Fiorentino says McAdams is 0 for 2 on the entry?
John Canal
in F8, is NOT really the entry, but whatever it is, it's deep inside the cranial
vault.
Fiorentino corrects McAdams on two counts, conceding the defect I think is the
entry in F8 "IS" most likely "THE" entry, but that entry is NOT deep inside the
cranial vault.
How about a compromise, boys? Try this: Fiorentino is correct when he says I'm
correctly identifying the entry defect in F8 and McAdams is correct when he says
that "my entry" is indeed deep inside the cranial vault....Ok? Done.
Hmmmm, McAdams has stopped responding to me since I sort of boxed him in on
this....maybe I ought to stop submitting posts like this? Ya think?
Ok, Anthony, take your shots...unless of course you've already posted 50 times
today...what is your daily limit, BTW? In any case, I want you to know your
comments are never a distraction....so press on.
:-)
John Canal
John Fiorentino
You can "compromise" all you want if that makes your day.
I am happy to see that you are keeping score on all of this.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fgtkn...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
>
>John:
>
>You can "compromise" all you want if that makes >your day.
Well, it kind of makes my day when I can demonstrate how (like yours & McA's
disagreements) confused and weak the case for a cowlick entry really is.
I'm sorry that McA appears to have an accute case of sour grapes on this. I hope
when (not if) some highly regarded forensic experts chime in on this you won't
catch McA's sour grapes affliction.
BTW, I asked you to list the evidence that proves the scalp wasn't closed over a
BOH wound before the photo you posted a copy of the other day was taken and you
rode off into the sunset, metaphorically speaking...obviously.
You do realize that that photo was taken for the purpose of demonstrating the
back wound...not for demonsrating whether or not there was any damage to the
BOH...don't you? Now, if that photo was, indeed, taken to demonstrate the later,
then I, by all means would accuse Humes of concealing the damage...but that
wasn't the purpose of the photo, so closing up the scalp and removing from its
surface any brain tissue that that previously exuded out the large defect onto
it wouldn't have been one bit sinister...in fact, it would have been the logical
thing to do, IMO (and in Barb's, if I can speak for her), at that point in the
procedure.
Now where's that evidence? Must be pretty strong, and Barb and I would love to
see it considering that, based on that ev., you have concluded some 20+ PH
witnesses as well as C. Hill and several at Bethesda were either lying or
hallucinating about seeing a BOH wound, eh?
>I am happy to see that you are keeping score on all of this.
I enjoy it...kind of like playing fish for a while before you reel them in....no
offense intended, of course.
:-)
John Canal
cdddraftsman
> an accute case of sour grapes on this. no
> offense intended, of course.:-) John Canal
Huh ? ....................tl :-(
John Fiorentino
As for "highly regarded forensic experts" you already had one here in Dr.
Walker, but since you didn't agree with him, or should I say he didn't
agree with you, you made some rather embarrassing comments, and treated
the man quite rudely.
Yes, John, I realize what the main point of that photo is. I also realize
it is almost always shown in it's cropped form. In the one I posted it
isn't cropped. I am referring to the area behind the right ear, where Barb
posted pictures of a boy, (not sure who, sorry) with some red goo behind
his ear, in an effort to demonstrate, that a wound in that area would be
visible at Parkland, even if JFK was never turned over.
Unfortunately, there is nothing to reflect in that area, and indeed
nothing IS reflected. If there was a wound there, it would be visible in
that photo. It isn't visible of course, because there was no wound there.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fgut7...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> John:
>
> As for "highly regarded forensic experts" you already had one here in
> Dr. Walker, but since you didn't agree with him, or should I say he
> didn't agree with you, you made some rather embarrassing comments, and
> treated the man quite rudely.
>
Oh my, no one should ever be treated rudely here, no matter how
ridiculous his comments are.
> Yes, John, I realize what the main point of that photo is. I also
> realize it is almost always shown in it's cropped form. In the one I
> posted it isn't cropped. I am referring to the area behind the right
> ear, where Barb posted pictures of a boy, (not sure who, sorry) with
> some red goo behind his ear, in an effort to demonstrate, that a wound
> in that area would be visible at Parkland, even if JFK was never turned
> over.
>
Here example shows red goo on top of the hair. The wound was under the hair.
John Canal
>
>John:
>
>As for "highly regarded forensic experts" you already had one here in Dr.
>Walker,
Compared to who will be weighing in on the low entry side, Walker is an
unknown. You'll see..have patience. Remember how long it was you had us
wait for your conclusion on the 6.5 mm thing? We can measure that wait in
years, right? So, be patient on the experts I've told you to wait
for...it'll be worth it.
