Lurkers, wanna make a friendly bet? Re: BINGO. Re: 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 Lurkers, wanna make a friendly bet? Re: BINGO. Re: The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
View parsed - Show only message text
From: "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Lurkers, wanna make a friendly bet? Re: BINGO. Re: The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)
Date: 27 Sep 2012 23:11:16 -0400
Lines: 185
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <506491eb$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <505e3f95$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <caeruleo-127AE6.16110823092012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <5060b494@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <k3qrsd0lc5@drn.newsguy.com> <506122b4$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <caeruleo-2CD2F8.10492525092012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <506286a4$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <506373c4@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <k40dih01htu@drn.newsguy.com>
Reply-To: "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
In-Reply-To: <k40dih01htu@drn.newsguy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
Path: t10ni23590865pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!newspump.sol.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John:

I very much doubt anyone is "lurking" here through this gargantuan thread 
of iniquity.........anyway, I simply ask you to look at the photo, or 
maybe go to Seaton's page and see how he has the bone out lined in blue 
and red.

Now, look at the ruler and the autopsists fingers you can see that the 
entry is only several inches down from the vertex.

Try starting at the entry and work your way up. LOOK at the outline of the 
missing bone.

Read and comprehend Humes description at the supplemental autopsy and 
where he marks the BASE of the wound through the brain. (Probably one of 
the few things he got right)

LOOK at the photos, and x-rays and READ what Dr. Rose said and realize 
that you are defending a man, (and I would say several) who were very 
confused.

Humes made no notes to speak of during the autopsy, and Finck and Boswell 
did little better.

Finck was evasive with the ARRB and Boswell apparently "lost" his (except 
for the facesheet) it would appear.

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 F.




"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message 
news:k40dih01htu@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <50637...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>>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
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
