From: "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
Date: 27 Sep 2012 23:11:16 -0400
Local: Thurs, Sep 27 2012 11:11 pm
Subject: Re: Lurkers, wanna make a friendly bet? Re: BINGO. Re: The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
I very much doubt anyone is "lurking" here through this gargantuan thread
Now, look at the ruler and the autopsists fingers you can see that the
Try starting at the entry and work your way up. LOOK at the outline of the
Read and comprehend Humes description at the supplemental autopsy and
LOOK at the photos, and x-rays and READ what Dr. Rose said and realize
Humes made no notes to speak of during the autopsy, and Finck and Boswell
Finck was evasive with the ARRB and Boswell apparently "lost" his (except
Humes twisted and turned on the line like a c-cup bra in a windstorm.
See it for what it is John, and then let the man RIP.
"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> In article <50637...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>I believe John C. is probably correct about this. HOWEVER, it's NOT down
> And of course JF offers his "impressive" evidence to support his
> 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
> And even McAdams can tell by eyeballing F8 that the defect below the ruler
> And where's that graphic I asked you to show us to support your
> And how do you explain the cluster of tiny opacities that can be seen on
> And they said those opacities were evidence that the bullet hit near the
> And do you think HB&F were hallucinating when they said that the rear
> 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
> 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
> You insult us with your feeble reasoning that I guess you think we're
> Lurkers...wanna bet JF doesn't address those points I made?
> How much?
> John Canal
>>"Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> On 9/24/2012 11:03 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>>>> Just because something is possible does not mean that it actually
>>>>>> And you insist that the circular defect in F8 (re. the link below) is
>>>>> 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
>>> It was obvious to any semi-intelligent person, not to Hoover.
>>>>>> Maybe your eyeight has deteriorated since your landmark work on the
>>>>>> So, you deny that Humes did not know about the throat wound that
>>>>> No. No one else. Just you.
>>>> Oh, John C. is the only person in the entire history of this newsgroup
>>> I think so. I do not see anyone rushing to his defense.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.