>but since you didn't agree with him, or should I say he didn't
>agree with you, you made some rather embarrassing comments, and treated
>the man quite rudely.
If it was rude to ask him to reconcile his high entry with:
1) the extensively lacerated flocculous cerebri [thanks J. Hunt].
2) the longitudinal laceration that began at the tip of the occipital lobe
[which, contrary to your graphic is located on the inside of the skull
near the EOP].
3) the damage to the corpus collosum.
4) the disruption of the right cerebellar cortex.
5) the windshield damage [a bullet from the SN that entered in the cowlick
would have to deflect up after exiting near the coonal suture].
THEN I'M INDEED GUILTY AS CHARGED.
>Yes, John, I realize what the main point of that photo is. I also realize
>it is almost always shown in it's cropped form. In the one I posted it
>isn't cropped.
The and holding up the refected scalp is cropped.
>I am referring to the area behind the right ear, where Barb
>posted pictures of a boy, (not sure who, sorry) with some red goo behind
>his ear, in an effort to demonstrate, that a wound in that area would be
>visible at Parkland, even if JFK was never turned over.
Huh? The autopsy docs said the large exit defect, from hich brain tissue
exuded, extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital bones...THAT'S
BEHIND THE RIGHT EAR. I think they wre being cautious and it actually
extended further down than that.
>Unfortunately, there is nothing to reflect in that area, and indeed
>nothing IS reflected.
The tear in the scalp associated with that part of the large defect the
autopsists described would have been closed prior to the photo...nothing
sinister...it's just that the photo wasn't intended to show the BOH
damage. Can you prove a tear in the scalp there WASN'T
closed??????????????? No, of course you can't, but you'd think you could,
in spades, the way you assert that dozens of PH and Bethesda witnesses,
not to mention HB&F and C. Hill, were lying or hallucinating.
>If there was a wound there, it would be visible in
>that photo.
Again, you don't know and certainly can't prove that a tear in the scalp
wasn't closed up over a wound there. That, JF, is a fact...live with it.
>It isn't visible of course, because there was no wound there.
Incredible.
John Canal
David Von Pein
entering John Kennedy's head from the RIGHT-FRONT (i.e., Grassy Knoll),
per many/most CTer beliefs, to leave behind a huge gaping hole in the
FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head, and yet have this Magical Missile (somehow!)
LEAVE THE SCALP IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD COMPLETELY INTACT AND
UNDAMAGED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
Has anyone been able to figure out this mystery yet? I sure haven't. Other
than to say the obvious -- The CTers who believe this are nuts!
Of course, there are also the various sub-topics with respect to JFK's
head, such as the fact that the LEFT SIDE of Kennedy's head suffered NO
DAMAGE at all (in addition to the "No Right-Rear Scalp Damage" too).
Plus, there's also the fact that there were no bullet fragments in the
LEFT hemisphere of Kennedy's head at all.
So that makes the "Knoll Shooter" promoters 0-for-3 in my view.
Of course, the CTers who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the
front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path (as most CTers
do, indeed, travel down, even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy
pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever; but CTers, as always, feel
it's just okay to ignore anything being uttered by an "Official
Government" body).
To stress my main point again (via the opinion that these pictures below
are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the
matter).....
How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole
in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the
scalp of that same President Kennedy look like this (below) after such a
shooting event?
Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other
impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation,
I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount
of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID
cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and
caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President.
In a word -- Impossible. .....
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
John Canal
>How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole
>in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the
>scalp of that same President Kennedy look like this (below) after such a
>shooting event?
If my recollection serves me, once you said we could possibly be right
about there being a BOH wound...but, since VB's book came out, you now say
it'd be "impossible"?
I'm not going to debate you, after all we've been over this territory
already...and you've even cemented your position now...."impossible".
If it's your opinion that 20+ PH witnesses, plus HB&F, and C. Hill, and
several Bethesda witnesses (all of whom saw the body) were all lying or
hallucinating, fine, you're certainy entitled to it....based on your
examination of copies of the autopsy photos and x-rays......OR the
opinions of others who based those opinions ***ONLY*** on the autopsy
photos and x-rays.
As a matter of fact, I just spoke once again with O'Neill (yup, he saw the
body too...for several hours, actually) and he stuck to his testimony that
he saw brain tissue coming out the right-rear of JFK's head....you know
the area...yes indeed, the where the temporal, occipital, and parietal
bones meet (behind the right ear)...where HB&F said the large defect
extended to. Oh, and they also said brain tissue exuded from that defect.
