HSCA, p. 230].

>Maybe I did misorientate F8. I don't know how you
>come to that.

A comment you made in an earlier post...I forget now exactly what that
was.

To make sure, a rough but functional colorized visual aid to show how F8
is properly orientated is on McAdams website under head wounds.

>The PH doctor's drawing shows a gigantic blow out.

No offense intended, but not necessarily a "blow-out". Yes, most of the PH
docs were correct about there being a wound larger than the entry, but
their desciptions were not exactly the same. On one end of the spectrum
was the drawing that you posted endorsed by McClelland, but one of those
other PH docs described it as being much smaller....the size of a quarter.

Their differences are understandable, though...witnesses testimony is like
that. Still, and again, I fully agree there was a BOH wound larger than
the entry.

But I'm 100% convinced it was not a blow-out exit wound.

In the first place the autopsists testified it wasn't that kind of
wound.....Okay, so you don't trust them...fine.

Then there's the X-rays...which show that all the pieces of rear skull in
that area were not blown-out, although they were fragmented. Ok, so you
probably think the x-rays were fake? Fine.

Then there was no beveled out circular bullet-hole like defect found in
any of the rear bones. Okay, maybe you think that was a lie too?

Then there was no metallic residue found on any of the rear skull bones.
Okay, you think that was a lie too? Fine.

But there was no channel-like pathway through the brain leading to where
it has been sugested a bullet exited the rear skull. No pathway through
the brain to that area means no bullet exited there.

And of course there wasn't one single grain of metal found to the rear of
JFK. Okay, it was lost or confiscated? Fine, but if you diss off the fact
there was no evidence of a shot from the front (like Marsh, Harris, and
Speers to name a few), then there's no sense in me discussing this matter
with you.

If you're open to there not being a frontal head shot and just two hits
overall to JFK, then I'll answer any legitimate questions you have about
the medical evidence that I'm able to.

>And the
>autopsy photo shows an almost pin prick, comparatively. That's a problem I
>and probably, a lot of citizens have with this issue. Because none of the
>medical evidence supports the collaborating medical evidence. Just pick
>one issue?

Again, I can make a damn good case for the autopsy photos not showing the
PH wound because the autopsists (with Berkley directing them, IMO) did not
want the nation to panic thinking that BOH PH wound may have been evidence
there had been a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Now, I can also make a solid case for the photo being taken late,,,,and
the BOH wound repaired before it was taken. Also remember they repaired
the damage because they thought there might be an open-casket funeral.

>Look at Zapruder. It shows the side of the head exploded. Not the back of
>the head. F8 shows this tiny little whole. The autopsy calls it an entry.

Yes the Z-film shows the side of the head blown out.....but that was
caused by the explosionary force of the temporary cavity, Dr. Angel shows
that flap of bone and scalp in his drawings.

And the Z-film also shows the large top/right/front of his head being blow
out...the skull pieces that fit there were blown into the limo and/or DP
and arrived late at the autopsy. One of those pieces included a partial
circular defect with metallic residue on it...obviously that was the
portal where the larger fragments that were eventually found in the front
of the limo exited.

>OK. But the previous shot was so powerful, it (supposedly) went through
>both men causing a lot of damage.

Mostly tissue in JFK.

>Persay. But here we have a rifle shot to
>the BOH. Full impact to a thin skull bone with almost no damage.

I don't follow you. The bullet that hit him in the BOH, while making only
a small entry hole, caused multiple fractures and fragmented practically
the entire THICK rear skull. Moreover, the exiting large bullet fragments
caused many more fractures and the temporary cavity then blew-out the
entire top/right/front of his head.

Now I'm convinced a couple of those loose rear skull fragments dislodged
and a scalp tear (probably caused by the sharp edges of those disloded
pieces) created an opening through which JFK's brain/cerebellum was
exposed....ergo the "PH BOH wound".

Note that because he was on his back and his heart was still pumping at
least briefly, a massive amount of bood and loose brain would have
flowed/gravitated to that BOH wound, probably making it seem worse than it
actually was.

Still it certainly was "exit-looking" and that's what scared the
autopsists and IMO Burkley.

The loose pieces were easily "smoothed" back into place before the X-rays
and that scalp tear sutured closed before the photos that showed the BOH.

Geesh, I'd call that some pretty significant damage.

>Even if
>the impact was as large as the Parkland doctors said, It would make more
>since than a quarter inch size hole.

See above.

>Again looking at the Zapruder wound compared the F8 medical evidence to
>the side wound. The F8 example is much smaller. When the X-rays are added,
>the mud thickens.

By the time F8 was taken the loose rear bone fragments had fallen or been
taken out....all that's left for F8 to show is the lower half of the small
entry...below the mark on the ruler that is 2.5 cm right of midline.

See above.

>Compare the stare of death photo to the X-rays. The photo shows the front
>of the face and forehead intact. The X-rays show the forehead and top of
>the head bone missing. But not the side of the skull bone where the
>Zapruder shows the head exploded outward.

The AP X-ray does show a piece of bone on his right side detached from the
rest of the skull. That piece on his right side that flapped open, as seen
in the Z-film may have been shoved back somewhat before the lateral
X-ray....again, though, it appears detached in the AP film.

>Sorry about the plain talk. I'm not expert and don't know all those legal
>and medical rig-a-ma-raw terms. But even to me and most of the public,
>this medical evidence JUST don't add up. And you all don't have any
>definitive answers.

I'm no expert by any means and don't pretend to have nearly all the
definitive answers.

What I'm best at though, maybe as good as anyone here, is having a pretty
fair knowledge of what the experts and eyewitnesses reported seeing, if
not a pretty fair theory that makes sense of the conflicts in those
reports.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me. I proved that the Moorman Polaroid was taken just after the
head shot, at about Z-315.6.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/moorman.htm

A Photogrammetric Method to Calculate When the Moorman 5 Photo Was Exposed


Some researchers have expressed interest in determining exactly when
the Moorman Polaroid of the grassy knoll was exposed in relation to the
Zapruder film. A few careless researchers have even claimed that the
Moorman photo was exposed BEFORE the head shot at Z-313. In the past I
have shown by examination of the Presidential limousine that the Moorman
photo was taken at about Z-315.7. I can also prove when the Moorman
photo was exposed by examining objects other than the limousine.
In this case, we can see DPD motorcyclist Hargis' white helmet in
the sprocket hole area of Z-313 and also at the extreme right of a full
frame copy of the Moorman Polaroid. The fixed object in the background
to use as a tie point is Mary Moorman, who can also be seen in the
sprocket hole area of Z-313. She did not move while taking her
photograph.
First we place the limousine in the proper position on Elm Street.
Due to the blurring of Z-313 and the inherent inaccuracy of most maps,
we can only get the limousine close to its true location with a margin
of error of about 6 inches. 6 inches is also the size of each pixel on
my computer map, so I have placed the limousine to within 6 inches of
its true location in the file named PLAZA313.GIF . One key to locating
the position of the limousine is to draw a straight line from the right
front bumper at approximately a 45 degree angle towards the pergola. The
line should intersect the east edge of the north run of the retaining wall
before the retaining wall intersects (like an upside down Y) with the
adjoining wall. The limousine is about 6 and 1/2 feet wide and about 21
feet long. At Z-313 the right front edge of the limousine is about 15 feet
away from the north curb of Elm Street. The right rear edge of the
limousine is about 15 and 1/2 feet away from the north curb.
Now that the limousine has been placed on the map, a straight line can
be drawn from Zapruder's camera position to Mary Moorman's camera
position. In the file named ZAP313P.GIF that line is represented by a
purple line in the sprocket hole area. Hargis' white helmet is just to
the left of that line, or generally east of the line. Mary Moorman was
standing about 3 feet away from the curb. The line just barely falls
behind the left rear edge of the trunk of the limousine. Hargis is about
11 feet away from the south curb of Elm Street. A small dot on the map
touching the line from Zapruder to Moorman represents Hargis' helmet.
Next, the Moorman photo is examined. When a line if drawn from
Moorman to the point of intersection of the retaining wall with the
adjoining wall, the line touches the back of Hargis' helmet. In the file
named MOORMANP.GIF that line is represented by a purple line. Thus in
the Moorman photo, we see that Hargis is to the west of the line. Thus
Hargis' helmet is farther to the west in the Moorman Polaroid than in
Z-313. I will not argue the scientific proof here to prove that when an
object is in a different place at a different time that it has traveled
a certain distance. See Euclid for that.
If the line from Moorman to the retaining wall intersection had been
to the east of the line from Zapruder to Moorman, then the Moorman photo
would have been taken before or at approximately the same time as Z-313,
as Hargis is clearly seen in all films moving in the same direction as
the motorcade at this point, generally east to west. But we know that
the line from Moorman to the retaining wall intersection is to the west
of the line from Zapruder to Moorman. Thus, Hargis' position in the
Moorman photo is at a time later than Z-313.
But, how much later? A rough estimate can be made by measuring the
distance between the lines at 11 feet from the curb, which measures the
travel path of Hargis's helmet from Z-313 to the Moorman photo. This
distance is approximately 18 inches. Hargis's helmet is approximately 1
foot long, so the total distance covered is about 2.5 feet. Although the
Alvarez study showed that the Presidential limousine slowed from
approximately 12 MPH to approximately 8 MPH at about Z-300, the escort
motorcycles kept traveling at about 12 MPH, which is equal to about 17.6
FPS. In fact, in the Nix film we see that Hargis keeps pace with the
limousine, staying ahead of Martin to his left and gaining on the
limousine.

2.5 ft/17.6 fps = 0.142 secs.
0.142 secs. * 18.3 frames per sec. = 2.6 frames
313 + 2.6 = 315.6

Thus it has been shown that the Moorman photo was taken at about Z-315.6
QED

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said the bullet was Russian? Do you have any evidence that the
bullet was Russian made?

> Nor is there inherently any requirement to have a foreign government
> involved merely by demonstrating that more than one person was firing.
>
> It's just as possible that it was the death of Oswald that allowed for the
> re-writing of the autopsy report - a theory that you "refuted" with a
> statement that you've *NEVER* been able to cite for.
>

It was rewritten while Oswald was still alive.

>
>
>> Explain how the fact that Oswald defected to the Soviet
>> Union proves a frontal shooter. Whether he fired any shots or not your
>> logic would say that it was a conspiracy because you have a frontal
>> shooter.
>>
>>> Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
>>> first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
>>> not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, you think this prove your conspiracy.
>>
>>> BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
>>> you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
>>> with JFK faing the camera.
>>>
>>
>> Don't go there. I have Fox 8 oriented exactly as you do. Whenever you
>> lose an argument you claim that I think things that I never have.
>
>
> Of course, should someone start QUOTING your exact words, you simply
> refuse to respond any more... isn't that true, Tony?
>

Are you arguing on John's behalf because he is physically unable to post
himself?

>
>
>>> John Canal
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

More false information. That is not the PH doctor's drawing.

> autopsy photo shows an almost pin prick, comparatively. That's a problem I

Show me where you think the autopsy photo (only one?) shows an almost
pinprick.

> and probably, a lot of citizens have with this issue. Because none of the
> medical evidence supports the collaborating medical evidence. Just pick
> one issue?
>
> Look at Zapruder. It shows the side of the head exploded. Not the back of
> the head. F8 shows this tiny little whole. The autopsy calls it an entry.

What whole? Where? The WHOLE hole or just part of the WHOLE?

> OK. But the previous shot was so powerful, it (supposedly) went through
> both men causing a lot of damage. Persay. But here we have a rifle shot to
> the BOH. Full impact to a thin skull bone with almost no damage. Even if
> the impact was as large as the Parkland doctors said, It would make more
> since than a quarter inch size hole.
>

You know absolutely nothing about wound ballistics.

> Again looking at the Zapruder wound compared the F8 medical evidence to
> the side wound. The F8 example is much smaller. When the X-rays are added,
> the mud thickens.
>
> Compare the stare of death photo to the X-rays. The photo shows the front
> of the face and forehead intact. The X-rays show the forehead and top of
> the head bone missing. But not the side of the skull bone where the
> Zapruder shows the head exploded outward.
>

The X-rays do not show the whole forehead missing. They are consistent
with the stare of death photos.

> Sorry about the plain talk. I'm not expert and don't know all those legal
> and medical rig-a-ma-raw terms. But even to me and most of the public,
> this medical evidence JUST don't add up. And you all don't have any
> definitive answers.
>

I do. You refuse to learn.

[Anthony Marsh]

More false charges. The autopsy doctors did not stretch the scalp. Humes
said that thing was a bloodclot, not a bullet hole. When they were
finishing up they knew there would not be an open casket funeral. When
they started they hoped they could repair the head enough to have an open
casket funeral, but they were not able to.

> Huh?
>
> Pray tell!
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Show it to me. So now you've become a conspiracy buff and believe in a
back of the head wound IN ADDITION to your tiny entrance wound. But if you
say it is not an exit wound then you must think it is an entrance wound.
So you have TWO entrance wounds on the back of the head, one tiny and one
huge. From ONE bullet?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/27/2012 4:28 PM, John Canal wrote:

> In article <503ac33e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/26/2012 5:21 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.
>>>
>>
>> I've read much more than you have.
>
> So you're read the autopsy report and just disagree with every significant
> finding they reported, eh?
>

No. Maybe I agree 100% with what they originally found before they
rewrote it.

> Or did you conjur up a wild theory about no hits to the BOH and a frontal
> shot missed by the autopsists and then decide to read their report?
>

Which one? The original autopsy report of the one he rewrote?

> And when their report conflicted with your wacky theory you then had to
> claim they were incompetent..as Moe, Curly, and Larry, right?
>

Jeez, I dearly hope that I was the first to call them The Three Stooges.
But I did not specify which character will play which doctor. And why
did you overlook Shemp?
I was not the first to call them incompetent.

> Get serious Marsh, you're always asking me for citations because you're
> lost on the medical evidence.
>

Is that your way of saying that you can't back up any of your claims?

> Do you know for example where Boswell stated that defect in the scalp in
> the BOH photos was a laceration?
>

Do you know for example where Humes stated that defect in the scalp in
the BOH is a bloodlot?

> So why would you tell us there waas no laceration?
>

Because the WC said so.

> Maybe you were there in your dreams...but had your blinders and ear-muffs
> on so you didn't see any lacerations or hear them saying there was one?
>
>

Maybe there was an honest person there accidentally.

[Anthony Marsh]

And he was promptly ignored by Baden and the FPP.
Dr. Angel did a great job, but he got little details wrong.

>> Maybe I did misorientate F8. I don't know how you
>> come to that.
>
> A comment you made in an earlier post...I forget now exactly what that
> was.
>
> To make sure, a rough but functional colorized visual aid to show how F8
> is properly orientated is on McAdams website under head wounds.
>
>> The PH doctor's drawing shows a gigantic blow out.
>
> No offense intended, but not necessarily a "blow-out". Yes, most of the PH
> docs were correct about there being a wound larger than the entry, but
> their desciptions were not exactly the same. On one end of the spectrum
> was the drawing that you posted endorsed by McClelland, but one of those
> other PH docs described it as being much smaller....the size of a quarter.
>

ARRB?

> Their differences are understandable, though...witnesses testimony is like
> that. Still, and again, I fully agree there was a BOH wound larger than
> the entry.
>
> But I'm 100% convinced it was not a blow-out exit wound.
>

Explain how it can be a second entrance wound from only one shot.

So instead of examining it because they were too scared they just
assumed it was an exit wound?

[John Canal]

John King asked:

>> 5. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, but=
>=20
>>=20
>> also others who saw JFK at Parkland such as the SS agents, and would=20
>>=20
>> also include Clint Hill who saw JFK's wounds before Parkland, were all=20
>>=20
>> mistaken about seeing a hole in the back of his head, where on his head=
>=20
>>=20
>> was the correct location of that hole, which they mistakenly identified=
>=20
>>=20

>> as being in the back or rear? Please explain your answer in detail.

>>=20

And John Canal butted in to Big Dog's reply as follows:

>We see in the Z-film a massive blowout in the upper right side of JFK's
>head and that is perfectly consistent with the findings at Bethesda.

True.

>This
>casts doubt on the accuracy of the Parkland observations.

Huh? Several PH docs correctly stated that the wound was
occipital-parietal. Note that the wound actually extended into the frontal
bone.

>It makes me
>believe they never saw the true extent of the wound.

So, in your mind many of them, not only mistakenly thought a wound in the
top/right/front was more in the BOH, but also (10 of them) didn't know
cerebellum from cerebrum?

Have you ever given such a profound accusation some real thought...or do
you just parrot McAdams, who parrots Baden, who parroted his friend
Fisher?

Did you know that Humes [cryptically] agreed with the PH docs. Indeed, a
careful review of Humes' testimony reveals that he switched out the words
in his autopsy report, "severely lacerated falx cerebri" with the words,
"severely lacerated flocculus cerebri" (the flocculus being part of the
cerebellum)?

Anyone wanting to figure out the medical evidence should have been
wondering why Humes did that. I wondered. Was it an incorrect off-the-wall
slip of the tongue? Those who parrot McAdams and Baden think so....but
really was that the case?

How about the fact that in the autopsy report they purposely understated
the extent of the damage to the BOH? Why? Is it concievable that they
feared reporting such a wound might be detrimental to the nation? IOW,
such a BOH wound might be taken, mistakenly or otherwise, as evidence of a
frontal shooter, and they were hesitant to report such a wound especially
when no one was really sure at that time LHO acted alone.

Is that scenario so inconcievable to you?

I'd ask why but who wants to try beyond this to change your cured in
cement beliefs...not me. I wouldn't want you to disagree with the host of
this NG.

So anyway is it concievable to you that four months later, when the world
for the most part was pretty much assured that LHO acted alone and after
Humes had read the reports by the PH docs (he testified he had), he felt
he no longer needed to understate the BOH wound and slipped in his
agreeent that the PH docs who stated they saw cerebellum were not
hallucinating?

That's light years more concievable to me than Humes mispeaking. say you?
Never mind...I know....same anwer as McAdams, i.e. but several PH docs
reversed their account about eeing cerebellum".

Ya right...after they were shown the photos of JFK's paractially
unblemmished BOH...sure they did...pictures don't lie right....of course
some of them changed their minds.

But when the PH docs were shown those pitures were they told that they
[the pics] might not have been taken when JFK first arrived?

Of course they weren't takn then...cripes anyone that's not blind can
compare the top of the head and some of the other photos to the ones
showing the BOH and see that the later were taken later.

Moreover, all the PH docs who said they saw cerebellum did not reverse
their accounts.

But, besides Humes "mispeaking" [flocculus'] also ask yourself why no
pictures showing the BOH were taken when the body was first received at
PH? A oversight?

Or is it concievable to you that once again they didn't want to report
(this time with pictures) an "EXIT-LIKE" [underline "LIKE"] wound that
might suggest there was a frontal shot and therefore a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK?

>There are several
>reasons for the apparent anomaly. First of all, no one at Parkland
>actually treated the head wound.

Well, because he was losing a massive amount of blood from his head
wounds, he needed an IV and blood and they began to attempt those
procedures.

So I'd say they tried to treat that wound.

>It was not looked at closely.

Here's Grossman: "Kemp and I (both neurosurgeons) lifted his head to
inspect the occiput".

Besides about 25 PH eyewitnesses hallucinating do you think they were
liars too?

>Most of the
>ER team would have done nothing more than glanced at the bloody mess.

See above and again, not only did several PH docs state they saw
cerebellum, but also that he wound was occipital parietal.

>Parkland reported a laceration in the area where we see a blowout in JFK's
>head. Jackie testified that on the way to Parkland, she was trying to keep
>his brains inside his head. While she didn't speciifically state she
>closed the flaps, that would be the natural thing to do if she was trying
>to keep his brains from oozing out of his head.

That's feasible...but again several said the wound was
occipital-parietal...so if she closed such a flap she must not have closed
it all...according to several of the PH docs anyway.

One more thing. The autopsy report states that there was an actual absence
of skull and scalp in the area of the large wound...so the story she
closed the scalp flap there--where much of the scalp was missing--if true
sort of jibes with what the PH docs who saw that the wound was
occipital-parietal

Now the part about skull and scalp missing jibes with what Hill said (he
saw a piece of skull with hair on it).

>There was one piece she
>couldn't close, the Harper fragment which was blown completely away.

It's possible she didn't close that part at all.

>That
>would have been toward the rear of the blowout area. With JFK lying on his
>back on the guerney, blood and brain would have oozed from that opening
>and gravity would have taken it to the guerney creating the impression
>that the blowout was confined to the back of the head when in fact the
>entire upper right side had been blown out.

Not only was gravity a factor...his heart was still pumping robustly, at
least briefly, so blood would have been pumped to any BOH wound....yes,
making it look worse than it actually was.

>While this explaination is
>somewhat speculative, it is consistent with the Z-film, the observations
>and Parkland and the findings at Bethesda.

Whoa. Not exactly.....now to make such a profound accusation (the PH docs
were grossly mistaken..or lied) you should stick to the facts.

There were several eyewitnesses at Bethesda who said there was a BOH wound
as well as one that extended far to the front of his head.

>I have yet to hear another one
>that meets that same criteria.

Would you say that your stongest hard evidence for no BOH wound and the PH
(and some Bethesda eyewitnesses) being wrong included the Z-film and the
pictures sghowing the BOH?

As far as the Z-film goes...you even said that the head wounds got worse
as soon as he was put on his back.....what if there was only an opening
immediately after the shot, with no brain or blood gushing or even oozing
out of it yet....would such a wound clearly show up on the Z-film?

Are you sure enough that such a wound would have [shown up on the Z-film]
to accuse about 25 otherwise credible eyewitnesses of being wrong or lying
about the wounds they saw?

No what about the photos showing the practically unblemished BOH? Are you
100% certain they show the BOH as it actually was when the body arrived?

IOW, are you 100% certain those photos weren't taken after the rear scalp
had been repaired...so certain that you make the aforementioned profound
accusations?

If so take a close look in those photos at the blown-out top right front
area of his head. See anything interesting? I did...the autopsist is
gripping easily enough parctically unblemished scalp to cover the area
where the autopsy report stated there was an absence of skull and SCALP!

I wondered where that scalp came from...it wasn't a wig.

How about if the rear scalp, where there was probably only a scalp tear
(with bone fragments dislodged by the rear ebntering bullet), was repaired
and stretched (which it was according to Humes and the
morticians)....before the photos were taken?

Are you so certain that was not the case that you do not hesitate to
continue to make the aforementioned accusations?

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <503c2460$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/27/2012 4:29 PM, John Canal wrote:

Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.

You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
(including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your
own....therfore, it'd be a waste of my time continuing to argue with you
because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
morticians said.

[John Canal]

In article <503c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/27/2012 4:28 PM, John Canal wrote:

Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.

You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
(including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your

own....therefore, it'd be a total waste of my time continuing to argue

with you because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
morticians said.

John Canal

[...]


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/27/2012 11:30 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <503c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/27/2012 4:28 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
> Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.
>

Jesus, why don't you just killfile me if you are unable to discuss the
medical evidence? Why don't you just killfile everyone?

> You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
> (including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your
> own....therefore, it'd be a total waste of my time continuing to argue
> with you because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
> case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
> morticians said.
>

You are taking what the morticians said and then claiming it was done by
the autopsists.

> John Canal
>
> [...]
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So now you admit that the autopsy report was deliberately inaccurate and
yet you ask me to believe it?

> feared reporting such a wound might be detrimental to the nation? IOW,
> such a BOH wound might be taken, mistakenly or otherwise, as evidence of a
> frontal shooter, and they were hesitant to report such a wound especially
> when no one was really sure at that time LHO acted alone.

And how would Humes be smart enough to figure that out? He wasn't smart
enough to see the entrance wound over the right eye.

>
> Is that scenario so inconcievable to you?
>

You make up elaborate conspiracy scenarios because you refuse to deal
with the evidence.

> I'd ask why but who wants to try beyond this to change your cured in
> cement beliefs...not me. I wouldn't want you to disagree with the host of
> this NG.
>
> So anyway is it concievable to you that four months later, when the world
> for the most part was pretty much assured that LHO acted alone and after
> Humes had read the reports by the PH docs (he testified he had), he felt
> he no longer needed to understate the BOH wound and slipped in his

When did Humes read any reports by the PH docs? Prove it.

[John Canal]

In article <503c29a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/27/2012 9:26 PM, John Canal wrote:

Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.

You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
(including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your

own....therfore, it'd be a waste of my time continuing to argue with you

because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
morticians said.

[John Canal]

In article <503c29a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>

>On 8/27/2012 9:26 PM, John Canal wrote:

Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.

You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
(including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your

own....therefore, it'd be a total waste of my time continuing to argue

with you because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
morticians said.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:503c2395$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Comparatively

>
>> and probably, a lot of citizens have with this issue. Because none of the
>> medical evidence supports the collaborating medical evidence. Just pick
>> one issue?
>>
>> Look at Zapruder. It shows the side of the head exploded. Not the back of
>> the head. F8 shows this tiny little whole. The autopsy calls it an entry.

Dough!!! Typo. HOLE. Sorry you "smart" guys didn't get that one.

>
> What whole? Where? The WHOLE hole or just part of the WHOLE?
>
>> OK. But the previous shot was so powerful, it (supposedly) went through
>> both men causing a lot of damage. Persay. But here we have a rifle shot
>> to
>> the BOH. Full impact to a thin skull bone with almost no damage. Even if
>> the impact was as large as the Parkland doctors said, It would make more
>> since than a quarter inch size hole.
>>
>
> You know absolutely nothing about wound ballistics.

If I did, I wouldn't need your opinion. Which I don't see yet.

>
>> Again looking at the Zapruder wound compared the F8 medical evidence to
>> the side wound. The F8 example is much smaller. When the X-rays are
>> added,
>> the mud thickens.
>>
>> Compare the stare of death photo to the X-rays. The photo shows the front
>> of the face and forehead intact. The X-rays show the forehead and top of
>> the head bone missing. But not the side of the skull bone where the
>> Zapruder shows the head exploded outward.
>>
>
> The X-rays do not show the whole forehead missing. They are consistent
> with the stare of death photos.

Obviously you are to busy putting everybody else down to pay much
attention to what you are commenting about. The Stare of death photo shows
the skull damage to be on the top and rear of the skull, with the side
damage. BUT THE ENTIRE FORHEAD AND FACE ARE INTACT AND WITHOUT DAMAGE, in
the photo. But the X-ray shows the front of the skull and right forehead
blown away. Along with the Zapruder film, you defend, shows the face and
forehead was not damaged. It shows the wound to be on the top right side
of the head. NOT in the front of the skull, above the eye as shown in the
X-ray. If the X-ray is correct as you claim, why isn't there any damage
shown in photos of the area? Why does the photos show the wound to be on
the side of the skull and the X-ray shows the damage to the front of the
skull and the face??? The face????

>
>> Sorry about the plain talk. I'm not expert and don't know all those legal
>> and medical rig-a-ma-raw terms. But even to me and most of the public,
>> this medical evidence JUST don't add up. And you all don't have any
>> definitive answers.
>>
>
> I do. You refuse to learn.
>

I refuse to be misguided. When you say something educating, THAT is
educating.

>
>

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:503acf40$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

The PH doctors, nurses, staff and handlers and many others didn't think it
was imaginary. One eyewitness, Dennis David, in one of the film
documentaries claimed it was as big as a fist.

>

[John Canal]

>But, besides Humes "mispeaking" [flocculus'] also ask yourself why no
>pictures showing the BOH were taken when the body was first received at
>PH? A oversight?

I meant to say, "...when the body was first received at Bethesda?" I
mistakenly wrote "....first received at PH?"

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Don't be shy, Tony. Explain to everyone why having evidence of a frontal
shooter means that he must speak Russian.

Or have been paid by the Russians.

Or connected with Russia in any way shape or form...

>> Nor is there inherently any requirement to have a foreign government
>> involved merely by demonstrating that more than one person was firing.
>>
>> It's just as possible that it was the death of Oswald that allowed for the
>> re-writing of the autopsy report - a theory that you "refuted" with a
>> statement that you've *NEVER* been able to cite for.
>>
>
>It was rewritten while Oswald was still alive.

You *do* have problems citing, don't you? I'm sure you recall this:

"In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24th,
I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this
represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace
of my recreation room." - Dr. Humes.

Now, tell us Tony, can you cite for your claim that he was burning
paperwork on Saturday?

And pin down, USING THE TESTIMONY AND CITATIONS, your claim that the
autopsy report was completely re-written before Oswald was murdered?

>>> Explain how the fact that Oswald defected to the Soviet
>>> Union proves a frontal shooter. Whether he fired any shots or not your
>>> logic would say that it was a conspiracy because you have a frontal
>>> shooter.
>>>
>>>> Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
>>>> first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
>>>> not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, you think this prove your conspiracy.
>>>
>>>> BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
>>>> you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
>>>> with JFK faing the camera.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't go there. I have Fox 8 oriented exactly as you do. Whenever you
>>> lose an argument you claim that I think things that I never have.
>>
>>
>> Of course, should someone start QUOTING your exact words, you simply
>> refuse to respond any more... isn't that true, Tony?
>>
>
>Are you arguing on John's behalf because he is physically unable to post
>himself?

No Tony, I'm merely referring to the most recent post you refused to
respond to because I quoted (numerous times) your exact statements. I'll
be happy to repost it just to give you the opportunity to refuse to answer
again.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503c2789$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/27/2012 4:28 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <503ac33e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 8/26/2012 5:21 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've read much more than you have.
>>
>> So you're read the autopsy report and just disagree with every significant
>> finding they reported, eh?
>>
>
>No. Maybe I agree 100% with what they originally found before they
>rewrote it.

Then even the prosectors would disagree with you. *THEY* know that they
missed the bullet wound in the throat completely in the first autopsy
report.

>> Or did you conjur up a wild theory about no hits to the BOH and a frontal
>> shot missed by the autopsists and then decide to read their report?
>>
>
>Which one? The original autopsy report of the one he rewrote?

When someone asked you if you've read the autopsy report, and you imply
that you *could* have read the original one, people are going to suspect
something.

(probably the same thing that they suspect when you make assertions that
have *NO* evidence to support it)

>> And when their report conflicted with your wacky theory you then had to
>> claim they were incompetent..as Moe, Curly, and Larry, right?
>>
>
>Jeez, I dearly hope that I was the first to call them The Three Stooges.
>But I did not specify which character will play which doctor. And why
>did you overlook Shemp?
>I was not the first to call them incompetent.
>
>> Get serious Marsh, you're always asking me for citations because you're
>> lost on the medical evidence.
>>
>
>Is that your way of saying that you can't back up any of your claims?

