The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1) - alt.assassination.jfk

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.assassination.jfk
Message from discussion The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
Date: 10 Sep 2012 15:22:24 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Lines: 146
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <k2l1fg02t3n@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <caeruleo-7FF5CE.17481507092012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <504bab0b$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <k2h35901mee@drn.newsguy.com> <504debc4$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.1
Path: q11ni67729310wiw.1!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail

In article <504debc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>John C
>
>Please John, say what you want about me, but make it accurate ok?
>
>Re: F8. Yes, I said Proposed entry. In any event, whatever it is, it IS NOT 
>deep inside the cranial vault.

You sound like Harris when he states as fact the startle reactions 
absolutely prove there was a 285 shot.

Go see the originals and you might realize the truth....McAdams was 
correct...the replications were accurate and Zimmerman and Sturdivan were 
correct too.

>.John thinks so, I do not. I believe it is where I have always said it is 
>and that is approx. 2 inches down from the vertex.

Well your eyeballs and Harris' are the cream de la cream re. the value of 
evidence.

Unbelievable!

>(Which makes me believe you are correct and it is *the* entry)

You've alread said that a long time ago.

Tell me something I didn't know.

>And please don't misrepresent my opinion of Baden. You know better than that 

All that I do know is that you agree with him on the entry location and 
BOH wound issues...which are two of the most argued about matters in this 
entire case.

Go see the originals.

>John.


>John F.
>
>
>"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message 
>news:k2h35901mee@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <504bab0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>>I would love to help you, but seriously, the time it would take to read
>>>all of what you wrote, and digest it properly is something I just don't
>>>have.
>>>
>>>John Canal and I have been discussing these things for some time and I'll
>>>try and chime in with my 2 cents quickly.
>>>
>>>Re: "suturing" the scalp. There is no evidence in the photos we have in
>>>the public domain of anything even remotely resembling "sutures."
>>>
>>>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>>>and say, he is simply wrong about this.
>>
>> I don't expect Fiorentino to read this...he only has time to offer his 2
>> cents and then gets out of Dodge.
>>
>> Sure I'm wrong about 25+ PH eyewitnesses were wrong, Humes was wrong,
>> Boswell, was wrong, Finck was wrong, several Bethesda eyewitnesses
>> (including Ebersole and the morticians were wrong), Sturdvan was wrong,
>> Zimmerman was wrong, the ARRB forensic experts were wrong, and McAdams was
>> wrong too....ya right John.
>>
>> Just go John, don't read on...your time is too valuable to defend your
>> "position".
>>
>> Yes, that's right I said you think McAdams must be wrong too.....after
>> all, he recognized (as I think you do) that the circular defect in F8 was
>> deep inside JFK's cranial cavity.........sure, he then tried to say that
>> wasn't the entry...sure, what else was he going to say?
>>
>> Get real, John....heck even you "cautiously" said it might be the entry.
>>
>> Of course it's the entry and McAdams was right...as seen in F8, that
>> defect (whatever McAdams wants to call it) is deep inside the cranial
>> cavity.....WHICH MEANS, for anyone...who ________censored, THAT THE ENTRY
>> IN THE BOH PHOTOS, WHICH IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE COWLICK, IS PROOF THAT THE
>> SCALP WAS WORKED ON PRIOR TO THOSE PICTURES BEING TAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Heck, both Mitch Todd and Joe Durnavish, who have forgotten more about the
>> medical eidence than you'll ever know--or want to know (because you rely
>> on the B/S of Baden, just like Posner, and VB did), agree that's the
>> entry....
>>
>> ...and gee whiz just because Sturdivan (who you commended for his
>> arguments on the NAA), after examining the originals stereocopically,
>> agreed that Humes was correct, you guys throw him under the
>> bus.....relying on Baden.
>>
>> Same with Zimmerman......just like with Sturdivan, all of a sudden he's
>> wrong too.....he reads X-rays every bloody day as part of his profession
>> and, besides saying F8 shows Humes was right about the entry, saw a
>> cluster of tiny opacities on the X-ray (which he and Sturdivan agree
>> represented bone fragments) near the EOP.
>>
>> Of course you can't see them on the published copies of the
>> lateral...because, interestingly, the damn EOP area is cropped off.
>>
>> Golly, what a coincidence. Why don't ou ask Baden why that happened?
>>
>> Don't be so gullible, John...both Johns. Baden took you for a ride down
>> the yellow-brick road...you ought to open your eyes and get off that
>> train.
>>
>>>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.
>>
>>
>> Why do you think 12 photos were added to the receipt? Do you think it's a
>> coincidence that there are 12 photos in the invenory that show the BOH
>> scalp?
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>>>It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
>>>of the autopsy materials in the public domain.
>>>
>>>The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
>>>photo. I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
>>>matter also visible in the Z-film.
>>>
>>>John F.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>> 
>
>


-- 
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