Saying that it's "impossible" that those witnesses could have been correct
is well, IMO, further out there than what some of the silliest CTs I know
say about who killed JFK.
But, that's just my opinion, and around here it taint worth too much.
Breaks me up....NOT.
John Canal
[...]
John Fiorentino
John:
Walker is hardly "unknown." And for that matter neither were all the other
Dr's who've examined the X-rays and photos.
Apparently you can't comprehend what I am saying. You point to the
supposed reflection in the picture which shows the entry. I am referring
to the area in the back wound photo which shows the area behind the right
ear. There is nothing to "reflect" there John.
Since you fail to comprehend this, I'll sign off for now. Perhaps you can
get "something wrong here" Henry Lee to help you with this. Is he back in
the country yet?
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fh2ss...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "If my recollection serves me, once you said we could possibly be right about there being a BOH wound...but, since VB's book came out, you now say it'd be "impossible"?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yes, I have remarked in the past about the "possibility" of something
like what you think occurred having actually occurred (i.e., JFK was
hit by one bullet from behind, but his skull cracks like an egg--sort
of--and the back of his head, as well as the exit point for the bullet
in the right-front, splits open into multiple fragments).
But, unless I'm wrong about the chronology of our discussions, one of
our latest exchanges (the one linked below from May 7, 2007) has me
saying:
"But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH
wound (i.e., a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's
head." -- DVP; 05/07/07
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d74b90344959920
And just a few days prior to that (on April 23rd), I said this in a
post directed at John Canal:
"There was simply no logical reason, IMO, for the Bethesda
doctors to want to HIDE or mask info re. JFK's wounds (BOH or
otherwise), especially in light of the fact that the autopsy report
that all three of the doctors will be affixing their signatures to
will be declaring in bright, bold, unambiguous-as-can-be letters that
President Kennedy was struck by ONLY TWO BULLETS THAT BOTH CAME FROM
ABOVE AND BEHIND THE LEVEL OF THE DECEASED. There is/was NO REASON for
the Bethesda doctors to hide the existence of even a larger "BOH"
wound given the above "Only From Behind" autopsy conclusions." -- DVP;
04/23/07
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9ace52779b8f808
But my November 9th post above wasn't talking about a scenario which
has Kennedy being shot from BEHIND ONLY. If I wasn't clear enough, I
apologize. But I specifically started that November 9 post with these
words:
"I wonder if anybody has yet figured out a way for a high-speed
bullet entering John Kennedy's head from the RIGHT-FRONT (i.e., Grassy
Knoll), per many/most CTer beliefs, to leave behind a huge gaping hole
in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head, and yet have this Magical Missile
(somehow!) LEAVE THE SCALP IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD COMPLETELY
INTACT AND UNDAMAGED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER." -- DVP; 11/09/07
John Canal
>
>
>John:
>
>Walker is hardly "unknown."
You missed the point. He's "unknown" COMPARED to who'll be chiming in on the low
entry side.
>And for that matter neither were all the other
>Dr's who've examined the X-rays and photos.
>Apparently you can't comprehend what I am saying. You point to the
>supposed reflection in the picture which shows the entry. I am referring
>to the area in the back wound photo which shows the area behind the right
>ear. There is nothing to "reflect" there John.
What? I don't know precisely how far back the rear scalp was reflected, but I do
know, and so should you, that pieces of bone came out all the way down to the
EOP.
That said, the rear scalp was basically intact, except for a tear in the right
rear. It was through that tear that many witnesses, including HB&F, saw the
brain matter that had exuded out between "dislodged" (as Zimmerman suggested)
loose pieces of rear skull.
They undoubtedly closed that tear ["flap" as O'Neill and perhaps Perry described
it] before the photo of the back wound was taken...not to conceal
anything...because at that point they were just concerned with the back wound.
John Canal
rwalker
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4735256b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> John:
>
> Walker is hardly "unknown." And for that matter neither were all the other
> Dr's who've examined the X-rays and photos.
Canal can't cope with anything that doesn't fit his preconceived notions.
I'm secure with my reputation, despite his qualms.
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
>
>>>>"If my recollection serves me, once you said we could possibly be right about
>>>>there being a BOH wound...but, since VB's book came out, you now say it'd be
>>>>"impossible"?" <<<
>
>
>DVP NOW SAYS:
>
>Yes, I have remarked in the past about the "possibility" of something
>like what you think occurred having actually occurred (i.e., JFK was
>hit by one bullet from behind, but his skull cracks like an egg--sort
>of--and the back of his head, as well as the exit point for the bullet
>in the right-front, splits open into multiple fragments).