Of course, no-one has ever seen the citation for Dr. Humes burning
anything at all on Saturday morning...

>> Do you know for example where Boswell stated that defect in the scalp in
>> the BOH photos was a laceration?
>>
>
>Do you know for example where Humes stated that defect in the scalp in
>the BOH is a bloodlot?
>
>> So why would you tell us there waas no laceration?
>>
>
>Because the WC said so.
>
>> Maybe you were there in your dreams...but had your blinders and ear-muffs
>> on so you didn't see any lacerations or hear them saying there was one?
>>
>>
>
>
>Maybe there was an honest person there accidentally.
>
>

[bigdog]

On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:29:07 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> John King asked:

>=20
>=20
>=20
> >> 5. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, b=
ut=3D
>=20
> >=3D20
>=20
> >>=3D20

>=20
> >> also others who saw JFK at Parkland such as the SS agents, and would=

=3D20
>=20
> >>=3D20

>=20
> >> also include Clint Hill who saw JFK's wounds before Parkland, were all=

=3D20
>=20
> >>=3D20
>=20
> >> mistaken about seeing a hole in the back of his head, where on his hea=
d=3D
>=20
> >=3D20
>=20
> >>=3D20
>=20
> >> was the correct location of that hole, which they mistakenly identifie=
d=3D
>=20
> >=3D20
>=20
> >>=3D20

>=20
> >> as being in the back or rear? Please explain your answer in detail.
>=20

> >>=3D20
>=20
>=20

>=20
> And John Canal butted in to Big Dog's reply as follows:

>=20
>=20
>=20
> >We see in the Z-film a massive blowout in the upper right side of JFK's=
=20
>=20

> >head and that is perfectly consistent with the findings at Bethesda.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> True.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >This=20
>=20

> >casts doubt on the accuracy of the Parkland observations.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Huh? Several PH docs correctly stated that the wound was=20
>=20
> occipital-parietal. Note that the wound actually extended into the fronta=
l=20
>=20
> bone.
>=20

Perfectly consistent with the hole left by the missing Harper fragment but
not consistent with the Bethesda observation that the wound was chiefly
parietal extending somewhat in the the occipital and temporal regions.

>=20
>=20
> >It makes me=20
>=20

> >believe they never saw the true extent of the wound.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> So, in your mind many of them, not only mistakenly thought a wound in the=
=20
>=20
> top/right/front was more in the BOH, but also (10 of them) didn't know=20
>=20
> cerebellum from cerebrum?
>=20

In my mind they spent little if any time examing the head wound. Their
efforts were chiefly aimed at stabilizing blood pressure, respiration,
etc. in = addition to the tracheotomy. If we believe the priests, they
entered the ER before 1:00 and he was already covered up which tells us
that the actual time of death was wll before the official time of 1:00.
That means their entire efforts were probably no more than ten minutes and
given all the other things that were done, very little if any time was
spent looking at the head wound. If it had been John Doe instead of John
Kennedy wheeled into that ER, I doubt they would have even bothered doing
much of anything.

>=20
>=20
> Have you ever given such a profound accusation some real thought...or do=
=20
>=20
> you just parrot McAdams, who parrots Baden, who parroted his friend=20
>=20
> Fisher?
>=20

I have given it a lot of thought and my beliefs don't parrot anybody. They
are my own and it is the only explaination I have encountered which
explains the descrepancies. We have a visual record of the wound at the
time of the shooting and an autopsy that yields findings perfectly
compatible with that record. In between we have observations from the
Parkland staff that presents a somewhat different view of the head wound.
This tells me they failed to see the true extent of that head wound
because they never bothered to closely examine it. Why would they?

>=20
>=20
> Did you know that Humes [cryptically] agreed with the PH docs. Indeed, a=
=20
>=20
> careful review of Humes' testimony reveals that he switched out the words=
=20
>=20
> in his autopsy report, "severely lacerated falx cerebri" with the words,=
=20
>=20
> "severely lacerated flocculus cerebri" (the flocculus being part of the=
=20
>=20
> cerebellum)?
>=20

Which doesn't address the fact that the Parkland staff thought the wound
was toward the back of the head rather than all along the upper right side
of the head which we know was the true extent of the wound.

>=20
>=20
> Anyone wanting to figure out the medical evidence should have been=20
>=20
> wondering why Humes did that. I wondered. Was it an incorrect off-the-wal=
l=20
>=20
> slip of the tongue? Those who parrot McAdams and Baden think so....but=20
>=20

> really was that the case?

>=20

When you find out, let us know. I'm not losing sleep over it.=20

>=20
>=20
> How about the fact that in the autopsy report they purposely understated=
=20
>=20
> the extent of the damage to the BOH? Why? Is it concievable that they=20
>=20
> feared reporting such a wound might be detrimental to the nation? IOW,=20
>=20
> such a BOH wound might be taken, mistakenly or otherwise, as evidence of =
a=20
>=20
> frontal shooter, and they were hesitant to report such a wound especially=
=20
>=20

> when no one was really sure at that time LHO acted alone.

>=20
>=20
>=20

> Is that scenario so inconcievable to you?

>=20

Many things are conceivable that aren't true. I have no reason to believe
this is. You are reading way too much into it.

>=20
>=20
> I'd ask why but who wants to try beyond this to change your cured in=20
>=20
> cement beliefs...not me. I wouldn't want you to disagree with the host of=
=20
>=20
> this NG.
>=20

When I have disagreed with the host of this NG I have stated that freely.
Since we are largely in agreement regarding the issues of the JFK
assassination, those disagreements have usually been are peripheral
issues.

>=20
>=20
> So anyway is it concievable to you that four months later, when the world=
=20
>=20
> for the most part was pretty much assured that LHO acted alone and after=
=20
>=20
> Humes had read the reports by the PH docs (he testified he had), he felt=
=20
>=20
> he no longer needed to understate the BOH wound and slipped in his=20
>=20
> agreeent that the PH docs who stated they saw cerebellum were not=20
>=20
> hallucinating?
>=20
I don't find your speculations to be a substitute for compelling evidence.=
=20
>=20
>=20
> That's light years more concievable to me than Humes mispeaking. say you?=
=20
>=20
> Never mind...I know....same anwer as McAdams, i.e. but several PH docs=20
>=20

> reversed their account about eeing cerebellum".

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Ya right...after they were shown the photos of JFK's paractially=20
>=20
> unblemmished BOH...sure they did...pictures don't lie right....of course=
=20
>=20

> some of them changed their minds.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> But when the PH docs were shown those pitures were they told that they=20
>=20

> [the pics] might not have been taken when JFK first arrived?

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Of course they weren't takn then...cripes anyone that's not blind can=20
>=20
> compare the top of the head and some of the other photos to the ones=20
>=20

> showing the BOH and see that the later were taken later.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Moreover, all the PH docs who said they saw cerebellum did not reverse=20
>=20
> their accounts.
>=20

Since JFK had a hole in his skull left by the missing Harper fragment and
that hole would have been near the surface of the guerney, it is not at
all inconceivable to me that cerebellum could have oozed out of that hole.
Gravity was carrying blood and brain matter out of that hole.

>=20
>=20
> But, besides Humes "mispeaking" [flocculus'] also ask yourself why no=20
>=20
> pictures showing the BOH were taken when the body was first received at=
=20
>=20
> PH? A oversight?
>=20

Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
what pictures should or should not have been taken.

>=20
>=20
> Or is it concievable to you that once again they didn't want to report=20
>=20
> (this time with pictures) an "EXIT-LIKE" [underline "LIKE"] wound that=20
>=20
> might suggest there was a frontal shot and therefore a conspiracy to=20
>=20
> assassinate JFK?
>=20

I have no reason to believe the Bethesda team did anything but their best
efforts to perform a task they were not thoroughly prepared to do, a
medico-legal autopsy of a gunshot murder victim.

>=20
>=20
> >There are several=20
>=20
> >reasons for the apparent anomaly. First of all, no one at Parkland=20
>=20

> >actually treated the head wound.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Well, because he was losing a massive amount of blood from his head=20
>=20
> wounds, he needed an IV and blood and they began to attempt those=20
>=20
> procedures.
>=20

Which did not require them to closely exam that wound.=20

>=20
>=20

> So I'd say they tried to treat that wound.

>=20

They were treating the effects of the wound. Falling blood pressure and
respiration.

>=20
>=20

> >It was not looked at closely.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Here's Grossman: "Kemp and I (both neurosurgeons) lifted his head to=20
>=20
> inspect the occiput".
>=20

If they had looked more closely at the parietal and temporal regions, they
might have understood those were blown out too.

>=20
>=20
> Besides about 25 PH eyewitnesses hallucinating do you think they were=20
>=20
> liars too?
>=20

No, I think they gave a cursory examination of a head wound the extent of
which had been disguised by Jackie's efforts to close the wound.

>=20
>=20
> >Most of the=20
>=20
> >ER team would have done nothing more than glanced at the bloody mess.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> See above and again, not only did several PH docs state they saw=20
>=20

> cerebellum, but also that he wound was occipital parietal.

>=20
No mention of temporal which we know occured.=20
>=20
>=20
> >Parkland reported a laceration in the area where we see a blowout in JFK=
's=20
>=20
> >head. Jackie testified that on the way to Parkland, she was trying to ke=
ep=20
>=20
> >his brains inside his head. While she didn't speciifically state she=20
>=20
> >closed the flaps, that would be the natural thing to do if she was tryin=
g=20
>=20

> >to keep his brains from oozing out of his head.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> That's feasible...but again several said the wound was=20
>=20
> occipital-parietal...so if she closed such a flap she must not have close=
d=20
>=20

> it all...according to several of the PH docs anyway.

>=20
She couldn't close it all. The Harper fragment was missing. This left a hol=
e in the occipital-parietal region.=20
>=20
>=20
> One more thing. The autopsy report states that there was an actual absenc=
e=20
>=20
> of skull and scalp in the area of the large wound...so the story she=20
>=20
> closed the scalp flap there--where much of the scalp was missing--if true=
=20
>=20
> sort of jibes with what the PH docs who saw that the wound was=20
>=20
> occipital-parietal

You keep ignoring the fact the autopsy team determined the blowout
extended into the temporal region, something that wasn't apparent to
anyone at Parkland. Can you name a single person at Parkland who thought
the temporal region had any blowout? If not, it is apparent, they failed
to appreciate the true extent of that wound.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Now the part about skull and scalp missing jibes with what Hill said (he=
=20
>=20

> saw a piece of skull with hair on it).

>=20
>=20
>=20
> >There was one piece she=20
>=20

> >couldn't close, the Harper fragment which was blown completely away.

>=20
>=20
>=20

> It's possible she didn't close that part at all.

>=20

It's a certainty she couldn't have closed that part because that part was
found in the street.

>=20
>=20
> >That=20
>=20
> >would have been toward the rear of the blowout area. With JFK lying on h=
is=20
>=20
> >back on the guerney, blood and brain would have oozed from that opening=
=20
>=20
> >and gravity would have taken it to the guerney creating the impression=
=20
>=20
> >that the blowout was confined to the back of the head when in fact the=
=20
>=20

> >entire upper right side had been blown out.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Not only was gravity a factor...his heart was still pumping robustly, at=
=20
>=20
> least briefly, so blood would have been pumped to any BOH wound....yes,=
=20
>=20

> making it look worse than it actually was.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> >While this explaination is=20
>=20
> >somewhat speculative, it is consistent with the Z-film, the observations=
=20
>=20

> >and Parkland and the findings at Bethesda.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Whoa. Not exactly.....now to make such a profound accusation (the PH docs=
=20
>=20

> were grossly mistaken..or lied) you should stick to the facts.

>=20

I'm not making any accusations, just observations. Nobody at Parkland took
a close look at the head wound, a wound that in all probability had
largely been closed by Jackie's attempts to keep his brains inside his
skull. There is no reason to expect that they should have. The were
treating a guy they knew was going to die very soon. It wasn't until
autopsy that it was learned how massive the blowout area was.

>=20
>=20
> There were several eyewitnesses at Bethesda who said there was a BOH woun=
d=20
>=20

> as well as one that extended far to the front of his head.

>=20

It was one large blowout.

>=20
>=20
> >I have yet to hear another one=20
>=20

> >that meets that same criteria.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Would you say that your stongest hard evidence for no BOH wound and the P=
H=20
>=20
> (and some Bethesda eyewitnesses) being wrong included the Z-film and the=
=20
>=20
> pictures sghowing the BOH?
>=20

I don't look at evidence in isolation. I look at the entire body of
evidence and try to reach conclusions compatible with all of it, not some
parts of it.

>=20
>=20
> As far as the Z-film goes...you even said that the head wounds got worse=
=20
>=20
> as soon as he was put on his back.....what if there was only an opening=
=20
>=20
> immediately after the shot, with no brain or blood gushing or even oozing=
=20
>=20

> out of it yet....would such a wound clearly show up on the Z-film?

>=20

I'm not into playing what-ifs.

>=20
>=20
> Are you sure enough that such a wound would have [shown up on the Z-film]=
=20
>=20
> to accuse about 25 otherwise credible eyewitnesses of being wrong or lyin=
g=20
>=20

> about the wounds they saw?

You keep saying I am accusing people. I think everyone involved gave their
best efforts and honestly reported what they observed. I also think that
what some of them observed didn't reveal the true extent of the head
wound.


>=20
>=20
>=20
> No what about the photos showing the practically unblemished BOH? Are you=
=20
>=20

> 100% certain they show the BOH as it actually was when the body arrived?

>=20

We have both x-rays and photos and the xrays showed massive fracturing of
the skull and many large pieces of skull remained attached to the scalp.
That allowed portions of the blast out area to be opened and closed
presenting different pictures to different people and different times.

>=20
>=20
> IOW, are you 100% certain those photos weren't taken after the rear scalp=
=20
>=20
> had been repaired...so certain that you make the aforementioned profound=
=20
>=20
> accusations?
>=20

I don't need to be certain of such a thing and once again, I am making no
accusations.

>=20
>=20
> If so take a close look in those photos at the blown-out top right front=
=20
>=20
> area of his head. See anything interesting? I did...the autopsist is=20
>=20
> gripping easily enough parctically unblemished scalp to cover the area=20
>=20

> where the autopsy report stated there was an absence of skull and SCALP!

>=20
>=20
>=20

> I wondered where that scalp came from...it wasn't a wig.

>=20
Keep wondering about that.=20
>=20
>=20
> How about if the rear scalp, where there was probably only a scalp tear=
=20
>=20
> (with bone fragments dislodged by the rear ebntering bullet), was repaire=
d=20
>=20
> and stretched (which it was according to Humes and the=20
>=20

> morticians)....before the photos were taken?

>=20
More ifs.=20
>=20
>=20
> Are you so certain that was not the case that you do not hesitate to=20
>=20

> continue to make the aforementioned accusations?

Point out one place where I accused anyone of malfeasance or dishonesty.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503c3ee9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Why not prove that he didn't?

Mr. SPECTER - And have you had occasion since to examine the report of
Parkland Hospital which I made available to you?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. SPECTER - May it please the Commission, I would like to note this as
Commission Exhibit No. 392, and subject to later technical proof, to have
it admitted into evidence at this time for the purpose of having the
doctor comment about it.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be so marked.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 392, for
identification.)

Tony, you repeatedly make simple evidential mistakes ... probably because
you don't bother to check. The above quote took me all of about a minute
to find and copy/paste.

Now, if you wish to argue that he did *NOT* see these medical reports from
Parkland, can you offer ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your claim?

[John Canal]

In article <503c3ee9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>

>On 8/27/2012 11:29 PM, John Canal wrote:

Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.

You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
(including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your
own....therefore, it'd be a total waste of my time continuing to argue
with you because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
morticians said.

[John Canal]

In article <503c3db2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/27/2012 11:30 PM, John Canal wrote:

Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.

You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
(including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your
own....therefore, it'd be a total waste of my time continuing to argue
with you because you are totally lost when it comes to that part of this
case....and I'm hardly running from you...you even diss off what the
morticians said.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/28/2012 5:16 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <503c3db2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/27/2012 11:30 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
> Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.
>

Then you need to killfile everyone so that you can continue your
delusion that only you understand the medical evidence.

> You diss off the linchpin part of the medical evidence, the autopsy
> (including what the photos show) as total B/S and make up your

You are the one who said the autopsy report was phony and that the
autopsy doctors are part of the conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Report, singular of the hospital. You said reports, plural, from the
Parkland doctors, plural.

> Tony, you repeatedly make simple evidential mistakes ... probably because
> you don't bother to check. The above quote took me all of about a minute
> to find and copy/paste.
>
> Now, if you wish to argue that he did *NOT* see these medical reports from
> Parkland, can you offer ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your claim?
>

I notice that you can't upload these reports, plural.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/28/2012 5:04 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <503c2789$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/27/2012 4:28 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <503ac33e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/26/2012 5:21 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've read much more than you have.
>>>
>>> So you're read the autopsy report and just disagree with every significant
>>> finding they reported, eh?
>>>
>>
>> No. Maybe I agree 100% with what they originally found before they
>> rewrote it.
>
>
> Then even the prosectors would disagree with you. *THEY* know that they
> missed the bullet wound in the throat completely in the first autopsy
> report.
>
>
>
>>> Or did you conjur up a wild theory about no hits to the BOH and a frontal
>>> shot missed by the autopsists and then decide to read their report?
>>>
>>
>> Which one? The original autopsy report of the one he rewrote?
>
>
> When someone asked you if you've read the autopsy report, and you imply
> that you *could* have read the original one, people are going to suspect
> something.
>

I implied nothing. You inferred incorrectly.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never mentioned the Russians. YOU did.

> Or have been paid by the Russians.
>
> Or connected with Russia in any way shape or form...
>

Not my theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

SHOW me the thing you mean. Circle it.

>>
>>> and probably, a lot of citizens have with this issue. Because none of the
>>> medical evidence supports the collaborating medical evidence. Just pick
>>> one issue?
>>>
>>> Look at Zapruder. It shows the side of the head exploded. Not the back of
>>> the head. F8 shows this tiny little whole. The autopsy calls it an entry.
> Dough!!! Typo. HOLE. Sorry you "smart" guys didn't get that one.

What's wrong with you? Admitting a simple mistake. Trying to spoil my fun?

No, they don't. You are not qualified to interpret the X-rays.

> forehead was not damaged. It shows the wound to be on the top right side
> of the head. NOT in the front of the skull, above the eye as shown in the
> X-ray. If the X-ray is correct as you claim, why isn't there any damage
> shown in photos of the area? Why does the photos show the wound to be on
> the side of the skull and the X-ray shows the damage to the front of the
> skull and the face??? The face????
>

The X-rays were taken first when the skull was being held together with
wrappings. The autopsy photos showing the hole in the forehead were
taken after the brain was removed.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/28/2012 3:44 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <503c29a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/27/2012 9:26 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
> Sorry Marsh, I don't chose to discuss the medical evidence with you.
>

Why do you continue to reply to me obsessively when you should be
killfiling me? How can you maintain your illusion of aloofness if you
keep sinking into the muck?

[John Canal]

In article <42f1ee5e-e0b2-4e73...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

The BOH wound described by most of the PH docs was inconsistent with the
phrase, "somewhat into the occipital", especially since many of those PH
eyewitnesses (10 of them) stated they saw cerebellum. As you know in order
for a BOH wound to expose the cerebellum the bottom margin would have had
to be near the EOP.

But the phrase "somewhat into the occipital" was in the autopsy report
which was completed before it was certain that LHO acted alone and that
explains why the report was not totally consistent with what the PH
eyewitnesses saw.

IOW, the autopsists (and those supervising them) did not think it'd be
responsible or prudent to describe (or take pictures of) an "exit-like"
BOH wound such as the one described by the PH witnesses.

Now look at what happens four months later when most are relieved that
there was no evidence found to suggest LHO had accomplishes.....Humes
testifies that they saw cerebellum.

At that time he's agreeing with the PH witnesses that the wound was
actually well into the occipital (vs. "somewhat").

>>=20
>>=20
>> >It makes me=20
>>=20
>> >believe they never saw the true extent of the wound.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So, in your mind many of them, not only mistakenly thought a wound in the=
>=20
>>=20
>> top/right/front was more in the BOH, but also (10 of them) didn't know=20
>>=20
>> cerebellum from cerebrum?
>>=20
>
>In my mind they spent little if any time examing the head wound.

Probably most of them. But cerebellum is easily distinguished from
cerebrum and even if a doctor, especially a neurosurgeon, took a quick
glance they'd be able to tell whether or not cerebellum tissue was
exposed.

>Their
>efforts were chiefly aimed at stabilizing blood pressure, respiration,
>etc. in = addition to the tracheotomy.

Yes, while I ask you to think about what I just wrote re. the cerebellum,
after he'd expired some of them took a closer look.

>If we believe the priests, they
>entered the ER before 1:00 and he was already covered up which tells us
>that the actual time of death was wll before the official time of 1:00.
>That means their entire efforts were probably no more than ten minutes and
>given all the other things that were done, very little if any time was
>spent looking at the head wound. If it had been John Doe instead of John
>Kennedy wheeled into that ER, I doubt they would have even bothered doing
>much of anything.

Even under those chaotic circumstances, how much time do you think it'd
take to see brain exposed and figure out that some of it was cerebellum?
Ask a neurosurgeon. Seconds.

>>=20
>>=20
>> Have you ever given such a profound accusation some real thought...or do=
>=20
>>=20
>> you just parrot McAdams, who parrots Baden, who parroted his friend=20
>>=20
>> Fisher?
>>=20
>
>I have given it a lot of thought and my beliefs don't parrot anybody.

They just match McAdams', Baden's et al. by coincidence. Okay,
coincidences do happen.

>They
>are my own and it is the only explaination I have encountered which
>explains the descrepancies.

An explanation that suggests all those medically trained eyewitnesses were
wrong about seeing a wound larger than the entry in the BACK of his
head......and suggests...

that 11 mostly medically trained witnesses, including the autopsists and
two neurosurgeons couldn't distinguish cerebellum from cerebrum....and
suggests..

that some of the PH lied when they said they got a close look at the wound
and/or lifted his head to see it....and suggests...

that the decision to take no pictures of the back of his head when the
body was first received at Bethesda was not a purposeful one...and
suggests..

That even witnesses at Bethesda who had more time to examine the body were
wrong when they also described a BOH wound?

That explanation satisfies you?

>We have a visual record of the wound at the
>time of the shooting

But the Z-film wouldn't show an BOH opening from which no brain tissue was
being blown out. The wound wasn't a blow-out wound like the one in the
top/right/front of his head.

>and an autopsy that yields findings perfectly
>compatible with that record.

Humes testified to the WC to clarify and add to what was in the autopsy
report. His testimony about them seeing cerebellum was purposeful and a
game-changer vs. what the autopsy report stated.

The circumstances were different between 11-22-63 and March 64 when Humes
testified. The nation was more at ease in March and Humes more accurately
described the wounds.

Not to get sidetracked but for the same reasons the autopsists understated
the BOH wound they lied in the report about when they knew JFK had been
shot in the throat. Once again, you have to read Humes' testimony
carefully...he tells the world they knew that night JFK was shot in the
throat...but he waited until March, 64, when they weren't worried about
any assassination conspiracy to announce that.

>In between we have observations from the
>Parkland staff that presents a somewhat different view of the head wound.

Also observations from Bethesda!

>This tells me they failed to see the true extent of that head wound
>because they never bothered to closely examine it. Why would they?

At first to see what they were up against. Then after it was too late,
pure curiosity? I don't know but it's one thing to suggest many doctors
were mistaken but it's a horse of a different color to suggest some were
lying....like Grossman for example who stated Clark lifted his head to get
a better look at the wound.

>>=20
>>=20
>> Did you know that Humes [cryptically] agreed with the PH docs. Indeed, a=
>=20
>>=20
>> careful review of Humes' testimony reveals that he switched out the words=
>=20
>>=20
>> in his autopsy report, "severely lacerated falx cerebri" with the words,=
>=20
>>=20
>> "severely lacerated flocculus cerebri" (the flocculus being part of the=
>=20
>>=20
>> cerebellum)?
>>=20
>
>Which doesn't address the fact that the Parkland staff thought the wound
>was toward the back of the head rather than all along the upper right side
>of the head which we know was the true extent of the wound.

Again, several PH witnesses said the wound was in both the back of his
head and forward of that into the parietal.

I'm reading much too much into it when I need to find out why over 25
credible eyewitnesses are believed by you to be mistaken about seeing a
wound that extended well into the BOH and or cerebellum?

That's not concievable to me...maybe you think it is...after all that'd be
the politically correct view.

>>=20
>>=20
>> I'd ask why but who wants to try beyond this to change your cured in=20
>>=20
>> cement beliefs...not me. I wouldn't want you to disagree with the host of=
>=20
>>=20
>> this NG.
>>=20
>
>When I have disagreed with the host of this NG I have stated that freely.

But regarding a major issue like this?

>Since we are largely in agreement regarding the issues of the JFK
>assassination, those disagreements have usually been are peripheral
>issues.

Yes, peripheral and no big deal. I disgareed with him on the entry
location and whether or not there was a BOH wound, neither of which is a
peripheral matter, and he won't even reply any more to posts I address to
him.

Play it safe, bigdog, disagree with me and agree with McAdams et al on
these issues and he won't throw you under the bus....kind of like he did
with Sturdivan and Zimmerman about the entry location.

Funny thing though, when Sturdivan was debating Stu Wexler (sp?) about the
NAA he was on Sturdivan's side...now Sturdivan is off the reservation re.
the entry location.

Then McAdams disses off the ARRB forensic experts who say there could be
no cowlick entry seen on the films...I guess they joined Sturdivan and
Zimmerman under the bus....I was there first and it's getting crowed. So
make sure your differences with him are only peripheral.

No way...the posterior margin of the Harper fragment was way too far above
the level of the EOP......which would have been the top of the cerebellum.

At least you seem to be open to the notion that 11 eyewitnesses weren't
mistaken about seeing cerebellum.

>>=20
>>=20
>> But, besides Humes "mispeaking" [flocculus'] also ask yourself why no=20
>>=20
>> pictures showing the BOH were taken when the body was first received at=
>=20
>>=20
>> PH? A oversight?
>>=20
>
>Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
>taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
>what pictures should or should not have been taken.

All the ones showing the BOH scalp, including F8 and color 44 & 45, total
12...that was the precise number of photos added to the original list of
photos taken...there's no doubt that those 12 were taken late...after work
was done on the scalp.....according to the morticians in preparation for
an open-casket funeral.

>>=20
>>=20
>> Or is it concievable to you that once again they didn't want to report=20
>>=20
>> (this time with pictures) an "EXIT-LIKE" [underline "LIKE"] wound that=20
>>=20
>> might suggest there was a frontal shot and therefore a conspiracy to=20
>>=20
>> assassinate JFK?
>>=20
>
>I have no reason to believe the Bethesda team did anything but their best
>efforts to perform a task they were not thoroughly prepared to do, a
>medico-legal autopsy of a gunshot murder victim.

Yes but fate put them in an incredibly tough spot. Given the background of
LHO (Soviet Union), they were worried about the potentially catastrophic
consequences of reporting an exit-like wound in the BOH. They probably
thought they might be over-cautios, but the stakes were too high to not be
cautious.

Again, for the same reason (fear of another shooter), they didn't report
that night that a bullet exited his throat...even though they knew it did.
IOW, they didn't think that night that the back wound to throat wound
trajectory was consistent with a shot from six floors up....they didn't
know JFK was leaning forward so much.

By the time the report was written they had come up with the ridiculous
story about Perry telling them the next AM that the PH docs performed a
tracheostomy over a bullet wound.

Laughable. Heck even Prry testified at first that he thought he talked
with Humes Friday afternoon. Of course he did.

Was it Jenkins who stated the PH docs were relieved when Bethesda called
them soon after the body arrived that JFK had been shot in the back...and
evidently the throat wound was an exit...not an entry as many PH docs
first thought.

>>=20
>>=20
>> >There are several=20
>>=20
>> >reasons for the apparent anomaly. First of all, no one at Parkland=20
>>=20
>> >actually treated the head wound.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Well, because he was losing a massive amount of blood from his head=20
>>=20
>> wounds, he needed an IV and blood and they began to attempt those=20
>>=20
>> procedures.
>>=20
>
>Which did not require them to closely exam that wound.=20

Geesh, see above. If you think the docs were not only mistaken but also
lying, there's no sense in continuing to discuss this. Marsh doesn't
belive hardly a word in the autopsy report and I've stopped discussing the
medical ev. with him.

>>=20
>>=20
>> So I'd say they tried to treat that wound.
>>=20
>
>They were treating the effects of the wound. Falling blood pressure and
>respiration.

Yse, but some said they looked closely at the wound...Grossman said Clark
lifted his head!

McClelland said he was only inches from the BOH wound and looked closely
at it...and definitely saw cerebellum.

And again, there were accounts from Bethesda witnesses that were
consistent with thoose of the PH witnesses.

>>=20
>>=20
>> >It was not looked at closely.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Here's Grossman: "Kemp and I (both neurosurgeons) lifted his head to=20
>>=20
>> inspect the occiput".
>>=20
>
>If they had looked more closely at the parietal and temporal regions, they
>might have understood those were blown out too.

Again, several described an occipital-parietal wound....am I not
communicating that clearly?

>>=20
>>=20
>> Besides about 25 PH eyewitnesses hallucinating do you think they were=20
>>=20
>> liars too?
>>=20
>
>No, I think they gave a cursory examination of a head wound the extent of
>which had been disguised by Jackie's efforts to close the wound.

If a PH witness said Clark lifted JFK's head to get a better look at the
wound and you say they only "gave a cursory examination of a head wound"
then it seems to me you're saying it was a lie that Clark lifted JFK's
head.

How can you disagree with that?

Again evidently she didn't close the area forward of the Harper fragment
too well either...again several docs said the wound was
occipital-parietal, not just in the BOH.

=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> One more thing. The autopsy report states that there was an actual absenc=
>e=20
>>=20
>> of skull and scalp in the area of the large wound...so the story she=20
>>=20
>> closed the scalp flap there--where much of the scalp was missing--if true=
>=20
>>=20
>> sort of jibes with what the PH docs who saw that the wound was=20
>>=20
>> occipital-parietal
>
>You keep ignoring the fact the autopsy team determined the blowout
>extended into the temporal region, something that wasn't apparent to
>anyone at Parkland. Can you name a single person at Parkland who thought
>the temporal region had any blowout? If not, it is apparent, they failed
>to appreciate the true extent of that wound.

