>>Anthony:

>>I believe John C. is probably correct about this. HOWEVER, it's NOT down
>>by the eop.

>>John F.

> And of course JF offers his "impressive" evidence to support his
> conclusion......he eyeballed it.

> Name one person who saw the body and said the entry was in the cowlick.

> I'll name you three forensic experts who said there was no cowlick entry.

> Cripes JF offer some evidence to support your conclusions, don't just tell
> us you conclusions.

> And even McAdams can tell by eyeballing F8 that the defect below the ruler
> that I've been calling the entry (see the link) is deep inside the cranial
> cavity. He's correct...what makes you think your eyeballs are any better
> than his?

> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

> And where's that graphic I asked you to show us to support your
> conclusion? You know the one that shows your alleged bullet entering the
> parietal loe of the brain and then creating a laceration through the brain
> that began at the tip of the occipital lobe?

> And how do you explain the cluster of tiny opacities that can be seen on
> the lateral near the EOP...you know the ones that the FPP's Dr. Joe Davis
> as well as Zimmerman and Sturdivan saw on the originals?

> And they said those opacities were evidence that the bullet hit near the
> EOP.

> And do you think HB&F were hallucinating when they said that the rear
> skull was framented all the way down to the EOP?

> Why is that important you might ask? I'll tell you.

> If the bullet had entered in the cowlick it would be impossible for the
> bottom half of it [the entry] to be seen in F8 if the bone was fragmented
> down to the EOP.

> Do you follow?

> Did you even try to follow that reasoning?

> No, of course not...BECAUSE YOUR EYEBALLS TELL YOU THE ENTRY AS SEEN IN F8
> IS IN THE COWLICK, right?

> You insult us with your feeble reasoning that I guess you think we're
> stupid enough to fall for?

> Lurkers...wanna bet JF doesn't address those points I made?

> How much?

> John Canal

>>"Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:506286a4$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> On 9/25/2012 4:23 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>> In article <506122b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>>>   Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>>>> On 9/24/2012 11:03 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>>> Marsh gets away with another insult:

>>>>>>> Just because something is possible does not mean that it actually
>>>>>>> happened. Hey, someone could have called Humes at home and told him
>>>>>>> about the throat wound. Sure, but no one did.
>>>>>>> Every television station and radio station in the world could have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> blaring it out. But Humes was not listening to the radio or watching
>>>>>>> TV.
>>>>>>> There was no TV in the morgue.
>>>>>>> Burkley could have told him, but he didn't. God could have told him,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> didn't.
>>>>>>> Now, if only Humes were minimally competent he should have called
>>>>>>> Parkland before the autopsy, but he didn't. So he assumed that the
>>>>>>> gauze
>>>>>>> strips placed in the head after death were leftovers from the
>>>>>>> operation
>>>>>>> on the head.

>>>>>> And you insist that the circular defect in F8 (re. the link below) is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the bullet hole...and that's after you, allegedly, were the first
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> to prove the Zapruder film was authentic?

>>>>> Make up your mind. Are you claiming it was circular or semi-circular?

>>>> Wow, like there's a significant difference.

>>> It just shows that Canal is making it up.

>>>>> You say one thing in one message and then the other in another.

>>>> Like you do far more often?  Like you said Hoover had proof that Oswald
>>>> really had been paid $6500 by Castro to assassinate JFK, and then
>>>> backpedalled and admitted that Hoover was looking at an obvious hoax
>>>> instead?

>>> It was obvious to any semi-intelligent person, not to Hoover.

>>>>>> Maybe your eyeight has deteriorated since your landmark work on the
>>>>>> Z-film
>>>>>> authenticity?

>>>>>> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

>>>>>> So, you deny that Humes did not know about the throat wound that
>>>>>> night
>>>>>> just like you deny that the circular defect is not the entry...even
>>>>>> though
>>>>>> "just about" every one else here agrees it's the entry....because you
>>>>>> can't admit you've been wrong for umpteen years about JFK not being
>>>>>> hit
>>>>>> anywhere in the BOH.

>>>>> No. No one else. Just you.

>>>> Oh, John C. is the only person in the entire history of this newsgroup
>>>> to believe that's the entry?  I rather think not.

>>> I think so. I do not see anyone rushing to his defense.

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