>
>But, unless I'm wrong about the chronology of our discussions, one of
>our latest exchanges (the one linked below from May 7, 2007) has me
>saying:
>
> "But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH
>wound (i.e., a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's
>head." -- DVP; 05/07/07
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d74b90344959920
Ok, but that statement is not inconsistent with you open to the
"possibility" we were correct....isn't that true? I "always" gathered from
your posts ***BEFORE*** that you thought it was "unlikely" or even "highly
unlikely" that a BOH wound exited.....but that assessment changed when I
just read where you thought such a wound was "impossible"...which, like I
opined, is way, way out there...considering there were so many highly
credible witnesses that saw the body and whom you deem liars or
hallucinators. Add to that that you evidently base your conclusion on the
opinions of experts who never saw the body.
>And just a few days prior to that (on April 23rd), I said this in a
>post directed at John Canal:
>
> "There was simply no logical reason, IMO, for the Bethesda
>doctors to want to HIDE or mask info re. JFK's wounds (BOH or
>otherwise), especially in light of the fact that the autopsy report
>that all three of the doctors will be affixing their signatures to
>will be declaring in bright, bold, unambiguous-as-can-be letters that
>President Kennedy was struck by ONLY TWO BULLETS THAT BOTH CAME FROM
>ABOVE AND BEHIND THE LEVEL OF THE DECEASED. There is/was NO REASON for
>the Bethesda doctors to hide the existence of even a larger "BOH"
>wound given the above "Only From Behind" autopsy conclusions." -- DVP;
>04/23/07
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9ace52779b8f808
Ok, but that statement is still not inconsistent with you open to the
"possibility" we were correct....isn't that true?
>But my November 9th post above wasn't talking about a scenario which
>has Kennedy being shot from BEHIND ONLY. If I wasn't clear enough, I
>apologize. But I specifically started that November 9 post with these
>words:
>
> "I wonder if anybody has yet figured out a way for a high-speed
>bullet entering John Kennedy's head from the RIGHT-FRONT (i.e., Grassy
>Knoll), per many/most CTer beliefs, to leave behind a huge gaping hole
>in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head, and yet have this Magical Missile
>(somehow!) LEAVE THE SCALP IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD COMPLETELY
>INTACT AND UNDAMAGED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER." -- DVP; 11/09/07
>
>www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Yes, I saw that, and read your entire post to mean you were, in one
passage, saying to the frontal shot folks that a BOH wound was impossible
and in a separate passage saying to "everyone" that a BOH wound was
impossible...period!
If I misread you, I apologize.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> [....]
>
>> How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole
>> in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the
>> scalp of that same President Kennedy look like this (below) after such a
>> shooting event?
>
> If my recollection serves me, once you said we could possibly be right
> about there being a BOH wound...but, since VB's book came out, you now say
> it'd be "impossible"?
>
> I'm not going to debate you, after all we've been over this territory
> already...and you've even cemented your position now...."impossible".
>
> If it's your opinion that 20+ PH witnesses, plus HB&F, and C. Hill, and
> several Bethesda witnesses (all of whom saw the body) were all lying or
> hallucinating, fine, you're certainy entitled to it....based on your
> examination of copies of the autopsy photos and x-rays......OR the
> opinions of others who based those opinions ***ONLY*** on the autopsy
> photos and x-rays.
>
How about a little consistency from you? If someone pointed out all the
Parkland doctors who said the throat wound was an entrance, would you be
forced to admit that it really was an entrance wound or would you need
to resort to calling them all liars?
Anthony Marsh
> I wonder if anybody has yet figured out a way for a high-speed bullet
> entering John Kennedy's head from the RIGHT-FRONT (i.e., Grassy Knoll),
> per many/most CTer beliefs, to leave behind a huge gaping hole in the
> FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head, and yet have this Magical Missile (somehow!)
> LEAVE THE SCALP IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD COMPLETELY INTACT AND
> UNDAMAGED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
>
Your question is loaded with false assumptions. First, it was not a high
speed bullet. Second, there can be damage to the skull under intact
scalp. That is exactly what the X-rays show. Third, there was no hole on
the back of the head.
> Has anyone been able to figure out this mystery yet? I sure haven't. Other
> than to say the obvious -- The CTers who believe this are nuts!
>
You are not allowed to call any fellow posters nuts. So, you must be
inventing a straw man argument about people who do not post here, right?
> Of course, there are also the various sub-topics with respect to JFK's
> head, such as the fact that the LEFT SIDE of Kennedy's head suffered NO
> DAMAGE at all (in addition to the "No Right-Rear Scalp Damage" too).
>
That is not true. The drawings show extensive damage to the left side of
the skull.