Several simply said the wound was right-rear...the right temporal and
occipital bones meet in the right-rear.

Also if you'll look at the drawing that McClelland endorsed it appears as
if the right margin of that drawn wound includes part of the
temporal....or it's extremely close to it.

Again, 11 saw cerebellum...that places at least part of the wound in the
low rear of his head.

At least you seem to be open to them seeing cerebellum.

Look Boswell testified that a piece of skull with the top half of the
entry, which he and every other human who said they saw the entry on the
body said was near the EOP on the right side (2.5 cm right), came loose
hen they reflected the scalp. It's precisely that area where most of the
witnesses placed the BOH wound....I believe, and it's just a theory, at
least that skull piece had dislodged (with a scalp tear there) causing an
opening through which, once he was on his back, blood and brain matter was
pumped (briefly)/gravitated and cerebellum was exposed.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Now the part about skull and scalp missing jibes with what Hill said (he=
>=20
>>=20
>> saw a piece of skull with hair on it).
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> >There was one piece she=20
>>=20
>> >couldn't close, the Harper fragment which was blown completely away.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> It's possible she didn't close that part at all.
>>=20
>
>It's a certainty she couldn't have closed that part because that part was
>found in the street.

Funny though isn't it that the bone in the large area on the right forward
of that all the way into the frontal was also missing and many claim the
PH docs couldn't see any large wound in that area because she closed it.

Observations? That they didn't know the BOH from the top? That they didn't
lift his head to get a better look at the wound? That they didn't know
cerebrum from cerebellum?

If those are your observations, I'd hate to see your accusations.

>Nobody at Parkland took
>a close look at the head wound,

Ok, so like Marsh, you're convinced some of them lied.

>a wound that in all probability had
>largely been closed by Jackie's attempts to keep his brains inside his
>skull. There is no reason to expect that they should have. The were
>treating a guy they knew was going to die very soon. It wasn't until
>autopsy that it was learned how massive the blowout area was.

See above...again!

Interesting, it's taken me 12 years to study the medical evidence...I
didn't know you had looked at the entire body as I've tried to do.

>>=20
>>=20
>> As far as the Z-film goes...you even said that the head wounds got worse=
>=20
>>=20
>> as soon as he was put on his back.....what if there was only an opening=
>=20
>>=20
>> immediately after the shot, with no brain or blood gushing or even oozing=
>=20
>>=20
>> out of it yet....would such a wound clearly show up on the Z-film?
>>=20
>
>I'm not into playing what-ifs.

So if there's a conflict in the reports you don't attempt to explain it?
That's where what if's come in...they are potential explanations that
clould be checked out further.

>>=20
>>=20
>> Are you sure enough that such a wound would have [shown up on the Z-film]=
>=20
>>=20
>> to accuse about 25 otherwise credible eyewitnesses of being wrong or lyin=
>g=20
>>=20
>> about the wounds they saw?
>
>You keep saying I am accusing people. I think everyone involved gave their
>best efforts and honestly reported what they observed. I also think that
>what some of them observed didn't reveal the true extent of the head
>wound.

I hate repaeating myself but:

saying that they didn't know the BOH from the top? That they didn't lift
his head to get a better look at the wound? That they didn't know cerebrum
from cerebellum?

If those are your observations, I'd hate to see your accusations.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> No what about the photos showing the practically unblemished BOH? Are you=
>=20
>>=20
>> 100% certain they show the BOH as it actually was when the body arrived?
>>=20
>
>We have both x-rays and photos and the xrays showed massive fracturing of
>the skull and many large pieces of skull remained attached to the scalp.
>That allowed portions of the blast out area to be opened and closed
>presenting different pictures to different people and different times.

You danced around my question. Is it not obvious to you that the photos
showing a practically unblemished BOH (WITH NOT A HINT OF ANY OCCIPITAL OR
TEMPORAL DAMAGE) were taken later and that the ones showing gore all over
were taken when the body was first received?

Do you realize that the photos showing an intact BOH scalp were evidence
the HSCA considered when they agreed with you and McAdams et al that the
PH docs were wrong about seeing any BOH wound?

What kind of bullsh-- evidence is that if thse damn pictures used as
evidence were not even taken close to when the body was received?????

>>=20
>>=20
>> IOW, are you 100% certain those photos weren't taken after the rear scalp=
>=20
>>=20
>> had been repaired...so certain that you make the aforementioned profound=
>=20
>>=20
>> accusations?
>>=20
>
>I don't need to be certain of such a thing and once again, I am making no
>accusations.

Ya right. You've simply "observed" that they misspoke when they said they
lifted his head to get a better look at the wound.

You said they didn't get a good look at the wound.

There is testimony that says Clark and Grossman lifted his head to get a
better look at the wound.

Also, McClelland says he was only inches from the BOH wound and had
several uninterupted minutes to look at it.

You're calling them liars.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <42f1ee5e-e0b2-4e73...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

[...]

bigdog wrote:

You keep ignoring the fact the autopsy team determined the blowout
extended into the temporal region, something that wasn't apparent to
anyone at Parkland. Can you name a single person at Parkland who thought
the temporal region had any blowout? If not, it is apparent, they failed
to appreciate the true extent of that wound.

Canal: I had to refer to my notes:

McClelland: "There was also a large piece of skull attached to a flap of
scalp in the right temporal area".

Baxter: "portions of the right temporal and occipital bones were missing".

Salyer: "..had a wound of his right temporal region".


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503d43ae$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 8/28/2012 5:04 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <503c2789$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 8/27/2012 4:28 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <503ac33e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/26/2012 5:21 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>>> Suggest you not discuss the medical evidence because you haven't read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've read much more than you have.
>>>>
>>>> So you're read the autopsy report and just disagree with every significant
>>>> finding they reported, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Maybe I agree 100% with what they originally found before they
>>> rewrote it.
>>
>>
>> Then even the prosectors would disagree with you. *THEY* know that they
>> missed the bullet wound in the throat completely in the first autopsy
>> report.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Or did you conjur up a wild theory about no hits to the BOH and a frontal
>>>> shot missed by the autopsists and then decide to read their report?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which one? The original autopsy report of the one he rewrote?
>>
>>
>> When someone asked you if you've read the autopsy report, and you imply
>> that you *could* have read the original one, people are going to suspect
>> something.
>>
>
>I implied nothing. You inferred incorrectly.

Then you were ... oops, can't say it.

You referred to a report that the chances of you *ever* having read it, or
being able to read it, are effectively zero.

So tell us, why did you even *mention* the idea?

>> (probably the same thing that they suspect when you make assertions that
>> have *NO* evidence to support it)
>>
>>
>>>> And when their report conflicted with your wacky theory you then had to
>>>> claim they were incompetent..as Moe, Curly, and Larry, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeez, I dearly hope that I was the first to call them The Three Stooges.
>>> But I did not specify which character will play which doctor. And why
>>> did you overlook Shemp?
>>> I was not the first to call them incompetent.
>>>
>>>> Get serious Marsh, you're always asking me for citations because you're
>>>> lost on the medical evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that your way of saying that you can't back up any of your claims?
>>
>>
>> Of course, no-one has ever seen the citation for Dr. Humes burning
>> anything at all on Saturday morning...
>>
>>
>>>> Do you know for example where Boswell stated that defect in the scalp in
>>>> the BOH photos was a laceration?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know for example where Humes stated that defect in the scalp in
>>> the BOH is a bloodlot?
>>>
>>>> So why would you tell us there waas no laceration?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the WC said so.
>>>
>>>> Maybe you were there in your dreams...but had your blinders and ear-muffs
>>>> on so you didn't see any lacerations or hear them saying there was one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe there was an honest person there accidentally.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503d4445$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I know you despise it when I prove you wrong by quoting your own words...
here they are again:

"No, that would have caused WWIII. That's why Humes burned the original

autopsy report. Explain how the fact that Oswald defected to the Soviet

Union proves a frontal shooter. Whether he fired any shots or not your
logic would say that it was a conspiracy because you have a frontal
shooter."

Perhaps you think that the "Soviet Union" is populated by the Chinese, but
I'm happy to accept that "Russians" is the correct term to use.

So tis true, you never used the word "Russians", but tell us Tony, to whom
were you referring?

Who, in 1963, was worrisome enough to use the term "WWIII"?

>> Or have been paid by the Russians.
>>
>> Or connected with Russia in any way shape or form...
>>
>
>Not my theory.

You *DID* assert "No, that would have caused WWIII." Who did *YOU* think
the enemy in such a war was going to be?

>>>> Nor is there inherently any requirement to have a foreign government
>>>> involved merely by demonstrating that more than one person was firing.
>>>>
>>>> It's just as possible that it was the death of Oswald that allowed for the
>>>> re-writing of the autopsy report - a theory that you "refuted" with a
>>>> statement that you've *NEVER* been able to cite for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was rewritten while Oswald was still alive.
>>
>>
>> You *do* have problems citing, don't you? I'm sure you recall this:
>>
>> "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24th,
>> I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this
>> represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace
>> of my recreation room." - Dr. Humes.
>>
>> Now, tell us Tony, can you cite for your claim that he was burning
>> paperwork on Saturday?

Dead silence.

>> And pin down, USING THE TESTIMONY AND CITATIONS, your claim that the
>> autopsy report was completely re-written before Oswald was murdered?

Dead silence.

>>>>> Explain how the fact that Oswald defected to the Soviet
>>>>> Union proves a frontal shooter. Whether he fired any shots or not your
>>>>> logic would say that it was a conspiracy because you have a frontal
>>>>> shooter.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think it was just an oversight that they took pictures when he
>>>>>>first arrived that showed the front, top (head), and sides of his body but
>>>>>> not any that showed the back of his head until it was worked on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, you think this prove your conspiracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I've told you this before...I believe you're misorientating F8 when
>>>>>>you're viewing it. Those pics (F8 series, color prints 44 & 45) were taken
>>>>>> with JFK faing the camera.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't go there. I have Fox 8 oriented exactly as you do. Whenever you
>>>>> lose an argument you claim that I think things that I never have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, should someone start QUOTING your exact words, you simply
>>>> refuse to respond any more... isn't that true, Tony?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you arguing on John's behalf because he is physically unable to post
>>> himself?
>>
>>
>> No Tony, I'm merely referring to the most recent post you refused to
>> respond to because I quoted (numerous times) your exact statements. I'll
>> be happy to repost it just to give you the opportunity to refuse to answer
>> again.

Clearly, since you had no comment to make, you accepted my response.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503d42ef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

If you *really* believe that Exhibit No. 392 refers to a "single" report,
can you name the *ONE* person who wrote it?

And to save you the precious seconds it would have taken to look this up,
here's the URL:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_392.pdf

Now, would you like to prove that Dr. Humes did *NOT* "read any reports by
the PH docs"?

>> Tony, you repeatedly make simple evidential mistakes ... probably because
>> you don't bother to check. The above quote took me all of about a minute
>> to find and copy/paste.
>>
>> Now, if you wish to argue that he did *NOT* see these medical reports from
>> Parkland, can you offer ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your claim?
>>
>
>I notice that you can't upload these reports, plural.

I just cited for these reports, plural.

I notice that you didn't, as I ask you to, prove that Dr. Humes did *NOT*
read these reports, plural.

Care to take a stab at it?

[John King]

In article <k19hh...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> [...]
>
> Marsh babbled:
>
> >But we have a kook who says that Humes was trying to stretch the scalp to
> >move the hole up from the EOP to the cowlick area to get a trajectory from
> >the sniper's nest to line up.
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

***COUGH*** ***GUFFAW*** ***RETCH*** ***SPEW*** ***SPUTTER***
***STRANGLE****

(Someone, anyone, insert here any other term du jour indicating any
combination of mirth and perplexity, especially when taken by surprise
while drinking alcoholic or non-alcoholic liquid.)

John, that question was conclusively answered at least a decade ago. ;-)

But, I do know that you and I have discussed this entity before, and you
are of course free to continue to attempt to achieve the impossible if
you wish. But at least you can from now on warn us not to be imbibing
any substance that is liquid at room temperature as we read such a
question.

Unless you would like me to tell you that you may soon owe me a new
keyboard? :P

Today, you only owe me a new esophagus, lol.

My advice: say "C&C warning" on the line immediately above such a
question.

Heh. ;-)

JK

[Anthony Marsh]

The autopsy report is on my Web site in case you've never read it before.
I have been discussing it and quoting it before you were in diapers. Why
do you continue with your phony Argument by Authority when I've been
around a lot longer than you discussing these issues? And you haven't even
seen the Fox set of autopsy photos or the Groden set or talked to Cyril
Wecht or Michael Baden? In fact you haven't done ANY original research,
just made up crap from your imagination.

[John Canal]

In article <caeruleo-4E474B...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John King
says...

Actually, I thought everyone knew that was a rhetorical question....but
maybe not. Assumptions can be embarrassing.

Anyway, he himself had the best suggestion....I should put him [back] on
my killfile.

:-)

JC


>JK
>


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

I made a very good suggestion. Why don't you put EVERYONE on your
killfile list?

> :-)
>
> JC
>
>
>> JK
>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Name the one person who wrote the Warren Commission Report. You don't seem
to understand the basic fact that a report can be written by many people.
If you had simply said THE REPORT on the statements of some Parkland
Hospital doctors I could not have objected. But you were talking about the
REPORTS FROM the Parkland doctors.

> And to save you the precious seconds it would have taken to look this up,
> here's the URL:
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_392.pdf
>
> Now, would you like to prove that Dr. Humes did *NOT* "read any reports by
> the PH docs"?
>

I did.

>
>>> Tony, you repeatedly make simple evidential mistakes ... probably because
>>> you don't bother to check. The above quote took me all of about a minute
>>> to find and copy/paste.
>>>
>>> Now, if you wish to argue that he did *NOT* see these medical reports from
>>> Parkland, can you offer ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your claim?
>>>
>>
>> I notice that you can't upload these reports, plural.
>
>
> I just cited for these reports, plural.
>

No, you didn't.

[John King]

In article <1349da0c-cba4-48f8...@googlegroups.com>,

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We see in the Z-film a massive blowout in the upper right side of JFK's
> head

Well, you ought to be a bit more specific than that. What is most
obvious in the film is a massive blowout in the upper right side of
JFK's forward of his right ear. All parts of his head behind the ear
show much less obvious damage in the film.

> and that is perfectly consistent with the findings at Bethesda.

Yes.

> This
> casts doubt on the accuracy of the Parkland observations.

Only if one peruses those observations with a preconceived bias.

> It makes me
> believe they never saw the true extent of the wound.

I would agree with you better if you said "true extent of the damage."
But naturally they didn't observe nearly all of the damage to the head,
and you have given what is by far the most plausible explanation for that
below, an explanation I have also been giving for some time, and the two
of us are hardly the only ones.

> There are several
> reasons for the apparent anomaly. First of all, no one at Parkland

> actually treated the head wound. It was not looked at closely. Most of the

> ER team would have done nothing more than glanced at the bloody mess.

As their role was not to perform an autopsy, naturally they would not
peel back the President's scalp and hair to view the full extent of the
damage to the skull.

> Parkland reported a laceration in the area where we see a blowout in JFK's
> head.

Er, if you mean the same blowout that you described above which is
horrifically plain in the film, that is all forward of the right ear, as I
said. I cannot see any open flap of scalp or bone anywhere behind the
ear. The Parkland witnesses did not primarily describe damage forward of
his ear. Neither did Clint Hill, who was the first to see JFK's head up
close after Jackie. Neither did Greer and Kellerman, who saw JFK before
and as he was being lifted out of the limousine. When they saw his body
again upon its arrival at Bethesda, just before the beginning of the
autopsy, the three SS agents again did not recall all that much damage
forward of the ear. Various other persons at Bethesda, now seeing the
body for the first time, also failed to notice much damage forward of the
ear.

But considering all these witnesses: the SS agents who saw JFK's head
outside of Parkland and again at Bethesda (before the autopsy started) the
Parkland personnel who saw the body, and the people at Bethesda who saw
the body, there is a common thread that runs through the statements of
about forty of them, with far fewer specifically disputing them: that
there was quite an obvious hole in the President's head that was almost
universally described as being somewhere on the "back" or "posterior" or
"rear" (the three words most frequently used). The most frequently added
qualifications were "upper rear" or "upper right rear."

> Jackie testified that on the way to Parkland, she was trying to keep
> his brains inside his head.

Or that she was "trying to hold his head together" or something to that
effect, yes.

> While she didn't speciifically state she
> closed the flaps, that would be the natural thing to do if she was trying
> to keep his brains from oozing out of his head.

And there it is. The perfectly logical reason why most witnesses who saw
his head at any time between when it was struck with the bullet and the
beginning of the autopsy did not primarily describe all that gory damage
forward of his right ear, as blatantly obvious as it is in the film. And
Jackie had to have done this quickly, immediately after she got back in
her seat and had her husband's head in her lap, because Clint Hill already
didn't notice those huge open flaps very shortly afterward when he looked
down into the back seat. His primary attention was instead drawn to what
he viewed as the most obvious damage to the head at that moment:

"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
profusely." ??? Hill's original report, 11-30-63.

Later to the WC he again said the same thing:

"The right rear portion of his head was missing."

No mention at all in either statement about the huge, gory, nasty,
horrible flaps forward of the President's right ear.

Jackie closed those up fast.

Obviously.

> There was one piece she

> couldn't close, the Harper fragment which was blown completely away. That

> would have been toward the rear of the blowout area.

Ah yes, I thought we'd be going there. "Toward" the rear, yes, perhaps,
but not "at" the rear, and certainly not in any portion of the head that
most English-speakers would call the "back" or the "rear" of the head. I
corrected you about this last year, and I do so again today. The most
common belief that I have seen among researchers is that the Harper
Fragment came from a part of the head that most English-speakers would
describe as the "top" of the head. One might further qualify that by
saying "the rear of the top of the head." But not simply "back" or
"rear," not even "upper rear."

I think you are still misunderstanding where most of these witnesses
thought the hole was. Let me try to explain it to you again. Place your
own finger directly on what you might think of as the "very top" of your
head. Another way of saying that is on "the center of the top of your
head." Is this clear? Now very gradually move your finger backward, and
stop just barely before you reach the part of your head that starts to
curve or slant sharply downward. "The rear of the top of your head" is
where I'd describe where your finger would be now. I know no one who
speaks English who would describe that exact point as being simply the
"back" or "rear" of the head, and not even "upper rear." You should have
stopped moving your finger just before it gets to what you yourself might
call the "back" or "rear" of your head.

The most frequently-proposed locations for the Harper Fragment are no
farther back on your head than where your finger should be now. That's
not where the majority of the witnesses said the hole was. Now true,
*some* researchers have put it farther back, but I've noticed that most of
them put it in a location in which the later x-ray shows no bone missing,
only severely fractured bone. I'm also looking at some now who propose
the fragment to have come from much farther forward on the skull, such as
"the middle of the top of the head" where I recommended that you place
your finger first above.

If this is still not clear to you, I will make my second video about the
assassination and post it on Youtube. I will place my finger on each of
these locations that I'm talking about, and then there will be no doubt
what I mean.

And here are some examples of where researchers typically propose the
fragment to have come from. On Dr. McAdams' site, a drawing by Dr.
Lawrence Angel is given to propose that the fragment came from parietal
bone almost directly above the right ear:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper2.gif

That isn't where the witnesses said the hole was. That is too far
forward, and too high.

Here's another one, which of course the famous Ida Dox drawing for the
Forensic Pathology Panel of the HSCA:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/i
mages/fig_h4_lrg.jpg

While there the location of the Harper Fragment is not indicated, what it
does show is that all parts of the skull that were blasted completely out
were quite high on the skull, and on the right, but no missing skull
nearly rearward enough to be especially consistent with the majority
witness statements.

Now here's David Mantik, and at last we have someone putting the fragment
in the very back of the head, mostly in occipital bone:

http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

If you scroll down to page 19 and look at figure 19, that is the
illustration of it. The problem with that is that the lateral x-ray does
not show any bone missing there. This is compared with page 20 figure 20
below which shows another version of the proposed location by Lawrence
Angel mentioned above. This time it is a view as if looking directly down
at the top of the head. As we can clearly see in the lateral x-ray that
there *is* bone that is completely missing in that location, and thus that
is a good deal more likely to be where the Harper Fragment came from.

> With JFK lying on his
> back on the guerney, blood and brain would have oozed from that opening
> and gravity would have taken it to the guerney creating the impression
> that the blowout was confined to the back of the head when in fact the

> entire upper right side had been blown out. While this explaination is

> somewhat speculative, it is consistent with the Z-film, the observations

> and Parkland and the findings at Bethesda. I have yet to hear another one

> that meets that same criteria.

We'll try mine again then. Last year you didn't really reply in any
detail to me to explain precisely *why* my explanation did not come up to
these criteria of credibility. If I'm recalling correctly, you basically
just said several times that I was wrong, without really going into much
detail about exactly *why* you thought I was wrong, and I also recall
that, though I reminded you about it several times, you did not address in
detail what I kept telling you about what part of the skull the Harper
Fragment. Other than that, I simply recall you posting the same reasoning
you'd posted before, but it was obvious to me from your replies that you
were misunderstanding crucial aspects of my argument. I see where you're
going with this below, and by now I feel quite qualified (for a change) to
address it in considerable detail.

> The hole they saw in the back of the head was a portion of a much larger
> hole that had been mostly closed.

Yep, there it is. I used to think that too. During something like the
first months that I began posting here, beginning in October, 2002, I
thought I had the most simple and logical explanation, that at Parkland
they were simply seeing the rearmost portion of the much larger hole in
the skull that extended far forward, because the more forward portions of
the hole had been covered up by Jackie closing up the flaps of scalp and
bone. It seemed to me that this was quite a reasonable explanation, and
of course would have nothing to do with the claim that the rear hole had
anything to do with a bullet exiting in that direction. After a few
months had passed, however, I began to have problems with that scenario.
The total hole in the skull, where the bone was completely missing, just
did not extend quite far enough back.

The next explanation I began to subscribe to was one I first saw being
made by Paul Seaton, at that time still a regular poster to the group.
He said that the more rearward hole recalled by the witnesses did not
involve any missing skull at all. It instead involved fractured bone in
the rear (which we do indeed see in the lateral x-ray) including one piece
of bone that was no longer firmly attached to the rest of the skull but
still attached to the scalp. This, combined with a tear in the scalp (but
without any scalp being actually missing) would allow the piece of bone
and scalp to swing open and swing shut, rather like a door. And again Mr.
Seaton was not proposing this to have anything to do with a bullet exiting
in that direction.

More recently, starting a bit over a year ago, I began to be exposed to
another alternative, similar, but not identical to Mr. Seaton's. What I
write about now is sort of a combination of things said by John Canal,
John Fiorentino (I think) and a person who emailed me last year but does
not post here, none of whose explanations is precisely identical. Again
I'm giving sort of my own variant version here that is a combination of
different details from each. This still involves fractured bone in
combination with a tear in the scalp, and still involves some bone that
was no longer firmly attached to the rest of the skull but was still
attached to the scalp. But it does not involve a single piece of skull
and scalp swinging open and closed like a door.

If it is to be compared to a door, it might be said to be more like a
sliding glass door. No bone swinging outward to reveal an opening, but
more like at least two fractured pieces of bone moving aside to reveal an
opening through the tear in the scalp. This strikes me as the most
plausible of all, because if it was a piece that could swing outward, it
would be something Jackie could close up, just as she closed up the more
forward flaps. But a hole created in a different way, from bone moving
aside but not outward, would be far more difficult to close.

Naturally at the autopsy they would be able to do something Jackie
wouldn't have necessarily have dared to do. By that time he was
definitely dead. They didn't need to be nearly as careful with the skull
anymore. They could push those pieces closed without any fear of
threatening his life. That may well be why we don't see any significant
opening anywhere in the "back" or "rear" of the skull in the lateral
x-ray. We do, however, still see several significant cracks or fissures
throughout that whole area of the skull. Some of those pieces of bone are
quite obviously "barely hanging on," so to speak. If you reply that you
don't see what I'm talking about, I will be glad to post the lateral x-ray
where I add arrows pointing those exact cracks and fissures that I'm
talking about.

Ask and ye shall receive. ;-)

Ah, but you may well say, that's all very fine, but what about the famous
(or infamous, depending on one's point of view) BOH (back of head)
photographs? They don't show any tear in the scalp in that region, do
they?

No, they do not. And there's a perfectly simple explanation for that too.

It is my position (and the way I'm about to describe it is not precisely
identical to the people I've mentioned above, but is an amalgam of what
I've been learning since August of last year) that those BOH photos may
well have been the last photos ever taken of President Kennedy, dead or
alive. This would put those photos very late in the autopsy, most likely
as it was concluding, and the morticians were about to take over, and
there's even a possibility that it was *after* the morticians had begun to
take over.

Consider it this way:

The greatest amount of damage to the skull, the more forward damage, is
being documented photographically and by x-ray at earlier points in the
autopsy. There is also an attempt to document the entry hole in the skull
as photographed looking at the inside of the skull (I will not at this
time get into the controversy of whether or not that attempt was
successful). Finally the autopsy is wrapping up. The morticians have
come in and they have just begun the process of making the President's
ruined head presentable for the private open casket viewing that will take
place later. The autopsists have not left yet, nor has the photographer.
They suture closed the tear in the scalp in the right rear. At this point
someone suddenly realizes that, although an attempt was made to
photographically document the supposed bullet entry from the inside of the
skull, no attempt has yet been made to photograph the entry in the *scalp*
from the outside, i.e. looking at the back of the head and scalp.
Thornton Boswell then obliges by holding the head up and stretching the
scalp forward, so that it is tight over the skull. The photographer snaps
the pictures. The tear in the scalp, in a different location from the
bullet entry in the scalp, which has already been sutured closed anyway,
is not what they're trying to document here, so it is of no concern, as it
has no relevance to the direction the bullet entered or the direction it
exited.

To my mind this explanation (or something fairly similar to it) involves
dismissing the smallest amount of the available evidence. You don't have
to claim that a single frame of the Zapruder film was altered. You don't
have to make the claim that these forty witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda,
and a few of them in both locations, were mistaken. You don't have to
claim that a single autopsy photo or x-ray was faked. You don't have to
dispute any specific claim made by the autopsists. You don't have to
dispute anything in the autopsy report.

If this does not fit your criteria of credibility, JC, it sure as hell
fits mine.

Now, are there any specific statements by the autopsists themselves and/or
others present at Bethesda that might confirm that these BOH photos were
taken as late as I claim? Yes, actually, there are. I began locating
them in August of last year. Some of them I located with help from
others, and some of them I found on my own. Right at the end of August I
was involved in collecting those statements together in documents on my
computer.

And then two things intervened, which I have mentioned here before.

On Labor Day weekend I drove to visit two of my best friends who live out
in the country near Bastrop, Tx, and I was at their house when the
terrible fire started on Sunday, September 4. Starting around noon that
day I noticed a howling, hot dry wind coming steadily from the north that
was blowing a good deal of dust in the air, blowing it due south. This
wind knocked something against a power line (maybe in more than one place)
and the fire was started, and fanned by this intense wind spread quickly
south, almost straight toward their house. We had to evacuate, and it is
the only time in my life that I have seen flames that large (in the
distance in two different directions from their house) and a gigantic
cloud of smoke far larger than any I have ever seen, which from the nearby
town of Smithville filled more than half the sky. The fire ended up being
stopped only about 3000 feet from their house. I drove back here to
Huntsville late on the 4th, the same day.

Two days later my computer suddenly crashed. It took me almost a month to
find someone who could retrieve my documents off the hard drive for a cost
that was not prohibitive, and I did not manage to buy a new computer until
October. (If you look on Google Groups you'll see a lengthy absence from
me in this and any other newsgroup starting right after Labor Day.) The
documents I did manage to transfer from the old computer to the new, but
unfortunately not the applications, and since the documents in which I had
been collecting the statements mentioned above had been created with an
application that was on the old computer but not on the new, although I
had saved the documents I could not open them on the new computer.

Only earlier this month, only a week or two ago, in fact, did I finally
figure out how to view those documents on this computer, although I cannot
edit them. Still, that will help me to finally resume the collection of
more evidence on this matter, after nearly a year's hiatus.

To my surprise and pleasure what I also found saved on this computer, from
the old, is a long article of more than 1000 lines that I posted on this
issue in August of last year which I had thought gone forever.
Strangely, no one ever replied to that article, including one poster who
had claimed, in the same thread, but only when replying to other much
shorter articles of mine, that I had not adequately defended my position.
When I pointed out in another reply that I had already posted this other
lengthy article, but that no one had replied to it or even addressed
anything close to the majority of points raised in it, this poster
abruptly fell silent and posted no further articles in the thread.

I mentioned this article last Thursday, and said I would repost it by
starting a new thread, perhaps as soon as the following day, but I had
forgotten that I would be going out of town the following day and would in
fact be spending the weekend with those same friends near Bastrop, in the
same house that escaped the fire, partially to attend their son's birthday
party on Saturday. But I need to get around to that soon, hopefully
before the end of this week, and let's see if this time we can't get some
discussion going on it. That article clarifies my position further beyond
what I have written in this present article.

JK

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503e2560$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

No Tony... the discussion above is on the *ORIGINAL* autopsy report.

Which you've *NOT* read, and have never even come close to having any
opportunity to read.

Changing the topic won't do you any good.

>is on my Web site in case you've never read it before.
>I have been discussing it and quoting it before you were in diapers. Why
>do you continue with your phony Argument by Authority when I've been
>around a lot longer than you discussing these issues? And you haven't even
>seen the Fox set of autopsy photos or the Groden set or talked to Cyril
>Wecht or Michael Baden? In fact you haven't done ANY original research,
>just made up crap from your imagination.

Now that you've gotten all of that out of your system, tell us why you
mentioned a report that you could *NEVER* have read, Tony?

>> So tell us, why did you even *mention* the idea?

Answer?

(By the way, I reposted that earlier post you've refused to respond to,
and I see that you're continuing to refuse to respond.)

