Message from discussion The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
Received: by 10.180.75.168 with SMTP id d8mr2797628wiw.1.1347304945140;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
Date: 10 Sep 2012 15:22:24 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
References: <caeruleo-7FF5CE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1347304944 126.96.36.199 (10 Sep 2012 14:22:24 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 10 Sep 2012 14:22:24 -0500, 188.8.131.52
In article <504debc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>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
>.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
>(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
Go see the originals.
>"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> 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
>>>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
>> 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
>> ...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
>>>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
>> 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 Canal