> Plus, there's also the fact that there were no bullet fragments in the
> LEFT hemisphere of Kennedy's head at all.
>
Yes, there were. The Wecht-Smith drawings show a few.
> So that makes the "Knoll Shooter" promoters 0-for-3 in my view.
>
That makes your straw man arguments 0 for 3.
> Of course, the CTers who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the
> front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path (as most CTers
I am one of the leading proponents for a frontal shot and the leading
proponent saying that all the photos and films are real.
> do, indeed, travel down, even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy
> pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever; but CTers, as always, feel
> it's just okay to ignore anything being uttered by an "Official
> Government" body).
>
They don't have to be altered to be misleading, defective or missing.
> To stress my main point again (via the opinion that these pictures below
> are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the
> matter).....
>
> How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole
> in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the
> scalp of that same President Kennedy look like this (below) after such a
> shooting event?
>
There is no hole in the back of the head.
> Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other
> impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation,
> I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount
> of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID
> cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and
> caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President.
>
Antipodal focusing.
> In a word -- Impossible. .....
>
Nonsense.
> www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
> www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
>
Notice how you cite a conspiracy Web site? Why are the autopsy photos
not posted on a LNer Web site if they support the WC?
David Von Pein
Not exactly, because my first post in this thread (all of it) was
being aimed at the following group of CTers (which is a very large
group):
CTers who believe that JFK was shot in the head FROM THE FRONT (Knoll)
and yet, incredibly, that bullet which was moving from the FRONT of
JFK's cranium to the BACK of his cranium somehow stopped dead in its
tracks (evidently), because that bullet didn't penetrate the back of
the President's scalp AT ALL, via this photo:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
I'll now re-word a portion of my first post in this thread for
additional clarity (as if anyone gives a care, but I feel it's my duty
now, since I *HATE* mistakes in my writings); the addendum is in
brackets.....
"How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a
huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head
[AFTER SUCH A BULLET ENTERED HIS HEAD FROM THE FRONT] and yet have the
scalp of that same President Kennedy look like this (below) after such
a shooting event?"
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
David Von Pein
Oh, that's right....the Knoll gunman used either a beanshooter, a
slingshot, or fireballing lefty Sandy Koufax' left arm to fire a
bullet into JFK's brain in order to to kill him.
I forgot how stupid you CTers think those pro assassins were on 11/22.
Sorry.
>>> "There is no hole in the back of the head." <<<
I'll rest my case here without even uttering another sound. No words
are necessary.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I read your entire post to mean you were, in one passage, saying to the frontal shot folks that a BOH wound was impossible and in a separate passage saying to "everyone" that a BOH wound was impossible...period!" <<<
>
> Not exactly, because my first post in this thread (all of it) was
> being aimed at the following group of CTers (which is a very large
> group):
>
> CTers who believe that JFK was shot in the head FROM THE FRONT (Knoll)
> and yet, incredibly, that bullet which was moving from the FRONT of
> JFK's cranium to the BACK of his cranium somehow stopped dead in its
> tracks (evidently), because that bullet didn't penetrate the back of
> the President's scalp AT ALL, via this photo:
>
Maybe you are just not aware of any of the real life examples were a
bullet hits the head and does not exit and even is stopped by the inside
or the outside of the skull.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
> I'll now re-word a portion of my first post in this thread for
> additional clarity (as if anyone gives a care, but I feel it's my duty
> now, since I *HATE* mistakes in my writings); the addendum is in
> brackets.....
>
> "How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a
> huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head
> [AFTER SUCH A BULLET ENTERED HIS HEAD FROM THE FRONT] and yet have the
> scalp of that same President Kennedy look like this (below) after such
> a shooting event?"
>
There was no hole in the back of his head.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "First, it was not a high-speed bullet." <<<
>
>
> Oh, that's right....the Knoll gunman used either a beanshooter, a
> slingshot, or fireballing lefty Sandy Koufax' left arm to fire a
> bullet into JFK's brain in order to to kill him.
>
> I forgot how stupid you CTers think those pro assassins were on 11/22.
> Sorry.
>
I am talking about your misuse of the term high speed.
David Von Pein
ZOOOOOOM!!!
IOW -- What has the above Tony comment got to do (in any way) with the
group of CTers I was aiming my hypothesis at (i.e., the CTers who DO
believe there was a big ol' hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's
cranium)?
Anthony Marsh
I reject your straw man argument. I am pointing to your assumption that
a bullet from the right front MUST exit the left rear.
Even a WC defender could believe in a big ol' hole in the rear of JFK's
cranium caused by a shot from behind.