>>>> (probably the same thing that they suspect when you make assertions that
>>>> have *NO* evidence to support it)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And when their report conflicted with your wacky theory you then had to
>>>>>> claim they were incompetent..as Moe, Curly, and Larry, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeez, I dearly hope that I was the first to call them The Three Stooges.
>>>>> But I did not specify which character will play which doctor. And why
>>>>> did you overlook Shemp?
>>>>> I was not the first to call them incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Get serious Marsh, you're always asking me for citations because you're
>>>>>> lost on the medical evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that your way of saying that you can't back up any of your claims?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, no-one has ever seen the citation for Dr. Humes burning
>>>> anything at all on Saturday morning...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know for example where Boswell stated that defect in the scalp in
>>>>>> the BOH photos was a laceration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know for example where Humes stated that defect in the scalp in
>>>>> the BOH is a bloodlot?
>>>>>
>>>>>> So why would you tell us there waas no laceration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the WC said so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you were there in your dreams...but had your blinders and ear-muffs
>>>>>> on so you didn't see any lacerations or hear them saying there was one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe there was an honest person there accidentally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[John King]

In article <k1hd0...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> So, in your mind many of them, not only mistakenly thought a wound in the
> top/right/front was more in the BOH, but also (10 of them) didn't know
> cerebellum from cerebrum?
>
> Have you ever given such a profound accusation some real thought...or do
> you just parrot McAdams, who parrots Baden, who parroted his friend
> Fisher?
>
> Did you know that Humes [cryptically] agreed with the PH docs. Indeed, a
> careful review of Humes' testimony reveals that he switched out the words
> in his autopsy report, "severely lacerated falx cerebri" with the words,
> "severely lacerated flocculus cerebri" (the flocculus being part of the
> cerebellum)?
>
> Anyone wanting to figure out the medical evidence should have been
> wondering why Humes did that. I wondered. Was it an incorrect off-the-wall
> slip of the tongue? Those who parrot McAdams and Baden think so....but
> really was that the case?
>
> How about the fact that in the autopsy report they purposely understated
> the extent of the damage to the BOH? Why? Is it concievable that they

> feared reporting such a wound might be detrimental to the nation? IOW,
> such a BOH wound might be taken, mistakenly or otherwise, as evidence of a
> frontal shooter, and they were hesitant to report such a wound especially
> when no one was really sure at that time LHO acted alone.
>

> Is that scenario so inconcievable to you?
>

> I'd ask why but who wants to try beyond this to change your cured in
> cement beliefs...not me. I wouldn't want you to disagree with the host of
> this NG.

Hmm, I've never had a bit of a problem disagreeing with the host of this
newsgroup. ;-) I can recall doing exactly that for the first time on this
very issue, in fact, less than a month after I first began posting here in
October, 2002. For my first few days only here I went along with the
standard line that was being given by several posters, that the Parkland
doctors had simply been mistaken. Then Barb took me in (virtual) hand and
advised me not to conclude anything until I had read through all of the
Parkland testimony that had been given to the Warren Commission. This
immediately struck a responsive chord in me because of something that had
happened long before, when I was in graduate school in 1984-86.

I still say today that the most brilliant human I have ever met in my life
is one of my professors who taught me both in undergraduate and graduate
school. This man's expertise in scholarship is nothing short of
stupendous, and his interests run to a wide variety of topics beyond
merely the subject he taught, which was musicology. His knowledge is
quite formidable about many other topics, such as history and
architecture, and other subjects as well. And one day he made this simple
statement to our graduate class which has stayed with me ever since:

"When in doubt, always go to the original sources whenever possible."

So I applied that very method, basically identical to what Barb suggested,
to Parkland. And it was an eye-opener. I emerged from that finding the
idea that all these different medical professionals were "just wrong" to
be highly implausible, and I didn't even yet know about all these *other*
witnesses who *also* corroborated Parkland, some of whom only saw the body
at Bethesda and some of whom saw the body in both places. Before the end
of my first month here I was already posting variations of, "A mere child,
without a day of medical training, can easily and correctly identify which
part of the head is which," etc., which almost nine years later finally
evolved into my Questionnaires.

All that said, John I think you already know that today I'm going just a
bit my own way with this. Then, as now, I refuse to directly copy any
single person's scenario in every detail. I continue to examine this
assassination from my own point of view of what is and is not plausible.
I just said this in another reply in this thread, but I'll here present it
again. I am not for a moment claiming that my scenario is more or less
likely to be correct than yours. It is simply something that I find to be
plausible:

Maybe there wasn't any *intention* to disguise the BOH hole at the
autopsy, but instead it was simply not at the time deemed important enough
to document in any obvious way, in photography, in x-rays, or in writing.
The autopsists would have already known, in fact, that this BOH damage,
while hardly trivial, was many orders of magnitude less serious than the
more forward damage. It also might have been considered to be virtually
irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry, and the direction of bullet
exit. If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive, and this was due to the
autopsists suddenly realizing after the morticians had already taken over
and sutured the tear in the scalp closed that they had not yet documented
the bullet entry in the scalp photographically, I do not see why it would
necessarily be of any concern to the autopsists that they had forgotten to
also document the tear in the scalp. Since it had no relevance to the
direction of bullet entrance and exit anyway, why would they care?

Another bit of evidence which supports this belief is something I first
brought up here more than a year ago. On 11-22-63 not the autopsists, and
indeed any person on this planet, would have had any possible way of
knowing yet that this issue would later develop into one of the most
serious controversies of all surrounding this assassination. In fact,
it's one of the top three, the other two being the continued
misunderstanding of what the Dealey Plaza witnesses *really* said about
the perceived sounds of gunfire, and the continued misunderstanding of
what Jack Ruby *really* said about his role in all of this. On the issue
of the BOH hole, no one, no one, would have had any possible way of
knowing this controversy would arise until the WC had completed the
process of collecting so very many of these witness statements and then
published them in the 26 volumes. Only then, ten months after the
assassination (and after the autopsy) would people be able to see, for the
first time ever, the apparent contradiction between what c.40 witnesses
said they saw regarding the BOH damage and the official conclusions that
were stated about the overall damage to his head.

Now, do I think that this was nevertheless one of the most serious flaws
or mistakes of this autopsy? I certainly do, the other most serious one
being of course the failure to connect the bullet wound in the back with
the bullet wound in the front of the throat. But this is a flaw or
mistake that might only become clear in hindsight, at an absolute minimum
of ten months after the autopsy.

Now, I think you already know that I, of all people, understand well
enough what you're talking about regarding what appears to be Humes's
oblique hint to the WC regarding falx cerebri being changed to flocculus
cerebri. But again here I offer the alternate explanation that Humes at
this early point (the 26 volumes had not yet been published, and he
himself was just now giving testimony that would be included in them)
would have no possible way of knowing yet (no person on the planet yet
knew) that this controversy would erupt, for the first time ever, only
*after* the volumes were published. Since the BOH hole, as I said above,
is virtually irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry and exit, why
would he think it important to go to any specific effort to make sure the
Commission was aware of it? In fact, why would *any* of the autopsists go
to any great length, at this early point, to make sure the Commission was
aware of it?

[John Canal]

In article <caeruleo-D15764...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John King
says...

Lucky you...or it may be your more sophisticated and proper writing/style.
I've noticed that he tends to prefer exchanging thought with those here
who are well educated, e.g. Reitz, Sandy,..etc. You obviously have at
least a BA, and perhaps a masters... Dr. McAdams wouldn't hesitate to
engage you.

Me, all that I have is two years of college studing Ground Radar
Technology.....at the Community College of The Air Force.

Don't laugh....I already owe you one gut, re. my comment about Marsh
having a reading comprehension problem.

Okay, I was sidetracked...but it certainly not my imagination that has
shown me that McAdams has refused to reply to my posts for I don't know
how long.

Anyway, moving on.

I read your other post to bigdog. Overall, other than you and Barb, there
is no one here (except for one other person who I highly respect--hi PH)
whose beliefs about the medical evidence are so close to mine.

In fact, Barb got me started on this medical evidence journey in 2000
right after my book was published....I didn't know she inspired you to
check out this part of the case like she did me. I guess when Paul Seaton,
Joe Durnavich and myself were debating these issue hot and heavy, I just
didn't notice your posts.

Are you sure you haven't called yourself, Mimus?

Well, if you don't copy someones theory then you must not agree with its
significant parts, right?

No problem.

>I continue to examine this
>assassination from my own point of view of what is and is not plausible.
>I just said this in another reply in this thread, but I'll here present it
>again. I am not for a moment claiming that my scenario is more or less
>likely to be correct than yours. It is simply something that I find to be
>plausible:
>
>Maybe there wasn't any *intention* to disguise the BOH hole at the
>autopsy, but instead it was simply not at the time deemed important enough
>to document in any obvious way, in photography, in x-rays, or in writing.
>The autopsists would have already known, in fact, that this BOH damage,
>while hardly trivial, was many orders of magnitude less serious than the
>more forward damage. It also might have been considered to be virtually
>irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry, and the direction of bullet
>exit.

Okay, we disagree. You think it was just a coincidence that they took
pictures when the body was first received from just about every other
perspective besides the back....or that they thought the other angles were
relevent and pictures from the back wouldn't be.

Okay, I disagree...but your theory on that is possible.

The only thing is that I have more support for my beliefs on that
particular issue than I've told you or posted here about.

:-)

>If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
>final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,

Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH ones
were taken later...12 total.

As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.

:-)

>and this was due to the
>autopsists suddenly realizing after the morticians had already taken over
>and sutured the tear in the scalp closed that they had not yet documented
>the bullet entry in the scalp photographically, I do not see why it would
>necessarily be of any concern to the autopsists that they had forgotten to
>also document the tear in the scalp. Since it had no relevance to the
>direction of bullet entrance and exit anyway, why would they care?

Forgot? Hmmm, how sloppy.

:-)

>Another bit of evidence which supports this belief is something I first
>brought up here more than a year ago. On 11-22-63 not the autopsists, and
>indeed any person on this planet, would have had any possible way of
>knowing yet that this issue would later develop into one of the most
>serious controversies of all surrounding this assassination. In fact,
>it's one of the top three, the other two being the continued
>misunderstanding of what the Dealey Plaza witnesses *really* said about
>the perceived sounds of gunfire, and the continued misunderstanding of
>what Jack Ruby *really* said about his role in all of this. On the issue
>of the BOH hole, no one, no one, would have had any possible way of
>knowing this controversy would arise until the WC had completed the
>process of collecting so very many of these witness statements and then
>published them in the 26 volumes. Only then, ten months after the
>assassination (and after the autopsy) would people be able to see, for the
>first time ever, the apparent contradiction between what c.40 witnesses
>said they saw regarding the BOH damage and the official conclusions that
>were stated about the overall damage to his head.

Fair point...but FWIW we still disgree....but I don't want to argue though
because your overall theory is basically close to mine.

>Now, do I think that this was nevertheless one of the most serious flaws
>or mistakes of this autopsy? I certainly do, the other most serious one
>being of course the failure to connect the bullet wound in the back with
>the bullet wound in the front of the throat.

I thought you were reading my posts?

:-)

Again, no sense getting into this matter...we'll focus on the BOH wound.

>But this is a flaw or
>mistake that might only become clear in hindsight, at an absolute minimum
>of ten months after the autopsy.

?

>Now, I think you already know that I, of all people, understand well
>enough what you're talking about regarding what appears to be Humes's
>oblique hint to the WC regarding falx cerebri being changed to flocculus
>cerebri. But again here I offer the alternate explanation that Humes at
>this early point (the 26 volumes had not yet been published, and he
>himself was just now giving testimony that would be included in them)
>would have no possible way of knowing yet (no person on the planet yet
>knew) that this controversy would erupt, for the first time ever, only
>*after* the volumes were published. Since the BOH hole, as I said above,
>is virtually irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry and exit, why
>would he think it important to go to any specific effort to make sure the
>Commission was aware of it? In fact, why would *any* of the autopsists go
>to any great length, at this early point, to make sure the Commission was
>aware of it?

IMO, he knew the autopsy report did not support what I think he believed
to be an important observation by some of the the PH docs...that the
cerebellum was exposed....so he made sure he was in agreement with them by
going out of his way to mention the flocculus in his WC testimony.

In fact John, the autopsy report actually made that observation [PH docs
seeing cerebellum] doubtful, i.e. if the wound extended only "somewhat
into the occipital" it probably woundn't have been low enough to expose
the cerebellum.

Compare the drawing that McClelland endorsed with the words, "somewhat
into the occipital"....not that I feel the drawing is completely accurate,
but the borrom margin of it is at or near the level of the
EOP...coincidently where the top of the cerebellum is.

Let me add this. Two parts of you theory that you haven't addressed, at
least recently (unless I've missed your posts on those matters), that I've
always felt are intertwined with the BOH wound controversy is the location
of the BOH entry wound and "6.5 mm opacity" debates.

Don't you feel there's a connection with those later controversies to the
BOH wound one?

Anyway, I enjoy your writing...keep up the good work.

Cheers,

JC


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John King]

I am snipping out nearly all of the quotations of previous text as it
involves very strange, and very difficult to read, spacing of text.

JC, is there any way you can ***PLEASE*** stop posting through Google
Groups (which does this weird formatting every time) and post with a
Usenet client directly through the Marquette server? Seriously, it is
sometimes very difficult to make out what it is, exactly, that you're
replying to. No matter whether you're on Mac or Windows, there are
multiple programs for posting to and reading newsgroups which work quite
smoothly, and are childishly easy to use.

Thanks.

In article <42f1ee5e-e0b2-4e73...@googlegroups.com>,

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:29:07 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> > John King asked:
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > >> 5. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, b=
> ut=3D
> >=20
> > >=3D20
> >=20

That's what I'm talking about. That's just the first ten lines, and we
only see one actual line that was typed by a previous poster. This is a
chore to wade through. What's up with all the "=20" and "b=30" crap?
No trace of any of that appears when I read Mr. Canal's article on my
newsreader program. Why is all this nonsense being inserted into the
previously posted texts? See the problem, JC, and do you not remember
the additional problem I pointed out to you last year, that Google
Groups all too often fails to archive an article that was posted, even
when it can still be plainly seen on nearly all other news-servers
worldwide? This means you will continue to miss many replies that are
made to you, because they'll never appear on Google Groups.

***PLEASE*** start posting through a newsreader program. I assure you
all these problems will disappear instantly.

*snip nonsense in which less than half the lines contain relevant text*

> Perfectly consistent with the hole left by the missing Harper fragment

No. I have been correcting you about this since August of last year,
and I corrected you again in my previous reply to you in this thread
that I just posted a little while ago, in which yet again I showed you
links to what I am talking about. If Google once again fails to archive
that article, meaning that you'll never see it there, that is hardly my
fault. Oh, and remember yet *another* problem you and I discussed last
year regarding Google Groups? About it breaking up long URLs? Remember
how you kept telling me that some of the links I gave you didn't seem to
work? This is why. On a newsreader program, that problem also will be
solved instantly. I've copied and pasted plenty of long URLs out of
this newsreader from articles I'm viewing, and there is nearly always
not a bit of a problem getting to that webpage, no matter how long the
URL is. As one of the links I posted a while ago in my other reply is
long enough that it will definitely be broken up if viewed only on
Google, this is yet another reason for you to use a newsreader program
instead.

More likely than not, the Harper Fragment did *not* come from the part
of the skull you seem to think it came from. I have been showing you
solid evidence of that since last year, and it is hardly my fault if you
can't access most of it when only reading my articles on Google Groups,
and hardly my fault when Google fails to archive my articles causing you
to never see them. I don't work for Google, and thus I have no control
over what they do and don't do.

And I am literally, jaw-droppingly, ***ASTONISHED*** that you of all
people don't appear to have ever read this page on Dr. McAdams' website:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

Now THAT URL is not nearly long enough for Google to break up. So
unless Google fails to archive this present article of mine (something
which is obviously beyond my control or yours) this time you have no
legitimate excuse not to go there and read all of that carefully.

Or have you read it after all? If so, I am at a loss to understand why
on earth your claims on this issue, at least the ones I've replied to,
never, ever, ever reflect that.

Let's be very clear: the article linked to above makes the very obvious
argument that the Harper Fragment did not come from anywhere close to
any part of the head that most English-speakers worldwide would describe
as the "back" or "rear" of the head. First of all, plain as day, the
argument is made there that the Fragment did not include even a tiny bit
of occipital bone, but instead came *entirely* from parietal bone. But
that is nowhere close to all. The article also *obviously* supports the
conclusion reached by Dr. Lawrence Angel about exactly what part of the
skull the Fragment came from, and there's even a diagram *by* Angel
included just in case the verbal text is considered "confusing." I'm
once again looking directly at that diagram in the midst of typing this
sentence, just as I was in my previous reply to you earlier this
evening. Plain as day I see Angel proposing in that diagram that the
Harper Fragment came from THE RIGHT SIDE OF JFK'S HEAD ALMOST DIRECTLY
ABOVE HIS RIGHT EAR.

How is this even remotely consistent with what c.40 witnesses said about
the hole in the BACK or REAR of his head, with a tremendously SMALLER
number of witnesses specifically disputing them (try less than 10
witnesses). Remember that lack of mention isn't the same thing as
specifically disputing.

I do not know of one person I have ever met in my life, not one, who
would describe Angel's proposed location for the Harper Fragment in any
terms that use the English word "back" or the English word "rear."
Instead, I am supremely confident that the majority of English-speakers
worldwide, no matter what country they live in, and no matter whether
English is their first language or one of their secondary languages,
would almost certainly describe that part of the head using this exact
English phrase somewhere in their description:

"right side"

Your mileage may vary, but I will be incredulous if you make any
response which comes even remotely close to this:

"No, I think that I, and most people I know, might well say 'back' or
'rear' for the part of the head that that line is pointing to."

In short, I will be just as incredulous as I was in 2003 when several
CTs claimed to me that almost all personal windup wristwatches in 1963
were synchronized not only with each other, but with "official" time.

Surely you, of all people, won't make nearly so outlandish a claim
regarding Angel's diagram. Correct, JC?

I'm sorry, but I am utterly convinced that, even if you don't realize
it, you are unknowingly laboring under an extreme bias on this issue.
You are free to claim otherwise all you wish, but over the past twelve
months literally everything I've ever seen you say on this issue makes
it blindingly obvious to me that you do not truly understand how this
issue is, in a sense, a non-issue.

Let me be even plainer with you: for years I have strongly disagreed
with at least ninety-nine percent of LNs on this matter, and *also* at
least ninety-nine percent of CTs on this matter, for opposite reasons.

The vast, vast, vast majority of CTs consistently trumpet that this
supposed "blowout" (which is hardly what it really was) in the back of
his head, is blatantly obvious evidence of exit damage caused by a shot
from somewhere, anywhere, to the front, and to the right. Never mind
that a shot from anywhere to the *right* would almost certainly result
in exit damage on the *left* side of the back of his head, which I
myself have pointed out to these people more times than I can possibly
remember, and I can recall only one CT, just one, even *trying* to
address that problem, whether or not the argument was something I
considered to be plausible.

But the vast, vast, vast majority of LNs make precisely the same
mistake, except in the opposite direction. They labor under the
unfortunate delusion (and it is clearly, obviously, a true DELUSION)
that to admit that these c.40 witnesses were at all accurate, is
equivalent to admitting that the CTs are right.

It is NOT equivalent to that. It never was. It never will be. Ever.
For all eternity.

The vast majority of LNs (including, quite obviously, you) feel the
obsessive need to "explain away" what these witnesses said. Statements
such as yours, that the opening in the skull described by these
witnesses was merely the rearmost portion of the much larger hole in the
skull, which extended all the way to the right eyebrow, have been long
familiar to me. Why? Because, just as I told you in my previous reply
earlier this evening (again, it's not my fault if Google doesn't show
you that I posted it) I myself briefly believed that very thing when I
first began posting here almost a decade ago. Briefly. Nearly a decade
ago I abandoned that belief, and still did not experience the slightest
crisis of conscience over it. To this day, I am still not experiencing
any such crisis.

I am seeing at this moment on Google Groups, as woefully unreliable as
it is, that your earliest reply to me that I can locate dates from
November 17, 2007:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2523178e13a492d7
?dmode=source

That URL will be broken up and be almost impossible to copy and paste if
you get it from Google Groups only. But the URL is *obviously* valid,
since I'm at this moment looking directly at the page it leads to. If
that "isn't true," how on earth could I possibly be able to copy and
paste your the entire text of your reply to me?

"All excellent arguments but they will fall on deaf ears. CTs worship
the false idol of the GK gunman with a religous ferver. No amount of
reason, logic, or evidence is going to convince them otherwise. Even 44
years of futility of producing even one shred of physical evidence of a
GK shooter has disuaded them. Most of them will go to their graves
firmly believing in this myth. Sad but true."

See how you said that "all" of my arguments, not almost all, but all,
were "excellent"? Your words, not mine.

Since I have proven beyond all possible doubt that you began replying to
me at least 4+ years ago, you have no legitimate excuse to "still not
realize" that I too believe in a single shooter, and furthermore believe
that that single shooter was positioned in the same sixth floor window
that first claimed on the day of the assassination to be the window the
one and only shooter fired from.

This is essentially the same thing I said to Dr. McAdams about a year
ago. Being a moderator, he has read more of my articles than any other
human on this planet except for his fellow moderators, which caused me
to be extremely flabbergasted, and extremely disappointed, that he of
all people, would ask me of all people, if I believed that the films,
photos, and x-rays had been faked.

Say WHAT???

I was so very astonished that not only did I swiftly correct him here, I
also called him, and I do not believe for a moment that he will deny
here that I told him in no uncertain terms on the phone, rather
forcefully in fact, that I DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE WERE FAKED, NOR DO I
BELIEVE IN ANY SUCH RIDICULOUS NONSENSE AS MULTIPLE SHOOTERS. And I
still didn't let it go with that. I clearly recall immediately
afterward starting new threads, in which I made statements such as this
(which Google accidentally archived) on August 11, 2011:

**********

As promised less than an hour ago (was someone, anyone, so foolish as to
think I wouldn't do it?) here it is.
This is obviously motivated by the fact that at least two posters within
the past month have concocted the strawman argument, at least once in
reply to me, and at least once in reply to John Canal, that either of us
believe that even one frame of the Zapruder film, and/or even one of the
autopsy photos/x-rays was "forged."
As if.
We've both plainly stated otherwise in literally hundreds of articles
posted here over a period of several years. Both of us have explained
this in plain English that the average 10-year-old English-speaking
child would be very unlikely to misunderstand.
If I shout it in all caps, will all of y'all finally, at last, get it?
NEITHER JOHN CANAL NOR I BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE FILMS OR PHOTOGRAPHS
OR X-RAYS WERE FORGED.
Which part of that sentence does someone, anyone, not understand?

**********

The Google Groups archives, while woefully incomplete, show not one
poster, not one, CT or LN or uncommitted, claiming to "not understand"
what I said.

To his credit, Dr. McAdams has never again since then expressed any
misunderstanding of what my *true* viewpoint is.

Ah, but why did he, of all people, who has read more of my articles than
any other intelligent organism of any species on any planet in any solar
system in any galaxy, except for his fellow moderators, express, even
for the briefest time, a misconception of what I, of all people, believe
to be the most likely truth about this assassination?

The reason is blindingly obvious to me. He, just like you, Mr. Corbett,
was laboring under the misguided assumption, without realizing it, that
to admit that the c.40 witnesses were right is more or less the same
thing as admitting that the CTs are right.

But that's just the thing. It isn't the same thing. Not even close.
It never has been. It never will be. For all eternity.

Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Corbett, to very closely and carefully
investigate why I continue to proclaim to the heavens that there really,
really, really was a hole in the back of JFK's head, just as the
witnesses claimed, and also continue to claim to the heavens that this
is not even slightly inconsistent, not even slightly, with belief in a
single shooter firing all three (three, not one more, not one less)
shots from that sixth floor window? Did it ever occur to you to closely
investigate how, for nearly a decade, this has cause me no crisis of
belief whatsoever? Do you think this is because I am deluded, and I
"don't know" how to objectively evaluate evidence? Do you think it's
because I am some such nonsense such as "mentally deranged"? Do you
think that it's due to some sort of inability on my part to have even
average fluency in English?

No. I'll tell you what the *real* truth is.

I think you CTs and LNs are *equally* misguided, in roughly the same
percentages, on this issue. I have already described above, in plenty
of detail, why this is so.

Long ago, I listened to your radio debate with Tom Rossley, Mr. Corbett.
Don't get me started on Mr. Rossley, ok, it's too late, I'm started.
He's the one who mistakenly claimed in 2005 (I think) that I already
knew of the existence of a certain book about the assassination on a
date when I honestly didn't know about it. For a period of two years, I
pointed out to him, over and over and over, that on that date he would
have had no possible way of knowing whether or not I knew that that book
even existed, unless I had mentioned the book in at least one of my
articles *prior* to that date. Yet although I pointed this out to him
over and over and over in article after article after article for two
years, he ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to admit that he had even maybe, perhaps,
possibly made a mistake. Naturally this caused me to have serious
questions about his credibility. If he refuses to admit an obvious
mistake about me personally, how many other mistakes has he made,
including about the JFK assassination, that he has also refused to
admit. Finally I decided that I would never again, for the rest of my
life, no matter how long I live, knowingly read even one sentence of any
text written by him, no matter what subject it was about. Yet again, my
reasoning had nothing whatsoever to do with anything he had ever said
about the JFK assassination itself. It instead had to do with him
jumping to an obviously false conclusion about me personally, and then
compounding that by refusing and refusing and refusing to simply admit
his error when it was pointed out to him over and over and over.

Ah, but I guarantee, Mr. Corbett, that any sort of audio debate you have
with me will go quite differently than your debate with Mr. Rossley did.
It ought to be clear to you by now that I won't approach that from a
conspiracy perspective, and certainly not a multiple shooter
perspective. Instead it will involve the typical misconceptions shared
by you and most of your fellow LNs. I'm wondering how well you'll hold
your own in that. Shall we put it to the test?

> but
> not consistent with the Bethesda observation that the wound was chiefly
> parietal extending somewhat in the the occipital and temporal regions.

Oh there you go again. You still persist in misleadingly calling it
"the wound" instead of "the damage to the skull." And I am writhing
with curiosity to see (or even better, hear) you explain away the fact
that you just quoted "somewhat into the occipital," yet make a 180 turn
and make the mutually-exclusive claim that there wasn't any damage where
c.40 witnesses said there was damage.

> In my mind they spent little if any time examing the head wound.

I couldn't make out what text you were replying to, since you posted
through Google, which mangled the previous text almost beyond
recognition, but I'm making a "wild guess" that "they" means the
Parkland medical personnel. If so, with that sentence alone, in and of
itself, I totally agree, 100%.

> Their
> efforts were chiefly aimed at stabilizing blood pressure, respiration,
> etc. in = addition to the tracheotomy.

What's with "in = addition"? Did you type it that way, or did Google
insert that without your consent? Whatever, when I take out the
unnecessary equal sign, which instantly makes it into a grammatically
correct sentence, I agree 100% with that sentence.

> If we believe the priests, they
> entered the ER before 1:00 and he was already covered up which tells us
> that the actual time of death was wll before the official time of 1:00.
> That means their entire efforts were probably no more than ten minutes and
> given all the other things that were done, very little if any time was
> spent looking at the head wound. If it had been John Doe instead of John
> Kennedy wheeled into that ER, I doubt they would have even bothered doing
> much of anything.

Ok...I cannot see how any of that text is even slightly relevant, even
slightly, to the issue of whether or not the c.40 witnesses were right
about the BOH hole, but whatever. It ain't like I've never gone off on
tangents. I have, many, many, many times. Let us continue:

> I have given it a lot of thought and my beliefs don't parrot anybody.

Heh. I think you simply do not *consciously* realize that. I'm
assuming that you, of all people, who are obviously far more intelligent
than necessary to easily comprehend this, knew long before today that it
is a common, mundane, human fault to *unknowingly* duplicate arguments
others have made before. Just because you honestly believe that you are
not parroting any person or any group doesn't automatically prove that
to be true. It is blindingly obvious to me who you are parroting
without realizing that you are doing so, and it was not even slightly
difficult for me to determine that.

> They
> are my own

WHAT is your own??? The arguments you are making??? If they are your
own, pray explain how have seen exactly these same arguments, with
almost literally no difference whatsoever, by dozens and dozens and
dozens of LNs years before I read any of your articles for the first
time.

> and it is the only explaination I have encountered which
> explains the descrepancies.

Oh, I love that one. My explanation requires me to dismiss a
*tremendously* *smaller* amount of evidence than yours does. My
explanation is internally consistent, and allows me to still say that
the c.40 witnesses were correct, and the Zapruder film is correct, and
the autopsists were correct (about the damage to the head) and the
photos and x-rays were correct, and that there was one shooter firing
with one rifle from one window in the TSBD. I do not have to engage in
implausible juggling of the evidence to support my conclusion. You,
however, are forced (whether you realize it or not) to place the Harper
Fragment in a different location than the majority of your fellow LNs
place it, and thus place the hole in a different location that where the
c.40 witnesses placed it, and you also have to ignore the obvious cracks
and fissures in the back or rear of the head in the lateral x-ray, and
you have to ignore the evidence that strongly suggests that BOH photos
were taken for an entirely different purpose than to document the total
extent of the damage to the head.

I don't have to dismiss any of that to support a single shooter from the
TSBD. You do. I don't.

> We have a visual record of the wound

Here we go again. Not "the wound." "The damage." Please be more
accurate in your wording. To say "the wound" as if there was only one
"wound" in his head, is woefully misleading. Even if you don't believe
my claim of where I think the hole in the back of his head was, I'm
assuming you knew, long before today, that there were an absolute
minimum of *two* "wounds" to his head: the very small wound of entry and
the tremendously larger wound of exit. I'm guessing that even the
majority of your fellow LNs would disagree with you saying "the wound,"
singular, as if there was only one to his head.

> at the
> time of the shooting

The Zapruder film would obviously contain no visual record of the tiny
entrance wound, which is already one more wound than you're admitting.

> and an autopsy that yields findings perfectly
> compatible with that record.

Ah, yes, as *far* *as* *it* *goes* the autopsy agrees with the "record"
of the Zapruder film. I can plainly see that you are still not getting
it. Did it not ever occur to you that the autopsy evidence might be
*incomplete*? Be careful, and do not accuse me, of all people, of
claiming that what evidence *was* revealed from the autopsy is false.
It clearly isn't. But it's *incomplete*. You obviously knew that long
before today, or will you make the astonishing claim, on a slightly
different issue, that they did indeed fail to connect the back wound
with the wound in the front of the throat? For obvious reasons?

Did it ever occur to you that although they did indeed document *nearly*
*all* of the damage to the head photographically, in x-rays, and in
writing, that they might have *unintentionally* missed one little thing?
Will you make the absurd claim that Boswell, Finck, and Humes were the
only perfect humans who have ever lived on this planet, and that they
"could not possibly" have unknowingly missed something at the autopsy,
even though all other humans who have ever lived, no matter what their
level of expertise, are guaranteed to make mistake? It is impossible to
be a human and never make a mistake. It is impossible to be a human and
never once overlook something without realizing it.

> In between we have observations from the
> Parkland staff that presents a somewhat different view of the head wound.

Somewhat different from what? The BOH hole that the Bethesda autopsists
NEVER ONCE SPECIFICALLY SAID WASN"T THERE? Lack of mention, John, is
not the same thing as specifically disputing, as I hope you knew long
before today.

I dare you to quote verbatim any sentence in the official autopsy
report, and/or any statement ever recorded as being spoken or written by
Boswell, Finck, or Humes, in which there is anything even remotely close
to this, in wording or essential meaning.

"Oh no, upon his arrival at Bethesda, there was no hole in the back of
the President's head that was even remotely close to the description
given by all these witnesses."

I've been through all this for years, and there is a stunning lack of
mention of anything even remotely like this, John. Unless they
*specifically* and *clearly* deny it, a mere lack of mention is not
anywhere close to proof that it wasn't there. And I've already told
you, and many others here, on many different dates, exactly why I think
this lack of mention occurred, and it doesn't have a thing to do with
any intentional or sinister coverup. I cannot recall you even once
directly addressing my reasoning on this, not once, for the past 12
months at least. If I am mistaken without realizing it (and if so, it
would hardly be the first time) please quote verbatim your past article
that was posted in direct reply to me, along with the date and the
Google Groups URL which displays the full header of your article proving
beyond all possible doubt that you really did post it, and that it was a
reply to me, not someone else. I am NOT asking you to produce a past
article in which you challenged my beliefs on the BOH hole. I am asking
you to produce a past article in which you even mentioned, whether you
challenged them or not, my beliefs on why that hole was only vaguely
mentioned, if at all, by the autopsists. I am NOT asking you to show me
a quotation of your OWN beliefs about that. I'm asking you to show me a
quotation from one of your past articles that demonstrates that you were
at the time AWARE of mine.

Rather obviously, it would be rather difficult for you to address an
argument if you are unaware that the argument was even made.

> This tells me they failed to see the true extent of that head wound
> because they never bothered to closely examine it. Why would they?

Naturally. Do you think I dispute that in the slightest? I'm simply
telling you that the Parkland folks noticed something that was *largely*
*overlooked* at the autopsy, for roughly the same reason you are
attributing to Parkland. At Parkland, it wasn't their role to determine
the most serious damage to the skull, and certainly not the cause of
death or the direction of bullet entry and exit. Naturally they
overlooked the most serious damage to the skull which at the time was
hidden under a mass of bloody hair and scalp. At Bethesda it *was*
their role to concentrate on the most serious damage to the skull, to
determine the cause of death, and to determine the direction of bullet
entry and exit.

The hole in the back of his head that c.40 witnesses said they saw was
not especially relevant to the entry, or to the exit, of the bullet. It
was not related to the primary cause of death. Had that been the only
damage to his head, there's at least some possibility he would have
survived. Just as Parkland was not primarily concerned with documenting
the most serious damage to the skull, which they never saw anyway,
Bethesda was not concerned with documenting, at least not in any great
detail or with any great emphasis, the more trivial (in comparison)
damage to the back of JFK's head.

> Which doesn't address the fact that the Parkland staff thought the wound
> was toward the back of the head rather than all along the upper right side
> of the head which we know was the true extent of the wound.

Again, you are misleading. The most serious damage to his head/skull
was indeed all along the upper right side of the head. Are you claiming
that to be the *only* damage to his head/skull though? One would have
to be legally blind to be "unable to see" that there are *also* severe
cracks/fissures in numerous places throughout the REAR of his head.
You're only talking about the large area more forward where bone was
completely missing, where it had been blasted completely out of his
head. Yet you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring it when I and
other tell you that an open hole in his head can be caused by other
factors than missing bone. It can *instead* be caused by something very
different: *cracked* bone, but not *missing* bone, combined with a tear
in the scalp. That's all it takes.

You continue to act as if I've never said this to you before. It's fine
for you to disagree with me, but to act as if I never made the claim in
the first place is entirely different. You can at least acknowledge
that the words were typed, even if you disagree with them. And you can
at least *address* the point that is being made, even if you disagree
with it.

But to act as if I and others never even typed the words in the first
place, is inexcusable.

Am I wrong? I doubt it. Nowhere in this entire article have I yet seen
you even mention any argument that there might have been a different
cause for a BOH hole than missing bone. Why can't you at least mention
that that argument has been made, even if you don't agree with it? You
and I went through all this a year ago, and you did the same thing as
you're doing now.

> When I have disagreed with the host of this NG I have stated that freely.
> Since we are largely in agreement regarding the issues of the JFK
> assassination, those disagreements have usually been are peripheral
> issues.

Since it was, of course, very difficult for me to determine what you
were addressing there, with all those unnecessary characters and
unnecessary spaces inserted by Google, I'm not sure what you're
referring to here. But if you mean a resolution of this BOH hole
business is peripheral, I strongly disagree. It is in fact one of the
top three or four issues that remain to be adequately resolved in the
entire history of study of this assassination.

> Since JFK had a hole in his skull left by the missing Harper fragment

Oh good gawd. That sentence alone proves to me that you have no clue
what John Canal was really saying, or what I've been saying to you for
more than a year. Yet again you labor under the provably false
assumption that the only possible cause for a hole in the head is
missing bone. You still don't get it that a hole or opening in a
person's head, no matter what inflicted it, can appear without even a
tiny bit of bone being missing from the skull.

> and
> that hole would have been near the surface of the guerney, it is not at
> all inconceivable to me that cerebellum could have oozed out of that hole.
> Gravity was carrying blood and brain matter out of that hole.

You don't have a clue about what John Canal really meant, do you? If
I'm wrong, why does your response not reflect it?

> Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
> taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
> what pictures should or should not have been taken.

WHAT??? You haven't even seen all of the photos taken??? And you
presume to understand the autopsy evidence??? Why on earth are you
daring to post about this matter then??? If you've only seen a "small
fraction" (your exact words) of the photographic evidence from the
autopsy, how can you of all people express any meaningful conclusion
about it?

Oh dear gawd, I had no idea until now that you were THIS far behind.

> I have no reason to believe the Bethesda team did anything but their best
> efforts to perform a task they were not thoroughly prepared to do, a
> medico-legal autopsy of a gunshot murder victim.

Exactly my point. The BOH hole was virtually irrelevant to that task.

But please explain to all of us, Mr. Corbett, why on earth even the
majority of your own LNs should find any claim you make about that
autopsy to be credible, when by your own entirely free admission, you
have only seen a "small fraction" of the photographic evidence from the
autopsy?

> If they had looked more closely at the parietal and temporal regions, they
> might have understood those were blown out too.

I'm wondering how many more hundreds of times we'll have to say this to
you before you will finally, for the first time ever, at least
understand the concept, even if you don't agree with the concept: the
BOH hole did not have to be caused by anything at all being "blown out."

> No, I think they gave a cursory examination of a head wound the extent of
> which had been disguised by Jackie's efforts to close the wound.

Right. And that comment is irrelevant to whether or not the BOH hole
was caused by missing bone.

> You keep ignoring the fact the autopsy team determined the blowout
> extended into the temporal region, something that wasn't apparent to
> anyone at Parkland.

You keep ignoring the fact that the BOH hole was not necessarily caused
by anything even remotely like a blowout. You keep laboring under the
misconception that that hole "just had to be caused" by missing bone.
You keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that Mr. Canal and
I have been telling you for more than 12 months, at least, that other
factors can cause a hole to appear in a person's head. You continue and
continue and continue to act as if you've "never been told this." Even
from Google's woefully incomplete archive, I can produce articles from
MORE than twelve months ago in which you replied directly to me when I
told you this very thing, proving beyond all possible doubt that you saw
my articles. How can you reply to an article if you don't see that it's
there? Now, if you didn't *read* my articles carefully before you
replied, and you *missed* the numerous occasions in which I told you
this, that is your problem, not mine. All I can do is post the
sentences. I can't force you to read them. But if you reply to the
same article in which those sentences appear, and yet do not
specifically address or acknowledge the points raised in them, that
damages your credibility, not mine.

> Can you name a single person at Parkland who thought
> the temporal region had any blowout? If not, it is apparent, they failed
> to appreciate the true extent of that wound.

This is meaningless. I believe Mr. Canal and I have already been
agreeing with you for more than 12 months, at least, that at Parkland
they failed to notice the actual blowout, and know I myself have agreed
with your explanation of why they failed to notice it, as it is
virtually identical to my own explanation for that.

But you left out what Parkland (and witnesses who saw JFK's head at
Parkland AND Bethesda, and what even more witnesses who saw it only at
Bethesda) DID INDEED notice: a hole in the rear of his head.

A hole that was almost certainly not caused by anything even remotely
like a "blowout."

I've told you this many, many, many times before, yet you still act here
as if you've "never been told this before, ever."

Sheesh.

> It's a certainty she couldn't have closed that part because that part was
> found in the street.

Oh, you're harping on the Harper, yet again. You still don't get it.
You still are laboring under the delusion that "the only possible" way
for there to be a hole in his head is when bone is missing from that
area.

> I'm not making any accusations, just observations. Nobody at Parkland took
> a close look at the head wound, a wound that in all probability had
> largely been closed by Jackie's attempts to keep his brains inside his
> skull. There is no reason to expect that they should have. The were
> treating a guy they knew was going to die very soon. It wasn't until
> autopsy that it was learned how massive the blowout area was.

Yes. So what on earth does that have to do with a hole in an entirely
different location that *wasn't* caused by a blowout?

> It was one large blowout.

The only true "blowout" of bone from his skull doesn't extend nearly far
enough to the rear to fit the majority of the available evidence. You
still are talking about something completely different from the BOH hole.

> I don't look at evidence in isolation. I look at the entire body of
> evidence and try to reach conclusions compatible with all of it, not some
> parts of it.

Excuse me, I suggest you seriously reconsider that sentence. The entire
body of evidence? This from a person who in the same article admitted
that he had seen only a "small fraction" of the autopsy photos? The
entire body of evidence would obviously include *all* of the autopsy
photos which have ever been made available publicly, which is a hell of
a lot more than a "small fraction" of all the photos taken that night.
You are directly contradicting yourself.

> I'm not into playing what-ifs.

What you are playing at, however, is imagining that you are qualified to
talk about this issue, when you cannot possibly be until you've a lot
more than a "small fraction" of the autopsy photos.

> You keep saying I am accusing people. I think everyone involved gave their
> best efforts and honestly reported what they observed. I also think that
> what some of them observed didn't reveal the true extent of the head
> wound.

I don't even have to see what Mr. Canal said to you to know from that
paragraph alone that you have, at best, only a woefully vague
understanding of what he's talking about. Do you think for a moment
that I have not seen every last one of those autopsy photos that have
been made public, seen them many, many, many times? Mr. Canal has too.
You are awfully presumptuous thinking that you are even remotely
qualified to discuss this issue with him. He has almost certainly
forgotten more of the medical evidence than you've even learned in the
first place.

> We have both x-rays and photos and the xrays showed massive fracturing of
> the skull and many large pieces of skull remained attached to the scalp.

Oh! Could it be? Are you finally beginning to barely understand what
we're talking about.

> That allowed portions of the blast out area to be opened and closed
> presenting different pictures to different people and different times.

Oh. :( No. I almost thought you were making progress, but then you
again used the phrase "blast out."

You still don't have a clue what he's talking about, do you?

Tell ya what, Mr. Corbett, why don't you do this: maybe you could post a
one-paragraph summary of what you *think* Mr. Canal's essential argument
is. Then we can all look at it and see whether or not it is even
remotely accurate, or demonstrates even the remotest understanding of
what his essential argument is.

Or, something I would like even better: post a one-paragraph summary of
what you honestly believe *my* essential argument is, because I am not
at all convinced that you have anything even remotely close to a clear
understanding of what it is, and the only possible way you can prove
that you do is to demonstrate that you do. You have been utterly
failing for 12 months to demonstrate anything even remotely close to
that.

I, on the other hand, could post a one-paragraph summary of *your*
essential argument on this issue that would probably be considered to be
superbly accurate. This would be childishly easy for me to do because I
was familiar with your essential argument long before I first saw you
make it.

That's because it is an old, old, old argument that has been made by
many before you.

You cannot truthfully say the same about mine. "Many" have made my
essential argument before me? I'd like to see you try to prove that.
You will be helplessly unable to directly quote more than a tithe of
humans who have come even close.

[John King]

In article <k1lir...@drn.newsguy.com>,

Well, actually I did know that...but naturally I couldn't resist a bit
of teasing. ;-)

> Anyway, he himself had the best suggestion....I should put him [back] on
> my killfile.

Oooooooooo, are ya really gonna do it???

/me chants "Kill-file, kill-file, kill-file, WHOOP! Kill-file,
kill-file, kill-file, PLONK!"

[Ben Holmes]

In article <503eb6a3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I see you took the time to figure out that there WERE multiple reports...
you know, "plural".

This is why you suddenly changed the topic to something else. You cannot
admit that Dr. Humes *DID* testify to reading the REPORTS (plural) of the
Parkland doctors.

I do find it amusing... you do this frequently, you get corrected on an
evidential matter, and you change the topic. (or refuse to respond)

>You don't seem
>to understand the basic fact that a report can be written by many people.

Who said that, Tony? (Other than you...)

The topic is whether or not Dr. Humes testified that he read the Parkland
doctors reports (plural).

He did. You cannot any longer deny that fact.

>If you had simply said THE REPORT on the statements of some Parkland
>Hospital doctors I could not have objected.

No Tony... you objected TO THE TRUTH.

You were simply too busy to check a basic evidential fact.

>But you were talking about the
>REPORTS FROM the Parkland doctors.

You mean: "Humes had read the reports by the PH docs (he testified he
had)"?

Absolutely correct. This is indeed the EXACT HISTORICAL TRUTH.

Are you actually still trying to deny that Dr. Humes testified to reading
the reports (plural) from the Parkland doctors?

Seriously?

>> And to save you the precious seconds it would have taken to look this up,
>> here's the URL:
>>
>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_392.pdf
>>
>> Now, would you like to prove that Dr. Humes did *NOT* "read any reports by
>> the PH docs"?
>>
>
>I did.

Since he testified to doing so, and you cannot cite any evidence to the
contrary, it's clear that you're relying on the censorship of this forum.
Lurkers can view more comments in the open forum.

>>>> Tony, you repeatedly make simple evidential mistakes ... probably because
>>>> you don't bother to check. The above quote took me all of about a minute
>>>> to find and copy/paste.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you wish to argue that he did *NOT* see these medical reports from
>>>> Parkland, can you offer ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your claim?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I notice that you can't upload these reports, plural.
>>
>>
>> I just cited for these reports, plural.
>>
>
>No, you didn't.

Further comments in the open forum. (alt.conspiracy.jfk)

[Anthony Marsh]

But then you disrespected him and ignored his advice.

> So I applied that very method, basically identical to what Barb suggested,
> to Parkland. And it was an eye-opener. I emerged from that finding the
> idea that all these different medical professionals were "just wrong" to
> be highly implausible, and I didn't even yet know about all these *other*
> witnesses who *also* corroborated Parkland, some of whom only saw the body
> at Bethesda and some of whom saw the body in both places. Before the end

The body did not arrive at Bethesda in the same condition as when the ER
doctors saw it. You are comparing apples and oranges.

> of my first month here I was already posting variations of, "A mere child,
> without a day of medical training, can easily and correctly identify which
> part of the head is which," etc., which almost nine years later finally
> evolved into my Questionnaires.
>

Eerily reminiscent of another poster who claims that a child of 10 would
be able to figure out the head wound.
Ignoring the fact that The Three Stooges were not as smart as a
fifth-grader.

> All that said, John I think you already know that today I'm going just a
> bit my own way with this. Then, as now, I refuse to directly copy any
> single person's scenario in every detail. I continue to examine this
> assassination from my own point of view of what is and is not plausible.
> I just said this in another reply in this thread, but I'll here present it
> again. I am not for a moment claiming that my scenario is more or less
> likely to be correct than yours. It is simply something that I find to be
> plausible:
>
> Maybe there wasn't any *intention* to disguise the BOH hole at the

What BOH hole? Show it to me? Something you made up from your imagination?

> autopsy, but instead it was simply not at the time deemed important enough
> to document in any obvious way, in photography, in x-rays, or in writing.

What do you think the purpose of an autopsy is? Did you read the list of
mistakes by the autopsy doctors which the HSCA FPP pointed out?

> The autopsists would have already known, in fact, that this BOH damage,
> while hardly trivial, was many orders of magnitude less serious than the
> more forward damage. It also might have been considered to be virtually
> irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry, and the direction of bullet
> exit. If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the

Again explain how one bullet can cause two different entrance wounds on
the back of the head according to your theory.

> final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive, and this was due to the

Maybe you're wrong because you don't know about the extra set taken by
Knudsen which have been hidden from the public.

> autopsists suddenly realizing after the morticians had already taken over
> and sutured the tear in the scalp closed that they had not yet documented
> the bullet entry in the scalp photographically, I do not see why it would

So now you borrow my Three Stooges metaphor to explain away their
incompetence.

> necessarily be of any concern to the autopsists that they had forgotten to
> also document the tear in the scalp. Since it had no relevance to the
> direction of bullet entrance and exit anyway, why would they care?

How would they know that given their level of incompetence? They
couldn't figure out the shallow back wound so they invented an ice bullet.

>
> Another bit of evidence which supports this belief is something I first
> brought up here more than a year ago. On 11-22-63 not the autopsists, and
> indeed any person on this planet, would have had any possible way of
> knowing yet that this issue would later develop into one of the most
> serious controversies of all surrounding this assassination. In fact,

Do you have a point? I could likewise point out that none of the
reporters that day realized that kooks would 20 years later claim that
the limo actually stopped on Elm Street.

> it's one of the top three, the other two being the continued
> misunderstanding of what the Dealey Plaza witnesses *really* said about
> the perceived sounds of gunfire, and the continued misunderstanding of
> what Jack Ruby *really* said about his role in all of this. On the issue

Ignore the witnesses. Look for the scientific and photographic evidence.
The Best Witness is the Presidential limousine. Examine it carefully
instead of throwing it away. The WC didn't even bother looking for the
proof that the chrome topping was undented before the shooting. I was
the only person who found the evidence that it was undented before
11/22/63. I was the first person to point out that the back of the
rearview mirror was smashed in. Now if I, an ordinary citizen, can do
these things, why can't the Federal government with all its resources
and security clearances? Of course they can, but they don't want to. The
ARRB was able to find the destroyed autopsy photos, but the DOJ is not
able to find the Knudsen photos?

> of the BOH hole, no one, no one, would have had any possible way of
> knowing this controversy would arise until the WC had completed the
> process of collecting so very many of these witness statements and then
> published them in the 26 volumes. Only then, ten months after the

Maybe that's exactly why we needed another investigation.
Maybe that's exactly why we need another investigation.

> assassination (and after the autopsy) would people be able to see, for the
> first time ever, the apparent contradiction between what c.40 witnesses
> said they saw regarding the BOH damage and the official conclusions that
> were stated about the overall damage to his head.
>
> Now, do I think that this was nevertheless one of the most serious flaws
> or mistakes of this autopsy? I certainly do, the other most serious one
> being of course the failure to connect the bullet wound in the back with
> the bullet wound in the front of the throat. But this is a flaw or
> mistake that might only become clear in hindsight, at an absolute minimum
> of ten months after the autopsy.
>
> Now, I think you already know that I, of all people, understand well
> enough what you're talking about regarding what appears to be Humes's
> oblique hint to the WC regarding falx cerebri being changed to flocculus
> cerebri. But again here I offer the alternate explanation that Humes at
> this early point (the 26 volumes had not yet been published, and he
> himself was just now giving testimony that would be included in them)
> would have no possible way of knowing yet (no person on the planet yet
> knew) that this controversy would erupt, for the first time ever, only
> *after* the volumes were published. Since the BOH hole, as I said above,
> is virtually irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry and exit, why
> would he think it important to go to any specific effort to make sure the
> Commission was aware of it? In fact, why would *any* of the autopsists go
> to any great length, at this early point, to make sure the Commission was
> aware of it?
>

Maybe if you learn to read between the lines you can see that Humes was
like a POW giving us subtle hints that it was a conspiracy and he was
trying to tell us what really happened but was ordered to cover up. Like
the good luck finger signal the POWs gave to their captors in the
official photos.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/30/2012 12:00 AM, John King wrote:
> In article <1349da0c-cba4-48f8...@googlegroups.com>,
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> We see in the Z-film a massive blowout in the upper right side of JFK's
>> head
>
> Well, you ought to be a bit more specific than that. What is most
> obvious in the film is a massive blowout in the upper right side of
> JFK's forward of his right ear. All parts of his head behind the ear
> show much less obvious damage in the film.
>

The films taken from behind and the Moorman photo show the back of the
head intact.

>> and that is perfectly consistent with the findings at Bethesda.
>
> Yes.
>
>> This
>> casts doubt on the accuracy of the Parkland observations.
>
> Only if one peruses those observations with a preconceived bias.
>
>> It makes me
>> believe they never saw the true extent of the wound.
>
> I would agree with you better if you said "true extent of the damage."

The true extent of the damage only became obvious when they unwrapped
the head. The massive wound on the top of the head had been filled in
with gauze squares.

> But naturally they didn't observe nearly all of the damage to the head,
> and you have given what is by far the most plausible explanation for that
> below, an explanation I have also been giving for some time, and the two
> of us are hardly the only ones.
>
>> There are several
>> reasons for the apparent anomaly. First of all, no one at Parkland
>> actually treated the head wound. It was not looked at closely. Most of the
>> ER team would have done nothing more than glanced at the bloody mess.
>
> As their role was not to perform an autopsy, naturally they would not
> peel back the President's scalp and hair to view the full extent of the
> damage to the skull.
>

But Canal claims all that scalp and hair was missing.

>> Parkland reported a laceration in the area where we see a blowout in JFK's
>> head.
>
> Er, if you mean the same blowout that you described above which is
> horrifically plain in the film, that is all forward of the right ear, as I
> said. I cannot see any open flap of scalp or bone anywhere behind the
> ear. The Parkland witnesses did not primarily describe damage forward of
> his ear. Neither did Clint Hill, who was the first to see JFK's head up

Oh, you mean the flap that we see in the Zapruder film which Jackie
closed up?

> close after Jackie. Neither did Greer and Kellerman, who saw JFK before
> and as he was being lifted out of the limousine. When they saw his body
> again upon its arrival at Bethesda, just before the beginning of the
> autopsy, the three SS agents again did not recall all that much damage
> forward of the ear. Various other persons at Bethesda, now seeing the
> body for the first time, also failed to notice much damage forward of the
> ear.
>

Well, what about the photograph that the little boy took of the head
wound when the limo arrived at Parkland Hospital. Oops, the SS destroyed it.

> But considering all these witnesses: the SS agents who saw JFK's head
> outside of Parkland and again at Bethesda (before the autopsy started) the
> Parkland personnel who saw the body, and the people at Bethesda who saw
> the body, there is a common thread that runs through the statements of
> about forty of them, with far fewer specifically disputing them: that
> there was quite an obvious hole in the President's head that was almost
> universally described as being somewhere on the "back" or "posterior" or
> "rear" (the three words most frequently used). The most frequently added
> qualifications were "upper rear" or "upper right rear."
>

So you choose to believe witnesses instead of the photographic evidence?
Therefore you must think all the photographic evidence is fake. That
makes you a Fetzerite.

>> Jackie testified that on the way to Parkland, she was trying to keep
>> his brains inside his head.
>
> Or that she was "trying to hold his head together" or something to that
> effect, yes.
>

Maybe if the WC didn't tamper with her testimony we'd know for sure.
Maybe if the Kennedy Library will release ALL its files we could see
exactly what she said and listen to it on tape.
But no, we have to keep covering up another 20 centuries lest we spark
WWIII.

Did you even bother to look at the Angel diagram to see where the
anatomist put the Harper fragment?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/angel3.gif

Look at his drawing very carefully. Can you explain how such a large
fragment remains intact and in the drawing it extends past the suture
line, but there are no suture lines through the fragment? Is that even
physically possible on a human skull?

I don't suppose that you have software which allows you to place a black
dot on a reference diagram of a skull? Like this?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/skull_wound.gif

> And here are some examples of where researchers typically propose the
> fragment to have come from. On Dr. McAdams' site, a drawing by Dr.
> Lawrence Angel is given to propose that the fragment came from parietal
> bone almost directly above the right ear:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper2.gif
>
> That isn't where the witnesses said the hole was. That is too far
> forward, and too high.
>
> Here's another one, which of course the famous Ida Dox drawing for the
> Forensic Pathology Panel of the HSCA:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/i
> mages/fig_h4_lrg.jpg
>

Why did the HSCA ignore Dr. Angel? His entrance and exit wounds did not
point back to the sniper's nest.

The word hole implies that something is missing. They didn't say it was
a depression in the head.

The skull fell apart when they removed the wrappings. Then they removed
the brain. Maybe during the embalming they could fill the head with
plaster of Paris and glue all the pieces of skull back into place.
Maybe if we exhumed the body we'd see that they actually did.

Show me the sutures.

I don't suppose you ever bothered to read the JAMA articles, did you?

Ever think about preserving your files online with free storage?
Ever hear of The Cloud?

> To my surprise and pleasure what I also found saved on this computer, from
> the old, is a long article of more than 1000 lines that I posted on this
> issue in August of last year which I had thought gone forever.
> Strangely, no one ever replied to that article, including one poster who
> had claimed, in the same thread, but only when replying to other much
> shorter articles of mine, that I had not adequately defended my position.
> When I pointed out in another reply that I had already posted this other
> lengthy article, but that no one had replied to it or even addressed
> anything close to the majority of points raised in it, this poster
> abruptly fell silent and posted no further articles in the thread.
>

Maybe one poster did make several very lengthy replies, but McAdams
deleted them to protect you. Maybe McAdams still has those replies on
HIS hard drives.

[John King]

In article <k1mtr...@drn.newsguy.com>,

Dunno if that has anything to do with it or not. But yes, I do have a
masters, in choral conducting, musicology, and music theory. Those
subjects, of course, have no relevance here. The only thing of relevance
from that that I've been able to apply here is the teaching of my
brilliant musicology professor, whose precepts on how to do proper
research would apply to any subject, and have helped me tremendously in
studying this assassination.

> Me, all that I have is two years of college studing Ground Radar
> Technology.....at the Community College of The Air Force.

And yet you also clearly know how to do proper research.

> Don't laugh....I already owe you one gut, re. my comment about Marsh
> having a reading comprehension problem.

:P

> Okay, I was sidetracked...but it certainly not my imagination that has
> shown me that McAdams has refused to reply to my posts for I don't know
> how long.
>
> Anyway, moving on.
>
> I read your other post to bigdog. Overall, other than you and Barb, there
> is no one here (except for one other person who I highly respect--hi PH)
> whose beliefs about the medical evidence are so close to mine.
>
> In fact, Barb got me started on this medical evidence journey in 2000
> right after my book was published....I didn't know she inspired you to
> check out this part of the case like she did me.

She did, although it worked so quickly, as I said, because it struck a
responsive chord of scholarship that had already been inside me for many
years. She's a great lady, and I wish she was still posting here
regularly.

> I guess when Paul Seaton,
> Joe Durnavich and myself were debating these issue hot and heavy, I just
> didn't notice your posts.

Hmm, yeah, I think I remember you from back then too, but I guess I
hadn't read enough of your articles at that time to be clear about what
your stance was.

> Are you sure you haven't called yourself, Mimus?

No, that's definitely a different person, and I don't even know where
that person lives, or if I've been told that before, I don't remember it
now.

Um, was that tongue in cheek? Can't tell. There's no smiley after it
this time. Well, just in case, I don't agree. I said I don't copy every
*detail*. That doesn't necessarily mean that I don't agree with the
significant parts, that may simply mean that I don't subscribe to a few
individual details. Also what I mean by that is that I am naturally going
to say things my own way. That might not actually involve any significant
difference of opinion, but rather a different way of describing the
argument, or the theory, or the stance. This also relates to what I
learned from my professor long ago. It can be dangerous to go exclusively
by what just one author says about a particular subject. For example,
when I extensively studied the music of Sibelius in the '80s I read quite
a few scholarly works before I formed my conclusions about the
characteristics of his music. I also, naturally, listened to many
different performances of his works. Listening to only one performance
gets it set in one's mind that that's the only way the music can sound,
and that can be misleading, because then you'll miss other alternate
interpretations that are just as valid, or other performances that reveal
other aspects of the music that were not revealed so clearly in the first
performance.

Exactly the same thing applies here. When studying the BOH hole, I am
compelled to read what multiple authors say about it. I may miss
something if I only read what one author says about it. The best approach
is to read a great deal of material by different people, and also study
the original sources as extensively as possible, and sift through all of
that to find elements of greatest credibility in terms of the full context
of everything one has learned or can discover about that subject, and put
that all together into what one feels is the most plausible scenario
possible.

> >I continue to examine this
> >assassination from my own point of view of what is and is not plausible.
> >I just said this in another reply in this thread, but I'll here present it
> >again. I am not for a moment claiming that my scenario is more or less
> >likely to be correct than yours. It is simply something that I find to be
> >plausible:
> >
> >Maybe there wasn't any *intention* to disguise the BOH hole at the
> >autopsy, but instead it was simply not at the time deemed important enough
> >to document in any obvious way, in photography, in x-rays, or in writing.
> >The autopsists would have already known, in fact, that this BOH damage,
> >while hardly trivial, was many orders of magnitude less serious than the
> >more forward damage. It also might have been considered to be virtually
> >irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry, and the direction of bullet
> >exit.
>
> Okay, we disagree. You think it was just a coincidence that they took
> pictures when the body was first received from just about every other
> perspective besides the back....or that they thought the other angles were
> relevent and pictures from the back wouldn't be.

No. It is not exactly that I disagree. What I instead was doing was
proposing an alternate scenario that I found to be plausible, and I made
it plain in advance that I was not suggesting that that scenario is more
likely to be correct than yours. And that's yet another thing I know
about scholarship: it is always evolving, if done properly. Do not think
for a moment that I have yet reached a fixed, unchanging stance on this
issue. I have not. That is a pitfall that I intend to avoid. I continue
to learn, and continue to refine my viewpoints on this, and many other
matters.

> Okay, I disagree...but your theory on that is possible.
>
> The only thing is that I have more support for my beliefs on that
> particular issue than I've told you or posted here about.
>
> :-)

I'm sure you do indeed have more support for your beliefs than what I yet
know about. That may also be true of me. But I have little doubt that in
general you are still far ahead of me in your study of this. I may be
catching up, perhaps, but I still have no idea if I'm gaining on you or
not. You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.

> >If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
> >final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,
>
> Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH ones
> were taken later...12 total.
>
> As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.
>
> :-)

Yes, and I'd forgotten about twelve.

> >and this was due to the
> >autopsists suddenly realizing after the morticians had already taken over
> >and sutured the tear in the scalp closed that they had not yet documented
> >the bullet entry in the scalp photographically, I do not see why it would
> >necessarily be of any concern to the autopsists that they had forgotten to
> >also document the tear in the scalp. Since it had no relevance to the
> >direction of bullet entrance and exit anyway, why would they care?
>
> Forgot? Hmmm, how sloppy.
>
> :-)

Well, but I think at least one point I made is fairly plausible: that on
11-22-63 no one would have yet had any possible way of knowing that this
would later develop into such a controversy. Now, that may not be the
truthful explanation of this failure. They may well have instead done
this due to the motivation you describe. After all, that would hardly be
the only instance of very intentional coverup and manipulation of evidence
in this assassination.

> >Another bit of evidence which supports this belief is something I first
> >brought up here more than a year ago. On 11-22-63 not the autopsists, and
> >indeed any person on this planet, would have had any possible way of
> >knowing yet that this issue would later develop into one of the most
> >serious controversies of all surrounding this assassination. In fact,
> >it's one of the top three, the other two being the continued
> >misunderstanding of what the Dealey Plaza witnesses *really* said about
> >the perceived sounds of gunfire, and the continued misunderstanding of
> >what Jack Ruby *really* said about his role in all of this. On the issue
> >of the BOH hole, no one, no one, would have had any possible way of
> >knowing this controversy would arise until the WC had completed the
> >process of collecting so very many of these witness statements and then
> >published them in the 26 volumes. Only then, ten months after the
> >assassination (and after the autopsy) would people be able to see, for the
> >first time ever, the apparent contradiction between what c.40 witnesses
> >said they saw regarding the BOH damage and the official conclusions that
> >were stated about the overall damage to his head.
>
> Fair point...but FWIW we still disgree....but I don't want to argue though
> because your overall theory is basically close to mine.

No. Again we do not exactly disagree. Again, that was an alternate
possibility I was proposing. I am not yet firmly committed to it. And
you have given plenty of solid reasoning to support your point of view on
this. I am nowhere close to believing you to be mistaken. But as I said
before, I am exploring this from my own angle, from the context of my own
intellect, and there is of course nothing wrong with exploring alternate
possibilities. To do so is healthy scholarship.

> >Now, I think you already know that I, of all people, understand well
> >enough what you're talking about regarding what appears to be Humes's
> >oblique hint to the WC regarding falx cerebri being changed to flocculus
> >cerebri. But again here I offer the alternate explanation that Humes at
> >this early point (the 26 volumes had not yet been published, and he
> >himself was just now giving testimony that would be included in them)
> >would have no possible way of knowing yet (no person on the planet yet
> >knew) that this controversy would erupt, for the first time ever, only
> >*after* the volumes were published. Since the BOH hole, as I said above,
> >is virtually irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry and exit, why
> >would he think it important to go to any specific effort to make sure the
> >Commission was aware of it? In fact, why would *any* of the autopsists go
> >to any great length, at this early point, to make sure the Commission was
> >aware of it?
>
> IMO, he knew the autopsy report did not support what I think he believed
> to be an important observation by some of the the PH docs...that the
> cerebellum was exposed....so he made sure he was in agreement with them by
> going out of his way to mention the flocculus in his WC testimony.

Ok, and I think that's a good point. So just to be clear: do you think
that Humes *was* aware by this point that this contradiction in
description of the BOH hole was significant?

> In fact John, the autopsy report actually made that observation [PH docs
> seeing cerebellum] doubtful, i.e. if the wound extended only "somewhat
> into the occipital" it probably woundn't have been low enough to expose
> the cerebellum.
>
> Compare the drawing that McClelland endorsed with the words, "somewhat
> into the occipital"....not that I feel the drawing is completely accurate,
> but the borrom margin of it is at or near the level of the
> EOP...coincidently where the top of the cerebellum is.
>
> Let me add this. Two parts of you theory that you haven't addressed, at
> least recently (unless I've missed your posts on those matters), that I've
> always felt are intertwined with the BOH wound controversy is the location
> of the BOH entry wound and "6.5 mm opacity" debates.

Yes, I do not feel nearly as qualified to talk about the entry as about
the larger BOH hole as I have not studied the entry nearly as much.
That's one area where you are way, way, way far ahead of me. The same
thing with the 6.5 mm opacity. I know practically nothing about that,
other than that I know *of* it and know what you're talking about, since
it appears in the anterior x-ray.

> Don't you feel there's a connection with those later controversies to the
> BOH wound one?

I don't know yet. I think here is a good place to articulate another
aspect of what I meant when I said I go my own way, and do not copy any
other individual person in every detail. Each of us has their own
interests, and each of us has different things that they are better at
learning about. No two people will ever be precisely identical in that
regard. For a long time now one of my primary interests in the
assassination has been to clarify the apparent contradiction of the BOH
hole described by so many witnesses, as I have for long believed this to
be one of the primary and most widespread misunderstandings in this whole
case. The much smaller entry hole is a different matter in the sense that
we don't have nearly as many witness statements on that, since that's
something that would not be nearly so easy to see. I am not aware of
nearly so much public controversy on that as I am about the larger BOH
hole. But it may be a misconception on my part to separate those two
things too much. As I said above, my stance on all this still continues
to evolve, and may possibly never reach a final absolutely fixed state.

Another thing about this may be simply that due to my own mindset, type of
intellect, and so forth, I may not be the type of person who will be able
to do much constructive work in clarifying the precise location of the
bullet entry. The subject of the larger BOH hole may simply be more
suited to my talents and abilities, such as they are. What that also
means is that I have my limitations. I will never be equally good at
clarifying every issue related to the assassination. It might be best for
me to concentrate on the specific aspects that I'm best at.

> Anyway, I enjoy your writing...keep up the good work.

Thank you, and you keep up your *excellent* work.

[John King]

In article <k1jl3...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> An explanation that suggests all those medically trained eyewitnesses were
> wrong about seeing a wound larger than the entry in the BACK of his
> head......and suggests...
>
> that 11 mostly medically trained witnesses, including the autopsists and
> two neurosurgeons couldn't distinguish cerebellum from cerebrum....and
> suggests..
>
> that some of the PH lied when they said they got a close look at the wound
> and/or lifted his head to see it....and suggests...
>
> that the decision to take no pictures of the back of his head when the
> body was first received at Bethesda was not a purposeful one...and
> suggests..
>
> That even witnesses at Bethesda who had more time to examine the body were
> wrong when they also described a BOH wound?
>
> That explanation satisfies you?

It certainly does not satisfy me. And a mere child...well, you know the
drill there. ;-)

[John Canal]

In article <caeruleo-CB0C01...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John King

I'm not surprised. No one here writes with more sophistication than you,
IMO. I am surprised McAdams hasn't taken exception to your views re. the
head wounds.

Time out for a little laugh. When I wrote head wounds once before Marsh
replied with one of his classic wacky comments...he wrote, something like,
"Ah yes head wounds as in plural. Means you think he was hit in the head
twice."

I hesitate to add him to my killfile because I'll miss the humor inherent
to his replies.

>in choral conducting, musicology, and music theory. Those
>subjects, of course, have no relevance here. The only thing of relevance
>from that that I've been able to apply here is the teaching of my
>brilliant musicology professor, whose precepts on how to do proper
>research would apply to any subject, and have helped me tremendously in
>studying this assassination.

Thanks go out to your professor.

>> Me, all that I have is two years of college studing Ground Radar
>> Technology.....at the Community College of The Air Force.
>
>And yet you also clearly know how to do proper research.

I've been call obsessive. Barb says I'm incorrigile.

I feel I'm competitive....I've played pro golf, and was a professional
pool player....in the year nineteen-forgotten. I thnk that reates to the
way I've researched the medical evidence...IOW, I'll be damned if I'll let
a couple of so-called mysteries beat me. So, it was a competition
thing...me against the voluminous evidence. In sort I made it a game.
History will tell if I won.

:-)

Speaking of research, do you have Palamara's book about the medical
evidence?

>> Don't laugh....I already owe you one gut, re. my comment about Marsh
>> having a reading comprehension problem.
>
>:P
>
>> Okay, I was sidetracked...but it certainly not my imagination that has
>> shown me that McAdams has refused to reply to my posts for I don't know
>> how long.
>>
>> Anyway, moving on.
>>
>> I read your other post to bigdog. Overall, other than you and Barb, there
>> is no one here (except for one other person who I highly respect--hi PH)
>> whose beliefs about the medical evidence are so close to mine.
>>
>> In fact, Barb got me started on this medical evidence journey in 2000
>> right after my book was published....I didn't know she inspired you to
>> check out this part of the case like she did me.
>
>She did, although it worked so quickly, as I said, because it struck a
>responsive chord of scholarship that had already been inside me for many
>years. She's a great lady, and I wish she was still posting here
>regularly.

Indeed, I know she was involved over on the Education Forum, but really
don't understand wh she's not posting here an more. Did Marsh dive her
away too?

>> I guess when Paul Seaton,
>> Joe Durnavich and myself were debating these issue hot and heavy, I just
>> didn't notice your posts.
>
>Hmm, yeah, I think I remember you from back then too, but I guess I
>hadn't read enough of your articles at that time to be clear about what
>your stance was.

If I wrote half as eloquently as you you would have understood me.

>> Are you sure you haven't called yourself, Mimus?
>
>No, that's definitely a different person, and I don't even know where
>that person lives, or if I've been told that before, I don't remember it
>now.

Don't take that as anything but a compliment....while he and I had sort of
a "falling out" (I may have been too sensitive about the way he critiqued
my posts...even though he also believed there was a BOH wound), his
writing and research skills were impressive and he was gifted with an
ability to compose excellent videos. Some may still be on you-tube, I'm
not sure.

They lose their impact, as little as that is, when one uses them too much.

:-)

>Well, just in case, I don't agree. I said I don't copy every
>*detail*. That doesn't necessarily mean that I don't agree with the
>significant parts, that may simply mean that I don't subscribe to a few
>individual details. Also what I mean by that is that I am naturally going
>to say things my own way. That might not actually involve any significant
>difference of opinion, but rather a different way of describing the
>argument, or the theory, or the stance. This also relates to what I
>learned from my professor long ago. It can be dangerous to go exclusively
>by what just one author says about a particular subject. For example,
>when I extensively studied the music of Sibelius in the '80s I read quite
>a few scholarly works before I formed my conclusions about the
>characteristics of his music. I also, naturally, listened to many
>different performances of his works. Listening to only one performance
>gets it set in one's mind that that's the only way the music can sound,
>and that can be misleading, because then you'll miss other alternate
>interpretations that are just as valid, or other performances that reveal
>other aspects of the music that were not revealed so clearly in the first
>performance.

Your professor taught you well.

>Exactly the same thing applies here. When studying the BOH hole, I am
>compelled to read what multiple authors say about it. I may miss
>something if I only read what one author says about it.

That's why I asked if you have Palamara's book?

>The best approach
>is to read a great deal of material by different people, and also study
>the original sources as extensively as possible, and sift through all of
>that to find elements of greatest credibility in terms of the full context
>of everything one has learned or can discover about that subject, and put
>that all together into what one feels is the most plausible scenario
>possible.

Exactly my method. With regard to the medical evidence, as you know too
well, there are numerous times when different eyewitnesses contradict each
other and to figure out whose story was most accurate you have to dig
deep...often it's a challenge to come to an accurate conclusion.

A good example is the statement of Tom Robinson....he indicated that JFK
had a BOH wound the size of a small orange...when they finally put him in
the casket. He said the fluffiness of the pillow hid the BOH opening so he
was still presentable for an open casket-funeral should they have one.

His statement conflicted with what I believed occurred...that they
repaired the BOH before they took the late photos and of course before
they laid him in the casket.

I reasoned that because Robinson made that statement many years after the
fact he had misremembered. Sure he had seen such a BOH wound but forgot
that his assistants repaired it.

>> >I continue to examine this
>> >assassination from my own point of view of what is and is not plausible.
>> >I just said this in another reply in this thread, but I'll here present it
>> >again. I am not for a moment claiming that my scenario is more or less
>> >likely to be correct than yours. It is simply something that I find to be
>> >plausible:
>> >
>> >Maybe there wasn't any *intention* to disguise the BOH hole at the
>> >autopsy, but instead it was simply not at the time deemed important enough
>> >to document in any obvious way, in photography, in x-rays, or in writing.
>> >The autopsists would have already known, in fact, that this BOH damage,
>> >while hardly trivial, was many orders of magnitude less serious than the
>> >more forward damage. It also might have been considered to be virtually
>> >irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry, and the direction of bullet
>> >exit.
>>
>> Okay, we disagree. You think it was just a coincidence that they took
>> pictures when the body was first received from just about every other
>> perspective besides the back....or that they thought the other angles were
>> relevent and pictures from the back wouldn't be.
>
>No. It is not exactly that I disagree. What I instead was doing was
>proposing an alternate scenario that I found to be plausible, and I made
>it plain in advance that I was not suggesting that that scenario is more
>likely to be correct than yours.

Forgive me, I confused myself.

>And that's yet another thing I know
>about scholarship: it is always evolving, if done properly. Do not think
>for a moment that I have yet reached a fixed, unchanging stance on this
>issue. I have not. That is a pitfall that I intend to avoid.

I know this will sound like the "mother of all pompous statements" but
after 12+ years, with a lot of luck (thank you DVP) I think I have most,
if not all, of the conflicts in the medical evidence resolved.

Sure I could be wrong...it's possible, but I think not. Again, history
will tell...I'm so very anxious to see a credible re-examination of the
medical evidence done I could eat pages of the WCR.

>I continue
>to learn, and continue to refine my viewpoints on this, and many other
>matters.

I still continue to learn as well...and I like to think that every new
piece of information that I come across fits like a glove into my overall
theory.

Knock on wood (as I tap my head) so far that's happened.

>> Okay, I disagree...but your theory on that is possible.
>>
>> The only thing is that I have more support for my beliefs on that
>> particular issue than I've told you or posted here about.
>>
>> :-)
>
>I'm sure you do indeed have more support for your beliefs than what I yet
>know about.

>That may also be true of me.

I'd love to hear your added information but there's not enough time.

>But I have little doubt that in
>general you are still far ahead of me in your study of this. I may be
>catching up, perhaps, but I still have no idea if I'm gaining on you or
>not.

I think you may be gaining on me because I'm becoming satisfied--maybe too
satisfied--that I have most of the answers I started out looking for some 12
years ago (thanks Barb).

That said, I need to keep a couple of aces in the hole...if you know what I
mean.

:-)

>You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.

I got one hell of a jump on you...I think that's partially because, unlike
me, you keep up with the rest of the case.

I don't care about the rest of the case...LHO did it alone...like Posner
says, "Case Closed".

But the mysteries of the medical evidence, not that they made a difference
in the bottom line, have intrigued me to no end.

In fact I have a small library of material (documents, books, notes, etc.)
on this case, but 98% of it, literally, pertains to the medical evidence.

One problem with that is that, because I have so much, I'm beginning to
forget some of it.

Case in point. When bigdog challenged me to name one, jus one PH witnesses
who said they saw a wound in the temporal area of his head I should have
been able to name four witnesses for him right away...but I had to dig out
my notes on that.

I'm getting rusty.

But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.

>> >If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
>> >final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,
>>
>> Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH ones
>> were taken later...12 total.
>>
>> As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.
>>
>> :-)
>
>Yes, and I'd forgotten about twelve.

Oh oh, the "Canal-know-too-much-for-his-own-britches" syndrome has
infected you too?

:-)

>> >and this was due to the
>> >autopsists suddenly realizing after the morticians had already taken over
>> >and sutured the tear in the scalp closed that they had not yet documented
>> >the bullet entry in the scalp photographically, I do not see why it would
>> >necessarily be of any concern to the autopsists that they had forgotten to
>> >also document the tear in the scalp. Since it had no relevance to the
>> >direction of bullet entrance and exit anyway, why would they care?
>>
>> Forgot? Hmmm, how sloppy.
>>
>> :-)
>
>Well, but I think at least one point I made is fairly plausible: that on
>11-22-63 no one would have yet had any possible way of knowing that this
>would later develop into such a controversy.

Absolutely true.

:-)

>Now, that may not be the
>truthful explanation of this failure. They may well have instead done
>this due to the motivation you describe. After all, that would hardly be
>the only instance of very intentional coverup and manipulation of evidence
>in this assassination.

Your interpretation is plausible too...but I need to keep an ace or two in
the hole...on that.

But had you been more disagreeable, I might have been inclined to turn one
over.

:-)

>> >Another bit of evidence which supports this belief is something I first
>> >brought up here more than a year ago. On 11-22-63 not the autopsists, and
>> >indeed any person on this planet, would have had any possible way of
>> >knowing yet that this issue would later develop into one of the most
>> >serious controversies of all surrounding this assassination. In fact,
>> >it's one of the top three, the other two being the continued
>> >misunderstanding of what the Dealey Plaza witnesses *really* said about
>> >the perceived sounds of gunfire, and the continued misunderstanding of
>> >what Jack Ruby *really* said about his role in all of this. On the issue
>> >of the BOH hole, no one, no one, would have had any possible way of
>> >knowing this controversy would arise until the WC had completed the
>> >process of collecting so very many of these witness statements and then
>> >published them in the 26 volumes. Only then, ten months after the
>> >assassination (and after the autopsy) would people be able to see, for the
>> >first time ever, the apparent contradiction between what c.40 witnesses
>> >said they saw regarding the BOH damage and the official conclusions that
>> >were stated about the overall damage to his head.
>>
>> Fair point...but FWIW we still disgree....but I don't want to argue though
>> because your overall theory is basically close to mine.
>
>No. Again we do not exactly disagree. Again, that was an alternate
>possibility I was proposing. I am not yet firmly committed to it.

Some day we may have virtually the same take on the medical evidence.

That'd be interesting as I don't know of any two posters here who agree on
all the significant issues re. this case.

>And
>you have given plenty of solid reasoning to support your point of view on
>this. I am nowhere close to believing you to be mistaken. But as I said
>before, I am exploring this from my own angle, from the context of my own
>intellect, and there is of course nothing wrong with exploring alternate
>possibilities. To do so is healthy scholarship.

Right on!

>> >Now, I think you already know that I, of all people, understand well
>> >enough what you're talking about regarding what appears to be Humes's
>> >oblique hint to the WC regarding falx cerebri being changed to flocculus
>> >cerebri. But again here I offer the alternate explanation that Humes at
>> >this early point (the 26 volumes had not yet been published, and he
>> >himself was just now giving testimony that would be included in them)
>> >would have no possible way of knowing yet (no person on the planet yet
>> >knew) that this controversy would erupt, for the first time ever, only
>> >*after* the volumes were published. Since the BOH hole, as I said above,
>> >is virtually irrelevant to the direction of bullet entry and exit, why
>> >would he think it important to go to any specific effort to make sure the
>> >Commission was aware of it? In fact, why would *any* of the autopsists go
>> >to any great length, at this early point, to make sure the Commission was
>> >aware of it?
>>
>> IMO, he knew the autopsy report did not support what I think he believed
>> to be an important observation by some of the the PH docs...that the
>> cerebellum was exposed....so he made sure he was in agreement with them by
>> going out of his way to mention the flocculus in his WC testimony.
>
>Ok, and I think that's a good point. So just to be clear: do you think
>that Humes *was* aware by this point that this contradiction in
>description of the BOH hole was significant?

Yes, there are extraodinary details about the head wounds in the autopsy
report...IMO, leaving out the fact that the cerebellum was exposed sticks
out like a patch of poison oak in a bed of roses.

>> In fact John, the autopsy report actually made that observation [PH docs
>> seeing cerebellum] doubtful, i.e. if the wound extended only "somewhat
>> into the occipital" it probably woundn't have been low enough to expose
>> the cerebellum.
>>
>> Compare the drawing that McClelland endorsed with the words, "somewhat
>> into the occipital"....not that I feel the drawing is completely accurate,
>> but the borrom margin of it is at or near the level of the
>> EOP...coincidently where the top of the cerebellum is.
>>
>> Let me add this. Two parts of you theory that you haven't addressed, at
>> least recently (unless I've missed your posts on those matters), that I've
>> always felt are intertwined with the BOH wound controversy is the location
>> of the BOH entry wound and "6.5 mm opacity" debates.
>
>Yes, I do not feel nearly as qualified to talk about the entry as about
>the larger BOH hole as I have not studied the entry nearly as much.

Don't feel bad....if you catch up it'd mean you have a
disease....obsessiveness. I have two wall charts of the human brain, model
skulls, and a half dozen books on neuroanatomy (no to say I understand a
lot of it) and an "Atlas of the Human Skull".

Suggest you do go there.

Heck if there'd be a credible re-examination like I'd like to see, it
might not be necessary for you to go there....I'm hoping.

>That's one area where you are way, way, way far ahead of me. The same
>thing with the 6.5 mm opacity. I know practically nothing about that,
>other than that I know *of* it and know what you're talking about, since
>it appears in the anterior x-ray.

That opacity as far reaching implications re. the medical evidence. Some
day I'll turn that ace over.

>> Don't you feel there's a connection with those later controversies to the
>> BOH wound one?
>
>I don't know yet. I think here is a good place to articulate another
>aspect of what I meant when I said I go my own way, and do not copy any
>other individual person in every detail. Each of us has their own
>interests, and each of us has different things that they are better at
>learning about. No two people will ever be precisely identical in that
>regard. For a long time now one of my primary interests in the
>assassination has been to clarify the apparent contradiction of the BOH
>hole described by so many witnesses, as I have for long believed this to
>be one of the primary and most widespread misunderstandings in this whole
>case. The much smaller entry hole is a different matter in the sense that
>we don't have nearly as many witness statements on that, since that's
>something that would not be nearly so easy to see. I am not aware of
>nearly so much public controversy on that as I am about the larger BOH
>hole.

That entry conflict may been the second most discussed matter here.The 6.5
mm opacity one may be ranked in the top 10.

>But it may be a misconception on my part to separate those two
>things too much. As I said above, my stance on all this still continues
>to evolve, and may possibly never reach a final absolutely fixed state.

I may never have met anyone with such an open mind as yours.

I could learn from you on that.

>Another thing about this may be simply that due to my own mindset, type of
>intellect, and so forth, I may not be the type of person who will be able
>to do much constructive work in clarifying the precise location of the
>bullet entry.

The matter is solved...it's just that the same ones who refute the
existence of a BOH wound believe the autopsists and several other
eyewitnesses didn't know the differene between the EOP and cowlick.

I don't want to get going on that...this is too long already.

The subject of the larger BOH hole may simply be more
>suited to my talents and abilities, such as they are. What that also
>means is that I have my limitations. I will never be equally good at
>clarifying every issue related to the assassination.

I wouldn't wish that curse on an enemy, least wise you.

>It might be best for
>me to concentrate on the specific aspects that I'm best at.
>
>> Anyway, I enjoy your writing...keep up the good work.
>
>Thank you, and you keep up your *excellent* work.

Thanks.

Take care,

[John Canal]

John K.,

Sorry for all the typos...my wireless keyboard seems to be acting up. I
changed the batteries, I'll see if that helps.

[Anthony Marsh]

Those are formatting codes for unrecognized characters "=20" is HEX for
a space. "=30" is HEX for the number 0.
Typically when using cut and paste from a web sight ordinary commas and
apostrophes come out at as strange characters.

> No trace of any of that appears when I read Mr. Canal's article on my
> newsreader program. Why is all this nonsense being inserted into the
> previously posted texts? See the problem, JC, and do you not remember
> the additional problem I pointed out to you last year, that Google
> Groups all too often fails to archive an article that was posted, even
> when it can still be plainly seen on nearly all other news-servers
> worldwide? This means you will continue to miss many replies that are
> made to you, because they'll never appear on Google Groups.
>
> ***PLEASE*** start posting through a newsreader program. I assure you
> all these problems will disappear instantly.
>

I am not allowed to say that even though I have implored people to stop
posting on Google hundreds of times.

When exactly does TOP of the head become BACK of the head?

LNers always need to claim that people are kooks or believe all the
evidence is fake whenever anyone disagrees with them. That is their only
weapon because they refuse to debate the evidence.

Then show me that hole that you believe in.

NEVER rely on witnesses.

> the autopsists were correct (about the damage to the head) and the
> photos and x-rays were correct, and that there was one shooter firing
> with one rifle from one window in the TSBD. I do not have to engage in
> implausible juggling of the evidence to support my conclusion. You,

Yes, you do. Explain how only one bullet causes two separate entrance
wounds in the back of the head. Was that one of them thar divided core
bullets that the Italians used for riot control?

And yet when we say that the WC made mistakes you say that is impossible.

> never once overlook something without realizing it.
>

Sorry, can you repeat that? I overlooked it the first time.

>
>> In between we have observations from the
>> Parkland staff that presents a somewhat different view of the head wound.
>
> Somewhat different from what? The BOH hole that the Bethesda autopsists
> NEVER ONCE SPECIFICALLY SAID WASN"T THERE? Lack of mention, John, is
> not the same thing as specifically disputing, as I hope you knew long
> before today.
>

And lack of mentioning does not prove it did not exist. The autopsy
doctors didn't mention the bullet hole in the forehead.
Lacking of mentioning something obvious usually means they were ordered
and threatened to not mention the obvious.

[John King]

In article <k1pdi...@drn.newsguy.com>,

Oh. Wow. Thanks. *blush* I'm not sure I've ever thought of my writing
here in such terms, and it seems to me that there are several others here
who are at least as good in their use of the language as me, if not
better.

> I am surprised McAdams hasn't taken exception to your views re. the
> head wounds.

Oh, you forgot about that incident a year ago when he, of all people,
asked me, me, of all people, if I believed the autopsy photos and x-rays
were faked? My reply to that was *very* tart, on the order of "you of all
people ought to know better," and after I posted it I called him on the
phone and made my position as clear as I knew how. I then started a new
thread on August 11 in which, among other things, I said this:

"If I shout it in all caps, will all of y'all finally, at last, get it?
NEITHER JOHN CANAL NOR I BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE FILMS OR PHOTOGRAPHS OR
X-RAYS WERE FORGED. Which part of that sentence does someone, anyone, not
understand?"

I then went on to say that if any regular poster who has replied to our
articles plenty of times before ever again attributed such an obviously
false belief to us that not only would my response be even more caustic
than ever, but that I would immediately assume the poster to be
purposefully *pretending* to believe that we believe those to be forged,
and was concocting a strawman *purposefully*, not as an honest mistake,
even if I did not specifically accuse that poster here of it.

Does that jog your memory? ;-)

> Speaking of research, do you have Palamara's book about the medical
> evidence?

No, I don't. Do you recommend it?

> >> Don't laugh....I already owe you one gut, re. my comment about Marsh
> >> having a reading comprehension problem.
> >
> >:P
> >
> >> Okay, I was sidetracked...but it certainly not my imagination that has
> >> shown me that McAdams has refused to reply to my posts for I don't know
> >> how long.
> >>
> >> Anyway, moving on.
> >>
> >> I read your other post to bigdog. Overall, other than you and Barb, there
> >> is no one here (except for one other person who I highly respect--hi PH)
> >> whose beliefs about the medical evidence are so close to mine.
> >>
> >> In fact, Barb got me started on this medical evidence journey in 2000
> >> right after my book was published....I didn't know she inspired you to
> >> check out this part of the case like she did me.
> >
> >She did, although it worked so quickly, as I said, because it struck a
> >responsive chord of scholarship that had already been inside me for many
> >years. She's a great lady, and I wish she was still posting here
> >regularly.
>
> Indeed, I know she was involved over on the Education Forum, but really
> don't understand wh she's not posting here an more. Did Marsh dive her
> away too?

Oh please, Barb, of all people, can't be driven away by a mere...

Heh, well, the L*F*nt**n*s didn't manage to drive her away, and she
outlasted them by quite a few years, and held her own with them quite
well, so...

Barb's way, way too tough to be driven away by a mere...

Well you get the idea. :P

> >The best approach
> >is to read a great deal of material by different people, and also study
> >the original sources as extensively as possible, and sift through all of
> >that to find elements of greatest credibility in terms of the full context
> >of everything one has learned or can discover about that subject, and put
> >that all together into what one feels is the most plausible scenario
> >possible.
>
> Exactly my method. With regard to the medical evidence, as you know too
> well, there are numerous times when different eyewitnesses contradict each
> other and to figure out whose story was most accurate you have to dig
> deep...often it's a challenge to come to an accurate conclusion.
>
> A good example is the statement of Tom Robinson....he indicated that JFK
> had a BOH wound the size of a small orange...when they finally put him in
> the casket. He said the fluffiness of the pillow hid the BOH opening so he
> was still presentable for an open casket-funeral should they have one.
>
> His statement conflicted with what I believed occurred...that they
> repaired the BOH before they took the late photos and of course before
> they laid him in the casket.
>
> I reasoned that because Robinson made that statement many years after the
> fact he had misremembered. Sure he had seen such a BOH wound but forgot
> that his assistants repaired it.

Yes, I remember saving something or other that he said, just before my
computer crash last year. That document *might* have been among those
that was saved and transferred onto this computer, but I haven't confirmed
that yet.

> >And that's yet another thing I know
> >about scholarship: it is always evolving, if done properly. Do not think
> >for a moment that I have yet reached a fixed, unchanging stance on this
> >issue. I have not. That is a pitfall that I intend to avoid.
>
> I know this will sound like the "mother of all pompous statements" but
> after 12+ years, with a lot of luck (thank you DVP) I think I have most,
> if not all, of the conflicts in the medical evidence resolved.

Good. I think I'm getting fairly close to having one of them resolved
anyway. That's another thing about my approach though that might be
different: I want it resolved in a way that can be clearly articulated in
layman's terms, in an argument that can be understood by the general
public if it were to be presented in the mainstream media.

> >You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.
>
> I got one hell of a jump on you...I think that's partially because, unlike
> me, you keep up with the rest of the case.

Yes, and although this is one of the most important issues in the case
to me, there are quite a few others that I'm very interested in
exploring, and articulating, so on any one issue I may never be as much
of an expert as someone who concentrates primarily on that issue.

> But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
> forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.

Oh gawd, and did you get a load of his admission that prompted me to say
that?

"Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
what pictures should or should not have been taken."

Say WHAT?????????? He's only seen a "small fraction" (his exact words) of
the autopsy photos??? And he has the presumption to debate ANYONE on this
subject, much less you?

He shouldn't even post any further articles about this at all, at all,
until he's at least seen a "large fraction" of those photos, to put it
mildly. He also very badly needs to look more closely at the lateral
x-ray, because all by itself, without a single other x-ray or photo
necessary, proves conclusively that it is impossible in an absolute sense
for that hole to have been caused by the missing Harper Fragment, a
woefully implausible contention of his that I have been correcting for
more than a year. I'm also astonished that Mantik missed the "teeny
little problem" with his own claim about what part of the skull the
Fragment came from. The lateral x-ray alone proves that to be impossible.
So does the A-P, to a slightly lesser extent.

> >> >If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
> >> >final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,
> >>
> >> Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH ones
> >> were taken later...12 total.
> >>
> >> As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> >Yes, and I'd forgotten about twelve.
>
> Oh oh, the "Canal-know-too-much-for-his-own-britches" syndrome has
> infected you too?
>
> :-)

Ugh, I very badly need to get a list saved of all 12 of those so that I'll
finally stop being confused about which is which. Can you list all twelve
of those, along with whatever designations or "titles" are given to each,
and a brief description of what each shows? You may have listed those for
me before, but if so, I'm not sure if I saved that anywhere. Thanks! :)

Oh, I'm not sure we'll ever have that here, or anywhere else on the
planet, inside cyberspace or out of it, lol.

> >That's one area where you are way, way, way far ahead of me. The same
> >thing with the 6.5 mm opacity. I know practically nothing about that,
> >other than that I know *of* it and know what you're talking about, since
> >it appears in the anterior x-ray.
>
> That opacity as far reaching implications re. the medical evidence. Some
> day I'll turn that ace over.
>
> >> Don't you feel there's a connection with those later controversies to the
> >> BOH wound one?
> >
> >I don't know yet. I think here is a good place to articulate another
> >aspect of what I meant when I said I go my own way, and do not copy any
> >other individual person in every detail. Each of us has their own
> >interests, and each of us has different things that they are better at
> >learning about. No two people will ever be precisely identical in that
> >regard. For a long time now one of my primary interests in the
> >assassination has been to clarify the apparent contradiction of the BOH
> >hole described by so many witnesses, as I have for long believed this to
> >be one of the primary and most widespread misunderstandings in this whole
> >case. The much smaller entry hole is a different matter in the sense that
> >we don't have nearly as many witness statements on that, since that's
> >something that would not be nearly so easy to see. I am not aware of
> >nearly so much public controversy on that as I am about the larger BOH
> >hole.
>
> That entry conflict may been the second most discussed matter here.The 6.5
> mm opacity one may be ranked in the top 10.

You know, I just happened to come across something about that today, but I
now can't remember where on the Internet it was, but the claim was made
that that opacity did not appear in the original x-ray that night, and did
not appear for the first time until subsequent copies. Any truth to that?
If you've told me before, I don't remember now.

[John Canal]

In article <caeruleo-1E07B4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John King

No one's better, that's for sure.

And this is critical in our quest to see that the premier LNs are cornered
by the overwhelming evidence that there was indeed a BOH wound, besides
the entry in JFK's head.

What I'm saying is that McAdams has avoided exchanges with me allegedly
because he claims my writing is arcane.

Well, with you arguing for nearly the same scenario I've been for the past
12 years, his lame excuse for avoiding exchanges with me (arcane writing),
just doesn't hold water.

I wish you'd address some of your posts directly to him...I want to see
what excuse he comes up with for dancing around your arguments.

Especially since he finally should be aware that neither of us think any
of the photographs or x-rays were faked....and that includes the Z-film.

>> I am surprised McAdams hasn't taken exception to your views re. the
>> head wounds.
>
>Oh, you forgot about that incident a year ago when he, of all people,
>asked me, me, of all people, if I believed the autopsy photos and x-rays
>were faked? My reply to that was *very* tart, on the order of "you of all
>people ought to know better," and after I posted it I called him on the
>phone and made my position as clear as I knew how. I then started a new
>thread on August 11 in which, among other things, I said this:
>
>"If I shout it in all caps, will all of y'all finally, at last, get it?
>NEITHER JOHN CANAL NOR I BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE FILMS OR PHOTOGRAPHS OR
>X-RAYS WERE FORGED. Which part of that sentence does someone, anyone, not
>understand?"
>
>I then went on to say that if any regular poster who has replied to our
>articles plenty of times before ever again attributed such an obviously
>false belief to us that not only would my response be even more caustic
>than ever, but that I would immediately assume the poster to be
>purposefully *pretending* to believe that we believe those to be forged,
>and was concocting a strawman *purposefully*, not as an honest mistake,
>even if I did not specifically accuse that poster here of it.
>
>Does that jog your memory? ;-)

Actually, I missed that, but let me guess how it ended...McAdams
disappeared?

>> Speaking of research, do you have Palamara's book about the medical
>> evidence?
>
>No, I don't. Do you recommend it?

Invaluable. Write him and ask about getting it...he might give it to you
free if he knows you argue for there being a BOH wound.

It was just a thought. Or maybe it was the boring and seemingly endless
Judyth threads?

I hope she's Okay health wise.

>Well you get the idea. :P

Yup.

It's online...see the ARRB Medical Documents...near the end (last 15%?) of
the list if memory serves.

>> >And that's yet another thing I know
>> >about scholarship: it is always evolving, if done properly. Do not think
>> >for a moment that I have yet reached a fixed, unchanging stance on this
>> >issue. I have not. That is a pitfall that I intend to avoid.
>>
>> I know this will sound like the "mother of all pompous statements" but
>> after 12+ years, with a lot of luck (thank you DVP) I think I have most,
>> if not all, of the conflicts in the medical evidence resolved.
>
>Good. I think I'm getting fairly close to having one of them resolved
>anyway. That's another thing about my approach though that might be
>different: I want it resolved in a way that can be clearly articulated in
>layman's terms,

or in my unsophisticated way?

:-)

>in an argument that can be understood by the general
>public if it were to be presented in the mainstream media.

That's where my copy editor comes in.

:-)

>> >You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.
>>
>> I got one hell of a jump on you...I think that's partially because, unlike
>> me, you keep up with the rest of the case.
>
>Yes, and although this is one of the most important issues in the case
>to me, there are quite a few others that I'm very interested in
>exploring, and articulating, so on any one issue I may never be as much
>of an expert as someone who concentrates primarily on that issue.

But that's why McAdams is weak on the medical evidence....he tries to keep
up with the entire case. IMO, next to impossible if you want to fully
understand the medical evidence.

Same goes for Marsh...he's been chasing his tail (the CIA) so much over
the years he failed to learn the medical evidence...he frequently asks for
citations that are easily found.

But what's scary is realizing that he conjured up his wacky "JFK was hit
in the head only once...from the front" before he became familiar with the
medical evidence. I like the way he refuses to admit the obvious....kind
of reminds me of McAdams...they both say they can't see the entry in this
photo:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

If the damn thing was a snake, it'd jump out and bite them on the nose.

What do they think that circular (semi) defect is just below the ruler and
centered in the photo, titled, "...missile wound in posterior skull..."? A
wart?

>> But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
>> forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.
>
>Oh gawd, and did you get a load of his admission that prompted me to say
>that?
>
>"Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
>taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
>what pictures should or should not have been taken."
>
>Say WHAT?????????? He's only seen a "small fraction" (his exact words) of
>the autopsy photos??? And he has the presumption to debate ANYONE on this
>subject, much less you?

I think LNs like him and Todd try to impress McAdams, who is afraid to get
in the trenches with us...well really you, because he still has his
protective shield of an excuse for not engaging me...my writing is too
arcane.

>He shouldn't even post any further articles about this at all, at all,
>until he's at least seen a "large fraction" of those photos, to put it
>mildly. He also very badly needs to look more closely at the lateral
>x-ray, because all by itself, without a single other x-ray or photo
>necessary, proves conclusively that it is impossible in an absolute sense
>for that hole to have been caused by the missing Harper Fragment, a
>woefully implausible contention of his that I have been correcting for
>more than a year. I'm also astonished that Mantik missed the "teeny
>little problem" with his own claim about what part of the skull the
>Fragment came from. The lateral x-ray alone proves that to be impossible.
>So does the A-P, to a slightly lesser extent.

He's also not very well read on the medical evidence. He challenged me to
name one, just one PH witness who said they saw damage to JFK's temporal
area. I pointed out three as sson as I had time to refer to my notes, but
there were actually at least four.

I still think he, like a few other LNs, are carrying on the argument for
McAdams.

See if I'm right...challenge McAdams directly and see if he responds with
something besides "Do you think the photos and X-rays are faked...as well
as the Z-film?

>> >> >If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
>> >> >final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,
>> >>
>>>> Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH ones
>> >> were taken later...12 total.
>> >>
>> >> As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.
>> >>
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> >Yes, and I'd forgotten about twelve.
>>
>> Oh oh, the "Canal-know-too-much-for-his-own-britches" syndrome has
>> infected you too?
>>
>> :-)
>
>Ugh, I very badly need to get a list saved of all 12 of those so that I'll
>finally stop being confused about which is which. Can you list all twelve
>of those, along with whatever designations or "titles" are given to each,
>and a brief description of what each shows? You may have listed those for
>me before, but if so, I'm not sure if I saved that anywhere. Thanks! :)

Two B&W and two color BOH photos. Two B&W and two color photos that show
the back wound and the BOH, and Two B&W and two color of the inside of the
skull with the brain removed.

Take it to the bank that it was added to the X-rays after 11-22-63.

Even though I believe that issue (just like the entry location) is related
to the BOH wound one, let's set it aside for now...it's complicated. One
battle at a time.

[Anthony Marsh]

More like nonsensical.

> Well, with you arguing for nearly the same scenario I've been for the past
> 12 years, his lame excuse for avoiding exchanges with me (arcane writing),
> just doesn't hold water.
>

The answer is that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Some
of us don't mind talking to a brick wall because at least some lurkers
in the distant future will get the point (especially after the evidence
has been released), but some get easily bored with it.

> I wish you'd address some of your posts directly to him...I want to see
> what excuse he comes up with for dancing around your arguments.
>

Why should McAdams address anything. He's the Professor. His job is to
lecture the uneducated, not to defend positions.

Please, please tell me that's true. I wonder if everyone calling her a
WC defender and lacky had anything to do with it.

Garbage. I was the only one posting the medical evidence while you were
still looking for it.
You don't even have the JAMA articles.

> But what's scary is realizing that he conjured up his wacky "JFK was hit
> in the head only once...from the front" before he became familiar with the
> medical evidence. I like the way he refuses to admit the obvious....kind
> of reminds me of McAdams...they both say they can't see the entry in this
> photo:
>

Wrong again. You have no way of knowing when I changed my mind. I used to
believe in the two shots to the head theory ala Josiah Thompson. Then I
started having my doubts when I realized that Itek was lying about the
shot thrusting JFK's head forward. Then when I finally saw the Fox set of
autopsy photos for myself I realized that the semi-circular defect on the
forehead was the entrance wound. Then I found proof that there could be
external beveling on an entrance wound of the skull.

> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> If the damn thing was a snake, it'd jump out and bite them on the nose.
>
> What do they think that circular (semi) defect is just below the ruler and
> centered in the photo, titled, "...missile wound in posterior skull..."? A
> wart?
>

There is nothing there except your imagination.
Maybe the doctors had the photo oriented as Lifton does and think the
semi-circular defect is in the back of the head. This was how many years
after the autopsy? And the first time they had ever seen those
photographs. It's an easy mistake to make.

>>> But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
>>> forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.
>>
>> Oh gawd, and did you get a load of his admission that prompted me to say
>> that?
>>
>> "Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
>> taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
>> what pictures should or should not have been taken."
>>
>> Say WHAT?????????? He's only seen a "small fraction" (his exact words) of
>> the autopsy photos??? And he has the presumption to debate ANYONE on this
>> subject, much less you?
>
> I think LNs like him and Todd try to impress McAdams, who is afraid to get
> in the trenches with us...well really you, because he still has his
> protective shield of an excuse for not engaging me...my writing is too
> arcane.
>

Too nonsensical.

>> He shouldn't even post any further articles about this at all, at all,
>> until he's at least seen a "large fraction" of those photos, to put it
>> mildly. He also very badly needs to look more closely at the lateral
>> x-ray, because all by itself, without a single other x-ray or photo
>> necessary, proves conclusively that it is impossible in an absolute sense
>> for that hole to have been caused by the missing Harper Fragment, a
>> woefully implausible contention of his that I have been correcting for
>> more than a year. I'm also astonished that Mantik missed the "teeny
>> little problem" with his own claim about what part of the skull the
>> Fragment came from. The lateral x-ray alone proves that to be impossible.
>> So does the A-P, to a slightly lesser extent.
>
> He's also not very well read on the medical evidence. He challenged me to
> name one, just one PH witness who said they saw damage to JFK's temporal
> area. I pointed out three as sson as I had time to refer to my notes, but
> there were actually at least four.
>

You haven't even seen all of the Fox set. Or Groden's original color
photos.

So that's your conspiracy theory. That the evidence is fake. Exactly as
McAdams predicted you would say.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k1rgq...@drn.newsguy.com>,

That is a desirable goal.

> What I'm saying is that McAdams has avoided exchanges with me allegedly
> because he claims my writing is arcane.

"Arcane"? Hmm. I find that to be a novel use of that term. It usually
means something to the effect of esoteric or mystic.

> Well, with you arguing for nearly the same scenario I've been for the past
> 12 years, his lame excuse for avoiding exchanges with me (arcane writing),
> just doesn't hold water.

Perhaps he finds you to be a mystic, then? Marvelous and *arcane*
images come to my mind with that. You, in colorful indigenous clothing,
sitting cross-legged facing a fire, smoking the leaves of the herb
Lepechinia hastata, and in the resulting state of mental elevation
voicing pronouncements of glorious insight bearing unto the evidentiary
medical body of the assassination of the American President Kennedy,
these pronouncements being far beyond the understanding of us poor,
ordinary mortals, probably because we are not smoking Lepechinia hastata
along with you...

I, on the other hand, have not found a single phrase, sentence,
paragraph, or complete article of yours that I have ever read to be even
remotely "arcane." Perhaps that is because I have never smoked
Lepechinia hastata myself...

> I wish you'd address some of your posts directly to him...I want to see
> what excuse he comes up with for dancing around your arguments.

Dr. McAdams may reply, or not reply, to anything he pleases, just as is
the case with the rest of us. And as a moderator he'll be reading more
of our articles than the rest of us combined, methinks. But "silence is
golden," if you take my meaning. ;-)

> Especially since he finally should be aware that neither of us think any
> of the photographs or x-rays were faked....and that includes the Z-film.

None of the moderators has, by now, any legitimate excuse to believe
such an outlandish thing about you and I, of all people who have ever
posted here.

> >> I am surprised McAdams hasn't taken exception to your views re. the
> >> head wounds.
> >
> >Oh, you forgot about that incident a year ago when he, of all people,
> >asked me, me, of all people, if I believed the autopsy photos and x-rays
> >were faked? My reply to that was *very* tart, on the order of "you of all
> >people ought to know better," and after I posted it I called him on the
> >phone and made my position as clear as I knew how. I then started a new
> >thread on August 11 in which, among other things, I said this:
> >
> >"If I shout it in all caps, will all of y'all finally, at last, get it?
> >NEITHER JOHN CANAL NOR I BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE FILMS OR PHOTOGRAPHS OR
> >X-RAYS WERE FORGED. Which part of that sentence does someone, anyone, not
> >understand?"
> >
> >I then went on to say that if any regular poster who has replied to our
> >articles plenty of times before ever again attributed such an obviously
> >false belief to us that not only would my response be even more caustic
> >than ever, but that I would immediately assume the poster to be
> >purposefully *pretending* to believe that we believe those to be forged,
> >and was concocting a strawman *purposefully*, not as an honest mistake,
> >even if I did not specifically accuse that poster here of it.
> >
> >Does that jog your memory? ;-)
>
> Actually, I missed that, but let me guess how it ended...McAdams
> disappeared?

I certainly cannot recall ever seeing any subsequent question such as
that addressed from him to me.

> >> Speaking of research, do you have Palamara's book about the medical
> >> evidence?
> >
> >No, I don't. Do you recommend it?
>
> Invaluable. Write him and ask about getting it...he might give it to you
> free if he knows you argue for there being a BOH wound.

Is it not a commercially-published book? And what is the title of the
book and how do I write to him?

Not the Judyth threads, but it is something about Judyth. :P

> I hope she's Okay health wise.

Mostly.

I'm assuming you mean these:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/contents.htm

If by "list" you mean near the end of the list of documents, there are
264 of them. I think the ones I need are very near the beginning, #s 12
& 13. Or do you mean near the end of the list of items given in those
two documents in particular? If so, I am at a loss to determine which
are the twelve you're talking about. I know I've seen you list them
before, but from this document alone I cannot figure out which those
are. MD 12 begins with a list of items numbered 1-14. A second list of
items follows which are numbered 1-51. The numbering in MD 13 is
slightly different: the first list is still numbered 1-14 but the second
list is now numbered 1-52. There's one additional item in there
somewhere that isn't in MD 12, I guess? But would it simply be the last
twelve items in each of those, i.e. 40-51 in MD 12 and 41-52 in MD 13?
That might be it, because those certainly look familiar. Interesting,
though, that in both the color prints of the missile wound to the right
occipital region is listed as item #42 in both documents, so I'll need
to stare at this for a bit to try to figure out where the extra item is
in MD 13 that is not listed, or is numbered differently in MD 12.

Hmm...

Oh.

Lol.

Dunno why, but MD 13's # 52 merely repeats, word for word, #51 in both
documents.

A mere typo, I guess.

Ok, yes, yes, yes, this all looks quite familiar now, and I don't even
need to smoke any Lepechinia hastata to realize it. It's about time I
got this saved on my computer.

And John? Out of these twelve items, I am seeing something which to me
is *very* obvious which confirms my belief that items 42 and 43, the BOH
photos, were definitely the last of these twelve to be taken, and thus
would indeed be the last photographs ever taken of John Kennedy, alive
or dead, at least that have ever been made public. Have we not
discussed this before?

> >> >You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.
> >>
> >> I got one hell of a jump on you...I think that's partially because, unlike
> >> me, you keep up with the rest of the case.
> >
> >Yes, and although this is one of the most important issues in the case
> >to me, there are quite a few others that I'm very interested in
> >exploring, and articulating, so on any one issue I may never be as much
> >of an expert as someone who concentrates primarily on that issue.
>
> But that's why McAdams is weak on the medical evidence....he tries to keep
> up with the entire case. IMO, next to impossible if you want to fully
> understand the medical evidence.

There is some truth to that. He is very good on the assassination in
general � I've always thought so. But keeping up with so many different
aspects of this extremely complex case can sometimes mean a lack of
sufficient research into some individual aspects. However that may be
in his case or anyone else's, as you know my own interests run to a
number of other aspects besides this, and yet today, more than ever
before, I am seeing something which in my opinion is blindingly obvious.

> Same goes for Marsh...he's been chasing his tail (the CIA) so much over
> the years he failed to learn the medical evidence...he frequently asks for
> citations that are easily found.

You did know that the CIA got his Compuserve account terminated?

> But what's scary is realizing that he conjured up his wacky "JFK was hit
> in the head only once...from the front" before he became familiar with the
> medical evidence. I like the way he refuses to admit the obvious....kind
> of reminds me of McAdams...they both say they can't see the entry in this
> photo:
>
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

That has also seemed quite obvious to me, for more than a year.

> If the damn thing was a snake, it'd jump out and bite them on the nose.

The lack of seeing it may instead be due to a smoked herb. ;-)

> What do they think that circular (semi) defect is just below the ruler and
> centered in the photo, titled, "...missile wound in posterior skull..."? A
> wart?

They may need to stay away from the herb. The problem is, Lepechinia
hastata is legal. ;-)

> >> But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
> >> forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.
> >
> >Oh gawd, and did you get a load of his admission that prompted me to say
> >that?
> >
> >"Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
> >taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
> >what pictures should or should not have been taken."
> >
> >Say WHAT?????????? He's only seen a "small fraction" (his exact words) of
> >the autopsy photos??? And he has the presumption to debate ANYONE on this
> >subject, much less you?
>
> I think LNs like him and Todd try to impress McAdams,

Oh. Hmm. I prefer to stay on good terms with him, naturally, and so
far as I know I still am, in general, but I don't recall having any
motivation to impress him specifically. You think that is possibly
their motivation? I think in the one case it is more an acceptance that
is a bit too unquestioning. I do not get that impression from Mitch
Todd though. His beliefs are different from yours, of course, but he
seems to me nevertheless to be quite willing to explore the evidence,
and I see him doing that on other issues besides this.

> who is afraid to get
> in the trenches with us...well really you, because he still has his
> protective shield of an excuse for not engaging me...my writing is too
> arcane.

Because he things you are sitting by the fire in colorful indigenous
clothing? ;-)

> >He shouldn't even post any further articles about this at all, at all,
> >until he's at least seen a "large fraction" of those photos, to put it
> >mildly. He also very badly needs to look more closely at the lateral
> >x-ray, because all by itself, without a single other x-ray or photo
> >necessary, proves conclusively that it is impossible in an absolute sense
> >for that hole to have been caused by the missing Harper Fragment, a
> >woefully implausible contention of his that I have been correcting for
> >more than a year. I'm also astonished that Mantik missed the "teeny
> >little problem" with his own claim about what part of the skull the
> >Fragment came from. The lateral x-ray alone proves that to be impossible.
> >So does the A-P, to a slightly lesser extent.
>
> He's also not very well read on the medical evidence. He challenged me to
> name one, just one PH witness who said they saw damage to JFK's temporal
> area. I pointed out three as sson as I had time to refer to my notes, but
> there were actually at least four.

Apparently he hasn't read Giesecke either. :P

> I still think he, like a few other LNs, are carrying on the argument for
> McAdams.

Well, or else due to an unquestioning acceptance, or an acceptance that
involves too little further investigation and research.

> See if I'm right...challenge McAdams directly and see if he responds with
> something besides "Do you think the photos and X-rays are faked...as well
> as the Z-film?

We shall see. I do not feel my own arguments are quite definitive
enough, as yet, to go too far. I might have achieved a major step
forward today, however.

> >> >> >If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
> >> >> >final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,
> >> >>
> >>>> Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH
> >>>> ones
> >> >> were taken later...12 total.
> >> >>
> >> >> As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.
> >> >>
> >> >> :-)
> >> >
> >> >Yes, and I'd forgotten about twelve.
> >>
> >> Oh oh, the "Canal-know-too-much-for-his-own-britches" syndrome has
> >> infected you too?
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> >Ugh, I very badly need to get a list saved of all 12 of those so that I'll
> >finally stop being confused about which is which. Can you list all twelve
> >of those, along with whatever designations or "titles" are given to each,
> >and a brief description of what each shows? You may have listed those for
> >me before, but if so, I'm not sure if I saved that anywhere. Thanks! :)
>
> Two B&W and two color BOH photos. Two B&W and two color photos that show
> the back wound and the BOH, and Two B&W and two color of the inside of the
> skull with the brain removed.

Yes, got it now. And it seems quite obvious to me which of those were
taken latest.

That it appeared in subsequent copies, but not in the original, is
obvious to me now. But by "was added" do you mean "was added
purposefully?"

> Even though I believe that issue (just like the entry location) is related
> to the BOH wound one, let's set it aside for now...it's complicated. One
> battle at a time.

I might now be approaching the combination of those two battles into one
myself. But I'm not there yet.

[Anthony Marsh]

How do we even know what you are talking about when you refuse to quote
properly?
And why do you keep refusing my requests for you to put everyone in your
killfile?

>> in choral conducting, musicology, and music theory. Those
>> subjects, of course, have no relevance here. The only thing of relevance
>>from that that I've been able to apply here is the teaching of my
>> brilliant musicology professor, whose precepts on how to do proper
>> research would apply to any subject, and have helped me tremendously in
>> studying this assassination.
>
> Thanks go out to your professor.
>
>>> Me, all that I have is two years of college studing Ground Radar
>>> Technology.....at the Community College of The Air Force.
>>
>> And yet you also clearly know how to do proper research.
>
> I've been call obsessive. Barb says I'm incorrigile.

That's not the correct word, but close enough.

I wasn't there long enough for her to notice. Too many kooks spoil the
broth.

Or when everyone uses the same generic emoticon for every occasion. ;]>

[John Canal]

In article <caeruleo-391EC8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Reagor
King says...

John Reagor King, eh?

:-)

>> What I'm saying is that McAdams has avoided exchanges with me allegedly
>> because he claims my writing is arcane.
>
>"Arcane"? Hmm. I find that to be a novel use of that term. It usually
>means something to the effect of esoteric or mystic.

Whatever he intended it to mean, he added he didn't want to respond to me
because my writing was arcane. One thing's for sure, he wasn't being
complementary.

>> Well, with you arguing for nearly the same scenario I've been for the past
>> 12 years, his lame excuse for avoiding exchanges with me (arcane writing),
>> just doesn't hold water.
>
>Perhaps he finds you to be a mystic, then?

As in hard to decipher? I think you've nailed it...well maybe.

>Marvelous and *arcane*
>images come to my mind with that. You, in colorful indigenous clothing,
>sitting cross-legged facing a fire, smoking the leaves of the herb
>Lepechinia hastata,

I did try pot once...a little more than a half-century ago.

I wasn't impressed...switched to beer.

:-)

>and in the resulting state of mental elevation
>voicing pronouncements of glorious insight bearing unto the evidentiary
>medical body of the assassination of the American President Kennedy,
>these pronouncements being far beyond the understanding of us poor,
>ordinary mortals, probably because we are not smoking Lepechinia hastata
>along with you...

Now you owe me a gut.

:-)

>I, on the other hand, have not found a single phrase, sentence,
>paragraph, or complete article of yours that I have ever read to be even
>remotely "arcane." Perhaps that is because I have never smoked
>Lepechinia hastata myself...

Try beer.

>> I wish you'd address some of your posts directly to him...I want to see
>> what excuse he comes up with for dancing around your arguments.
>
>Dr. McAdams may reply, or not reply, to anything he pleases, just as is
>the case with the rest of us. And as a moderator he'll be reading more
>of our articles than the rest of us combined, methinks. But "silence is
>golden," if you take my meaning. ;-)

Good point, but when he responds to a poster who makes a case for a BOH
wound by asking, "Do you think the photographs and X-rasy are
fakes?"...then IMHO, he should feel obligated to lay his cards on the
table and refute the specific points made by the pro BOH wound poster.

Instead, after his sarcastic question (to which he knows the answer,
because he's asked it about a dozen times...literally), he disappears into
the sunset and tackles some other poster whose arguments are easier for
him to debate.

>> Especially since he finally should be aware that neither of us think any
>> of the photographs or x-rays were faked....and that includes the Z-film.
>
>None of the moderators has, by now, any legitimate excuse to believe
>such an outlandish thing about you and I, of all people who have ever
>posted here.

Funny though, that doesn't stop our host from asking that question.

>> >> I am surprised McAdams hasn't taken exception to your views re. the
>> >> head wounds.
>> >
>> >Oh, you forgot about that incident a year ago when he, of all people,
>> >asked me, me, of all people, if I believed the autopsy photos and x-rays
>> >were faked? My reply to that was *very* tart, on the order of "you of all
>> >people ought to know better," and after I posted it I called him on the
>> >phone and made my position as clear as I knew how. I then started a new
>> >thread on August 11 in which, among other things, I said this:
>> >
>> >"If I shout it in all caps, will all of y'all finally, at last, get it?
>> >NEITHER JOHN CANAL NOR I BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE FILMS OR PHOTOGRAPHS OR
>> >X-RAYS WERE FORGED. Which part of that sentence does someone, anyone, not
>> >understand?"
>> >
>> >I then went on to say that if any regular poster who has replied to our
>> >articles plenty of times before ever again attributed such an obviously
>> >false belief to us that not only would my response be even more caustic
>> >than ever, but that I would immediately assume the poster to be
>> >purposefully *pretending* to believe that we believe those to be forged,
>> >and was concocting a strawman *purposefully*, not as an honest mistake,
>> >even if I did not specifically accuse that poster here of it.
>> >
>> >Does that jog your memory? ;-)
>>
>> Actually, I missed that, but let me guess how it ended...McAdams
>> disappeared?
>
>I certainly cannot recall ever seeing any subsequent question such as
>that addressed from him to me.

Hmmmm.

>> >> Speaking of research, do you have Palamara's book about the medical
>> >> evidence?
>> >
>> >No, I don't. Do you recommend it?
>>
>> Invaluable. Write him and ask about getting it...he might give it to you
>> free if he knows you argue for there being a BOH wound.
>
>Is it not a commercially-published book? And what is the title of the
>book and how do I write to him?

I think he tried to sell it at one time. I've had it for about 15 years,
give or take two or three. I believe he sent me a copy. He also believes
there was a BOH wound and sort of took a liking to me....ergo, the book.

The title is, JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE: WHO'S WHO IN THE
MEDICAL EVIDENCE---THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA author of "THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE-SURVIVOR'S
GUILT: THE SECRET SERVICE AND THE JFK MURDER" (1993-1997).

Copyright 1998.

Unfortunately, his book doesn't include the statements or citations from
the ARRB. That said he must have spent a small fortune paying for
documents from the National Archives.

I've lost contact with him, but I'll bet someone here knows how to reach
him...if you want to post that question for the group?

I'm glad to learn that you've been in contact with her...please give her
my best regards the next time you contact her.

I've got the notes from the ARRB's 06/18/96 interview with Robinson in my
hands. It's MD 88....so much for towards the last 15% of the list.

Sorry for the bad directions.

>And John? Out of these twelve items, I am seeing something which to me
>is *very* obvious which confirms my belief that items 42 and 43, the BOH
>photos, were definitely the last of these twelve to be taken, and thus
>would indeed be the last photographs ever taken of John Kennedy, alive
>or dead, at least that have ever been made public. Have we not
>discussed this before?

Maybe. We discussed a large number of issues, I can't recall if we talked
about each of the 12.

I've already got a pretty rock solid case made for those 12 being taken
after midnight, at least after the morticians and autopsists repaired the
BOH...but if you've found even more evidence of that I'm all ears.

>> >> >You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.
>> >>
>>>> I got one hell of a jump on you...I think that's partially because, unlike
>> >> me, you keep up with the rest of the case.
>> >
>> >Yes, and although this is one of the most important issues in the case
>> >to me, there are quite a few others that I'm very interested in
>> >exploring, and articulating, so on any one issue I may never be as much
>> >of an expert as someone who concentrates primarily on that issue.
>>
>> But that's why McAdams is weak on the medical evidence....he tries to keep
>> up with the entire case. IMO, next to impossible if you want to fully
>> understand the medical evidence.
>
>There is some truth to that. He is very good on the assassination in

>general ? I've always thought so. But keeping up with so many different

>aspects of this extremely complex case can sometimes mean a lack of
>sufficient research into some individual aspects. However that may be
>in his case or anyone else's, as you know my own interests run to a
>number of other aspects besides this, and yet today, more than ever
>before, I am seeing something which in my opinion is blindingly obvious.
>
>> Same goes for Marsh...he's been chasing his tail (the CIA) so much over
>> the years he failed to learn the medical evidence...he frequently asks for
>> citations that are easily found.
>
>You did know that the CIA got his Compuserve account terminated?

LOL. I'll bet he's worried that they didn't terminate more than that.

>> But what's scary is realizing that he conjured up his wacky "JFK was hit
>> in the head only once...from the front" before he became familiar with the
>> medical evidence. I like the way he refuses to admit the obvious....kind
>> of reminds me of McAdams...they both say they can't see the entry in this
>> photo:
>>
>> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
>That has also seemed quite obvious to me, for more than a year.
>
>> If the damn thing was a snake, it'd jump out and bite them on the nose.
>
>The lack of seeing it may instead be due to a smoked herb. ;-)

But isn't human nature predictable....both Marsh and McAdams see it, but,
IMHO, admitting they do would hurt their pride...for different reasons.

Marsh has spent decades claiming there was no hits to the BOH...that's why
he can't admit that's a bullet hole....and McAdams accidently blurted out
that the defect which I've been calling the entry (John K., I'm referring
to the obvious entry hole) is deep inside the cranial cavity....so,
because he is a cowlick entry theorist he can't admit that's the entry.

It's all about pride...IMO, that's why he'd have trouble debating me in
front of an intelligent audience (their average age needs to be over 10)
because the first thing I'd do would be to use Power Point to display for
him and the audience the above photo and ask if there's anyone in the room
besides Dr. McAdams who can't see that's an entry.

Of course if Marsh was there hiding in the back from the CIA, he might
raise his hand.

>> What do they think that circular (semi) defect is just below the ruler and
>> centered in the photo, titled, "...missile wound in posterior skull..."? A
>> wart?
>
>They may need to stay away from the herb. The problem is, Lepechinia
>hastata is legal. ;-)

I'd ask you where I could get some, but at my age I don't need to start
any bad habbits.

:-)

>> >> But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
>> >> forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.
>> >
>> >Oh gawd, and did you get a load of his admission that prompted me to say
>> >that?
>> >
>> >"Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
>> >taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
>> >what pictures should or should not have been taken."
>> >
>> >Say WHAT?????????? He's only seen a "small fraction" (his exact words) of
>> >the autopsy photos??? And he has the presumption to debate ANYONE on this
>> >subject, much less you?
>>
>> I think LNs like him and Todd try to impress McAdams,
>
>Oh. Hmm. I prefer to stay on good terms with him, naturally,

Are you running for office somewhere?

:-)

>and so
>far as I know I still am, in general,

That is until he asks you if you think the photos and X-rays are fakes
again.

:-)

>but I don't recall having any
>motivation to impress him specifically.

>You think that is possibly
>their motivation?

IMO, some people have inferiority complexes and need warm fuzzies from
important people every now and then to shore up their ego.

>I think in the one case it is more an acceptance that
>is a bit too unquestioning. I do not get that impression from Mitch
>Todd though. His beliefs are different from yours, of course, but he
>seems to me nevertheless to be quite willing to explore the evidence,
>and I see him doing that on other issues besides this.

IMO, if any person can't follow the overwhelming number of clues
[evidence] showing there was a low entry and a BOH wound he needs a GPS to
find his way from the living room to the kitchen.

>> who is afraid to get
>> in the trenches with us...well really you, because he still has his
>> protective shield of an excuse for not engaging me...my writing is too
>> arcane.
>
>Because he things you are sitting by the fire in colorful indigenous
>clothing? ;-)

Ah ha, keep having these exchange with me and my propensity to make typos
will infect you....."Because he things [sic] you are sitting...

:-)

I thing I know what he's thinging and it's not that.

:-)

>> >He shouldn't even post any further articles about this at all, at all,
>> >until he's at least seen a "large fraction" of those photos, to put it
>> >mildly. He also very badly needs to look more closely at the lateral
>> >x-ray, because all by itself, without a single other x-ray or photo
>> >necessary, proves conclusively that it is impossible in an absolute sense
>> >for that hole to have been caused by the missing Harper Fragment, a
>> >woefully implausible contention of his that I have been correcting for
>> >more than a year. I'm also astonished that Mantik missed the "teeny
>> >little problem" with his own claim about what part of the skull the
>> >Fragment came from. The lateral x-ray alone proves that to be impossible.
>> >So does the A-P, to a slightly lesser extent.
>>
>> He's also not very well read on the medical evidence. He challenged me to
>> name one, just one PH witness who said they saw damage to JFK's temporal
>> area. I pointed out three as sson as I had time to refer to my notes, but
>> there were actually at least four.
>
>Apparently he hasn't read Giesecke either. :P

And speaking of Giesecke, he said they shined a light into the cranial
vault and saw that there was some brain missing....hmmm, and if you ask
bigdog or McAdams they'll tell you the PH docs didn't take the time to
look closely at the wounds...they were too busy trying to save his life.

Sure they were...of course, but what after he expired? Did the SSvc wisk
his body out of ER1 the very instant he expired?

>> I still think he, like a few other LNs, are carrying on the argument for
>> McAdams.
>
>Well, or else due to an unquestioning acceptance, or an acceptance that
>involves too little further investigation and research.

Ok.

>> See if I'm right...challenge McAdams directly and see if he responds with
>> something besides "Do you think the photos and X-rays are faked...as well
>> as the Z-film?
>
>We shall see. I do not feel my own arguments are quite definitive
>enough, as yet, to go too far. I might have achieved a major step
>forward today, however.

Good for you.

>> >> >> >If indeed I am correct in my belief that the BOH photos were the
>> >> >> >final photos ever taken of JFK dead or alive,
>> >> >>
>> >>>> Not to be nitpicky, but there's strong evidence that not just the BOH
>> >>>> ones
>> >> >> were taken later...12 total.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As you know I've had two face to face meetings with Stringer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, and I'd forgotten about twelve.
>> >>
>> >> Oh oh, the "Canal-know-too-much-for-his-own-britches" syndrome has
>> >> infected you too?
>> >>
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> >Ugh, I very badly need to get a list saved of all 12 of those so that I'll
>> >finally stop being confused about which is which. Can you list all twelve
>> >of those, along with whatever designations or "titles" are given to each,
>> >and a brief description of what each shows? You may have listed those for
>> >me before, but if so, I'm not sure if I saved that anywhere. Thanks! :)
>>
>> Two B&W and two color BOH photos. Two B&W and two color photos that show
>> the back wound and the BOH, and Two B&W and two color of the inside of the
>> skull with the brain removed.
>
>Yes, got it now. And it seems quite obvious to me which of those were
>taken latest.

Yup.

Just as sure as there was a BOH wound, the thing was added....but that's a
complex side issue, although related to the BOH wound and head shot entry
location.

If you're curious, Google up (search) 6.5 mm opacity and see what turns
up. I must have posted a hundred times on just that issue.

>> Even though I believe that issue (just like the entry location) is related
>> to the BOH wound one, let's set it aside for now...it's complicated. One
>> battle at a time.
>
>I might now be approaching the combination of those two battles into one
>myself. But I'm not there yet.

It took me years to tie them all together...and there's one other huge
controversy that, IMO, is also related. Hint: "ice bullet".

No I'm not saying there was an ice bullet, but the FBI mentioning it,
believe it or not is related to the BOH wound....IMHO...after smoking some
Lepechinia hastata.

:-)


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

How about undecipherable?

>> Well, with you arguing for nearly the same scenario I've been for the past
>> 12 years, his lame excuse for avoiding exchanges with me (arcane writing),
>> just doesn't hold water.
>
> Perhaps he finds you to be a mystic, then? Marvelous and *arcane*

More like the Wizard of Oz. All show, little substance.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

> general � I've always thought so. But keeping up with so many different

> aspects of this extremely complex case can sometimes mean a lack of
> sufficient research into some individual aspects. However that may be
> in his case or anyone else's, as you know my own interests run to a
> number of other aspects besides this, and yet today, more than ever
> before, I am seeing something which in my opinion is blindingly obvious.
>
>> Same goes for Marsh...he's been chasing his tail (the CIA) so much over
>> the years he failed to learn the medical evidence...he frequently asks for
>> citations that are easily found.
>
> You did know that the CIA got his Compuserve account terminated?
>

Silly rot.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k1ucc...@drn.newsguy.com>,

That would be me. I figger that distinguishes me even better from all
the other Johns here, including you. ;-)

> >> What I'm saying is that McAdams has avoided exchanges with me allegedly
> >> because he claims my writing is arcane.
> >
> >"Arcane"? Hmm. I find that to be a novel use of that term. It usually
> >means something to the effect of esoteric or mystic.
>
> Whatever he intended it to mean, he added he didn't want to respond to me
> because my writing was arcane.

Actually he said "convoluted and arcane," as I think I quoted to you in
another article of mine, and I found the exact article from 2010 where
he said it.

> One thing's for sure, he wasn't being
> complementary.

Sure wasn't.

> >> Well, with you arguing for nearly the same scenario I've been for the past
> >> 12 years, his lame excuse for avoiding exchanges with me (arcane writing),
> >> just doesn't hold water.
> >
> >Perhaps he finds you to be a mystic, then?
>
> As in hard to decipher? I think you've nailed it...well maybe.

I think I've nailed it quite well.

> >Marvelous and *arcane*
> >images come to my mind with that. You, in colorful indigenous clothing,
> >sitting cross-legged facing a fire, smoking the leaves of the herb
> >Lepechinia hastata,
>
> I did try pot once...a little more than a half-century ago.
>
> I wasn't impressed...switched to beer.
>
> :-)

Heh, well I actually have no idea whether or not Lepechinia hastata
induces any state of mind, when smoked, eaten, or brewed into a drink.
One of my other hobbies is botany, at which I'm at least equally
knowledgeable as I am about the JFK assassination, meaning simply that on
both subjects I am quite safe in saying that I know more than the average
person. Lepechinia hastata is an herb that is native to Hawaii, and is in
the same family, Lamiaceae (formerly called Labiatae) as many other herbs
commonly used in seasoning, etc., such as Hyssopus (hyssop), Lavandula
(lavender), Mentha (mint), Nepeta (catnip), Origanum (oregano), Rosmarinus
(rosemary), Salvia (sage), and Thymus (thyme), as well as many others that
are grown as ornamentals, and many others thought of as wildflowers. I
thought it would be funny to chose Lepechinia since it is more obscure,
and I doubted anyone here would know what it is, lol. Here's a pic of it,
btw; pretty little thing:

http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/53594/703984892.jpg

> >and in the resulting state of mental elevation
> >voicing pronouncements of glorious insight bearing unto the evidentiary
> >medical body of the assassination of the American President Kennedy,
> >these pronouncements being far beyond the understanding of us poor,
> >ordinary mortals, probably because we are not smoking Lepechinia hastata
> >along with you...
>
> Now you owe me a gut.
>
> :-)

Sorry, I failed to follow my own advice, and did not put "C&C warning"
at the beginning of that paragraph.

> >I, on the other hand, have not found a single phrase, sentence,
> >paragraph, or complete article of yours that I have ever read to be even
> >remotely "arcane." Perhaps that is because I have never smoked
> >Lepechinia hastata myself...
>
> Try beer.

Mmm, beer... I couldn't even tell you by now how many hundreds, if not
thousands of beers I've drunk in my life. You'll have to tell me in email
what your favorite brands are. I've recently gotten on a vodka kick
myself (and no, I'm not drinking it as I'm typing this article...yet).

Anyway, back to the JFK assassination:

> >> I wish you'd address some of your posts directly to him...I want to see
> >> what excuse he comes up with for dancing around your arguments.
> >
> >Dr. McAdams may reply, or not reply, to anything he pleases, just as is
> >the case with the rest of us. And as a moderator he'll be reading more
> >of our articles than the rest of us combined, methinks. But "silence is
> >golden," if you take my meaning. ;-)
>
> Good point, but when he responds to a poster who makes a case for a BOH
> wound by asking, "Do you think the photographs and X-rasy are
> fakes?"...then IMHO, he should feel obligated to lay his cards on the
> table and refute the specific points made by the pro BOH wound poster.

Well yes, I agree with that too. Admittedly in another article I did make
the point that, because he has to spend so much more time reading articles
here than any of us, plus he has other things in his life to attend to
too, such as teaching, his time is a good deal more limited than yours or
mine to post lengthy and detailed refutations of what others say. In
fact, nearly all his articles are fairly short. But, the other side of
that coin is, if he doesn't have time to respond in more specific detail,
perhaps he should not respond at all until he does have time.

There are, after all, the weekends. ;-)

> Instead, after his sarcastic question (to which he knows the answer,
> because he's asked it about a dozen times...literally), he disappears into
> the sunset and tackles some other poster whose arguments are easier for
> him to debate.

"If you don't have time to refute me in specific detail, don't refute me
at all until you *do* have time to do it in specific detail." Yep yep.
A response that is too insubstantial, and addresses only a very small
minority of the arguments I raised, is hardly ever one that I find to be
even remotely convincing. And on this, at least, I myself *do* practice
what I preach. I sometimes could be said even to go overboard and go on
*too* long. There are a number of my articles which have individually
taken me more than an hour to compose, since it's not just the typing
itself, but also the pausing to look up and cite and quote evidence. But
it is very rare that I reply only in insubstantial fashion. That at least
should be apparent to anyone who has read at least one percent of my
articles.

> >> Especially since he finally should be aware that neither of us think any
> >> of the photographs or x-rays were faked....and that includes the Z-film.
> >
> >None of the moderators has, by now, any legitimate excuse to believe
> >such an outlandish thing about you and I, of all people who have ever
> >posted here.
>
> Funny though, that doesn't stop our host from asking that question.

Well, as far as I can recall he only asked me that once in nearly 10
years. At least he's never asked me that again. But he shouldn't have
even asked it the first time.

> >> >> Speaking of research, do you have Palamara's book about the medical
> >> >> evidence?
> >> >
> >> >No, I don't. Do you recommend it?
> >>
> >> Invaluable. Write him and ask about getting it...he might give it to you
> >> free if he knows you argue for there being a BOH wound.
> >
> >Is it not a commercially-published book? And what is the title of the
> >book and how do I write to him?
>
> I think he tried to sell it at one time. I've had it for about 15 years,
> give or take two or three. I believe he sent me a copy. He also believes
> there was a BOH wound and sort of took a liking to me....ergo, the book.
>
> The title is, JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE: WHO'S WHO IN THE
> MEDICAL EVIDENCE---THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963
>
> BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA author of "THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE-SURVIVOR'S
> GUILT: THE SECRET SERVICE AND THE JFK MURDER" (1993-1997).
>
> Copyright 1998.
>
> Unfortunately, his book doesn't include the statements or citations from
> the ARRB. That said he must have spent a small fortune paying for
> documents from the National Archives.

Yeah, and in 1998 I don't think any of the ARRB documents were yet online.
I think that was also the time when the WC volumes were just starting to
appear online too. And since that's just the copyright date, almost
certainly most of the composition of the book took place before 1998.

Thank goodness things are soooooooooo wonderfully different today. No
longer does one need to spend anything, or go to places like university
libraries, to see many of these documents. Every page of all 26 WC
volumes has been online for more than a decade, as well as the HSCA
volumes, and that treasure trove of the City of Dallas archives,
containing photoscans of so very many original affidavits, DPD reports,
etc. has been online nearly as long. And quite a lot from the ARRB is
also online.

In short, there is much less excuse than ever before for anyone interested
in the assassination not to look at all these original sources, instead of
relying of the extremely selective excerpts that are quoted in books and
documentaries. Sadly, it still seems to me that less than one percent of
all people worldwide who have ever expressed any opinion about the
assassination, no matter what that opinion is, have taken advantage of
this. I still constantly see opinions expressed by people that make it
obvious that they have almost certainly read no more than three of these
documents, total, from start to finish, from first word to last, in their
entire lives.

> I've lost contact with him, but I'll bet someone here knows how to reach
> him...if you want to post that question for the group?

Ok, and I haven't yet even done a search for the book online. He might
even have a website up which explains how to contact him to get it.

> >> I hope she's Okay health wise.
> >
> >Mostly.
>
> I'm glad to learn that you've been in contact with her...please give her
> my best regards the next time you contact her.

I haven't actually asked her if it's ok to mention it here, although she
probably wouldn't mind, but since I don't yet have her specific permission
I'll only say that we had a long conversation two days ago, the first time
we have done that.

> >And John? Out of these twelve items, I am seeing something which to me
> >is *very* obvious which confirms my belief that items 42 and 43, the BOH
> >photos, were definitely the last of these twelve to be taken, and thus
> >would indeed be the last photographs ever taken of John Kennedy, alive
> >or dead, at least that have ever been made public. Have we not
> >discussed this before?
>
> Maybe. We discussed a large number of issues, I can't recall if we talked
> about each of the 12.
>
> I've already got a pretty rock solid case made for those 12 being taken
> after midnight, at least after the morticians and autopsists repaired the
> BOH...but if you've found even more evidence of that I'm all ears.

Well, "found" isn't exactly the right word. I'm *seeing* this clear
evidence every time I look at each of these photos. If indeed you are
correct for all 12 being taken after midnight, it is clear that 42-43
had to be the final ones taken, and that all the others preceded them.
As to why I say that, I think a new thread should be started. I think
the Subject line should be "The final twelve photos of JFK." If I
haven't started that thread within three days from now, please call me
or email me.

> >> >> >You might always remain ahead of me in your understanding of this.
> >> >>
> >>>> I got one hell of a jump on you...I think that's partially because,
> >>>> unlike
> >> >> me, you keep up with the rest of the case.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, and although this is one of the most important issues in the case
> >> >to me, there are quite a few others that I'm very interested in
> >> >exploring, and articulating, so on any one issue I may never be as much
> >> >of an expert as someone who concentrates primarily on that issue.
> >>
> >> But that's why McAdams is weak on the medical evidence....he tries to keep
> >> up with the entire case. IMO, next to impossible if you want to fully
> >> understand the medical evidence.
> >
> >There is some truth to that. He is very good on the assassination in
> >general ? I've always thought so. But keeping up with so many different
> >aspects of this extremely complex case can sometimes mean a lack of
> >sufficient research into some individual aspects. However that may be
> >in his case or anyone else's, as you know my own interests run to a
> >number of other aspects besides this, and yet today, more than ever
> >before, I am seeing something which in my opinion is blindingly obvious.
> >
> >> Same goes for Marsh...he's been chasing his tail (the CIA) so much over
> >> the years he failed to learn the medical evidence...he frequently asks for
> >> citations that are easily found.
> >
> >You did know that the CIA got his Compuserve account terminated?
>
> LOL. I'll bet he's worried that they didn't terminate more than that.

Well, I should have put "C&C" on that too. That is his claim, made on
April 8, 2001:

"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA."

I do not for a moment believe that claim to be true. It's a good deal
more likely that even today, more than 11 years later, there is still
not one person in the CIA who even knows who Tony Marsh is, nor has the
CIA ever created a file on him. Why on earth would they? I can't think
of a single reason why they would be even slightly interested in him.

I also remember that I used to use that quote here as my .sigfile. ;-)

> >> What do they think that circular (semi) defect is just below the ruler and
> >> centered in the photo, titled, "...missile wound in posterior skull..."? A
> >> wart?
> >
> >They may need to stay away from the herb. The problem is, Lepechinia
> >hastata is legal. ;-)
>
> I'd ask you where I could get some, but at my age I don't need to start
> any bad habbits.
>
> :-)

Apparently you can get it from Hawaii. ;-)

> >> >> But I appreciate and agree with what you said to him, i.e. that I've
> >> >> forgotten more about the medical evidence that he will ever know.
> >> >
> >> >Oh gawd, and did you get a load of his admission that prompted me to say
> >> >that?
> >> >
> >> >"Since I have seen only a small fraction of the total autopsy pictures
> >> >taken, I have no idea what pictures were or were not taken nor do I know
> >> >what pictures should or should not have been taken."
> >> >
> >> >Say WHAT?????????? He's only seen a "small fraction" (his exact words)
> >> >of
> >> >the autopsy photos??? And he has the presumption to debate ANYONE on
> >> >this
> >> >subject, much less you?
> >>
> >> I think LNs like him and Todd try to impress McAdams,
> >
> >Oh. Hmm. I prefer to stay on good terms with him, naturally,
>
> Are you running for office somewhere?
>
> :-)

Certainly not. ;-)

> >and so
> >far as I know I still am, in general,
>
> That is until he asks you if you think the photos and X-rays are fakes
> again.
>
> :-)

Yes, that might end up burning a bridge. He lit the match awfully close
to the bridge that one time.

> >> who is afraid to get
> >> in the trenches with us...well really you, because he still has his
> >> protective shield of an excuse for not engaging me...my writing is too
> >> arcane.
> >
> >Because he things you are sitting by the fire in colorful indigenous
> >clothing? ;-)
>
> Ah ha, keep having these exchange with me and my propensity to make typos
> will infect you....."Because he things [sic] you are sitting...
>
> :-)
>
> I thing I know what he's thinging and it's not that.
>
> :-)

Oops, yep. Maybe I *was* drinking vodka when I did that article.

> >> >He shouldn't even post any further articles about this at all, at all,
> >> >until he's at least seen a "large fraction" of those photos, to put it
> >> >mildly. He also very badly needs to look more closely at the lateral
> >> >x-ray, because all by itself, without a single other x-ray or photo
> >> >necessary, proves conclusively that it is impossible in an absolute sense
> >> >for that hole to have been caused by the missing Harper Fragment, a
> >> >woefully implausible contention of his that I have been correcting for
> >> >more than a year. I'm also astonished that Mantik missed the "teeny
> >> >little problem" with his own claim about what part of the skull the
> >> >Fragment came from. The lateral x-ray alone proves that to be
> >> >impossible.
> >> >So does the A-P, to a slightly lesser extent.
> >>
> >> He's also not very well read on the medical evidence. He challenged me to
> >> name one, just one PH witness who said they saw damage to JFK's temporal
> >> area. I pointed out three as sson as I had time to refer to my notes, but
> >> there were actually at least four.
> >
> >Apparently he hasn't read Giesecke either. :P
>
> And speaking of Giesecke, he said they shined a light into the cranial
> vault and saw that there was some brain missing....

Now that is something I do not remember Giesecke ever saying. Do you
remember the source for that? I am not seeing that at this moment in
his WC testimony.

> hmmm, and if you ask
> bigdog or McAdams they'll tell you the PH docs didn't take the time to
> look closely at the wounds...they were too busy trying to save his life.

That would have to be under a presumption that not one person at
Parkland, not one, took a closer look at his head. But I've known since
October, 2002, that Giesecke said this to the WC:

**********

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.

**********

Now, rather obviously Giesecke was merely a victim of the common mistake
which can be called "your other left," sticking to that even when asked
specifically whether it was left or right. The primary damage was of
course on the right. Nevertheless, in his description of the anterior to
posterior damage he was almost dead-on. So much for the myth, that I
still sometimes see being erroneously repeated here, that not one doctor
at Parkland, not one, noticed the more forward damage to the skull.

Interestingly Giesecke was also one of the few doctors to assist with
both JFK and Connally. After about 5 mins with JFK he was called to
help with the anesthesia of the Governor.

> Sure they were...of course, but what after he expired? Did the SSvc wisk
> his body out of ER1 the very instant he expired?

Giesecke said that he saw the fuller extent of the damage to the skull
than most of the others reported while JFK was still technically alive.

> >> Even though I believe that issue (just like the entry location) is related
> >> to the BOH wound one, let's set it aside for now...it's complicated. One
> >> battle at a time.
> >
> >I might now be approaching the combination of those two battles into one
> >myself. But I'm not there yet.
>
> It took me years to tie them all together...and there's one other huge
> controversy that, IMO, is also related. Hint: "ice bullet".
>
> No I'm not saying there was an ice bullet, but the FBI mentioning it,
> believe it or not is related to the BOH wound....

Oh, I thought it was only related to the back wound, and when I saw you
yesterday saying that Humes proposed an ice bullet to throw off the FBI,
I started a new thread, "Humes claimed possibility of an ice bullet?"
Have you seen that yet? In it I explain that the only original
documented related to that that I've been able to find so far is a claim
made by Francis O'Neill to the HSCA in 1978, in which he did not
specifically attribute the ice bullet thing to Humes, but instead made
it out as if the majority of the persons present, which would mean more
people than just the three autopsists, discussed this possibility, with
regard to the back wound, to try to come up with some explanation of why
they couldn't find an exit for it. But nowhere did O'Neill in that
document specifically say that Humes initiated this discussion, or even
participated in it at all. Do you know of any other original document
in which any witness to the autopsy attributed this ice bullet business
specifically to Humes?

[John Canal]

John,

I cut and pasted this out of the text from your reply...because I didn't want my
response to it to get burried amongst the text of the entire post.

>I started a new thread, "Humes claimed possibility of an ice bullet?"
>Have you seen that yet?

Yes.

>In it I explain that the only original
>documented related to that that I've been able to find so far is a claim
>made by Francis O'Neill to the HSCA in 1978, in which he did not
>specifically attribute the ice bullet thing to Humes, but instead made
>it out as if the majority of the persons present, which would mean more
>people than just the three autopsists, discussed this possibility, with
>regard to the back wound, to try to come up with some explanation of why
>they couldn't find an exit for it. But nowhere did O'Neill in that
>document specifically say that Humes initiated this discussion, or even
>participated in it at all. Do you know of any other original document
>in which any witness to the autopsy attributed this ice bullet business
>specifically to Humes?

No, and if I wrote that it was established as fact that Humes said that, then I
was wrong to do so.

The only reason that I believe Humes was at least involved in the "discussion"
about the possibility a disintegrating bullet, such as one made of plastic or
ice, was used (yes, causing the back wound)is because it helps explain other
events that occurred during the autopsy that otherwise didn't make a lick of
sense.

At this time I'd rather not expound on that....the entire theory, and that's all
it really is, is complex (not necessarily convoluted and arcane) and would
amount to being a distraction from accomplishing what I think should be the
primary objective, i.e. convincing the masses that there was a BOH wound.

Maybe privately we can get into it when we have time?

[John Reagor King]

In article <k21ea...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> >In it I explain that the only original
> >documented related to that that I've been able to find so far is a claim
> >made by Francis O'Neill to the HSCA in 1978, in which he did not
> >specifically attribute the ice bullet thing to Humes, but instead made
> >it out as if the majority of the persons present, which would mean more
> >people than just the three autopsists, discussed this possibility, with
> >regard to the back wound, to try to come up with some explanation of why
> >they couldn't find an exit for it. But nowhere did O'Neill in that
> >document specifically say that Humes initiated this discussion, or even
> >participated in it at all. Do you know of any other original document
> >in which any witness to the autopsy attributed this ice bullet business
> >specifically to Humes?
>
> No, and if I wrote that it was established as fact that Humes said that, then
> I
> was wrong to do so.
>
> The only reason that I believe Humes was at least involved in the
> "discussion"
> about the possibility a disintegrating bullet, such as one made of plastic or
> ice, was used (yes, causing the back wound)is because it helps explain other
> events that occurred during the autopsy that otherwise didn't make a lick of
> sense.

Could be. But in my reading of O'Neill's text, my impression was that it
could have been anyone present who could have first voiced the speculation
of an ice bullet (also "plastic bullet" as O'Neill said) including a
person that was not one of the three autopsists. O'Neill described a
"general feeling" that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK in the back. From
everything else I know of Humes so far, I'm rather doubting that he was
the first person to utter the words "ice bullet" aloud. Or at least
there's no better than a 50/50 chance that he did. I also think there is
no better than a 50/50 chance that he even actively participated in this
speculation. O'Neill simply indicated that several unnamed persons
engaged in this speculation, not necessarily that every single person
present did. Humes may have simply listened to the speculation, but not
added to it, either to agree or disagree. With no witness to the autopsy
besides O'Neill (at least that I have yet located) claiming that *anyone*
talked about an ice bullet, and with him being so vague about exactly who
initiated this speculation, and exactly who participated in the subsequent
discussion of it, it is difficult for me to make much out of this.

Of course at least I now know where the ice bullet myth originates from,
although in the recent discussion I had here with another poster about
that, a poster who now seems to have disappeared, the ice bullet was being
proposed (not by me, naturally) for the bullet wound in the front of the
throat. Among the problems raised with that by me and others in that
thread, would be how the gunman would keep the ice frozen long enough,
since there was no possible way of knowing in advance the precise time the
motorcade would pass, and also how to keep the ice bullet from shattering
from the force needed to fire it out of the gun with sufficient velocity
to actually cause an injury in the victim. ;-)

This brings me back round to O'Neill. Though he doesn't specifically say
so, I'm wondering if some of these same objections weren't raised when
this novel explanation was raised at the autopsy, and thus that the
speculation, being discussed for maybe a few minutes only, was then
rejected on this basis, given that the problems noted above would apply
equally to the back entry.

> At this time I'd rather not expound on that....the entire theory, and that's
> all
> it really is, is complex (not necessarily convoluted and arcane) and would
> amount to being a distraction from accomplishing what I think should be the
> primary objective, i.e. convincing the masses that there was a BOH wound.
>
> Maybe privately we can get into it when we have time?

Of course.