Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
History Matters Gets the History Wrong
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Herbert Blenner
Oct 10, 2012, 3:13:50 PM10/10/12
to
History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
report’s placement of the fatal entry wound during his testimony of
September 7, 1978 and allowed his revision to stand until 1996.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
"The second day of testimony related to the medical evidence and analysis
in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of the
HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Capt.
James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
Humes publicly retracted the autopsy report's placement of the fatal entry
wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
In reality, Captain Humes and Commander Boswell retracted the placement of
the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,1977.
Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0166a.htm
"Dr. HUMES. . . . So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the
27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some
summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy
report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We
made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I
state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of
our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound
of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you
heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious
to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing of the
photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object
is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was,
above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is
the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it
is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull
under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus
making some distortion of anatomic structures to produce this picture."
"By the same token, the object in the lower portion, which I apparently
and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent
panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit
with the original autopsy findings."
John Canal
Oct 10, 2012, 9:40:44 PM10/10/12
to
In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
i.e. entry was below EOP, white spot, etc.
That said he still didn't definitively on 9/7/78 say that the wound wasn't
100 mm above the EOP and that Baden (not to mention Fisher and/or the
Rockefeller "experts") was wrong.
Humes vacillated and was vague, making excuses for the discrepancy that
Cornwell (and Baden et al) perceived existed. He said there was a
"semantics" issue. Really? "Semantics" = four inches?
In fact he seemed to loosely agree with where Baden said the entry was on
the X-rays....Baden of course said it was near the displaced fracture
which is almost four inches above the EOP...Humes saying, "It is a
fracture line that juts out from that".
Bullshit. That displaced fracture and the jutting out facture line was,
again, almost four inches above the EOP....and "slightly above" is hardly
nearly four inches!
Humes embarrassed himself.
Then he continued his conciliatory blabbering by saying he had "a little
trouble" with Baden et al's entry being 10 cm above the EOP.
"A little trouble"....is that all Humes...just "a little trouble"?
Cripes, man, stand your ground (I would have told him)...and don't be
intimidated by all the highly credentialed "experts".
And geesh, tell them precisely what "slightly above" means! It sure as
hell didn't mean four inches.
So then he continued his ill-fated testimony...sinking further and further
into the sink hole of ridiculousness. He "explained" that the reason the
entry in the photo appears to be so high was that the manner in which they
held him and the bony fractures distorted the picture.
Oh ya? Really Humes?
Earth to heaven...there was no bone behind the scalp when the BOH photos
were taken....and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
And the reason the damn entry is (doesn't just appear to be) so high above
the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
1966, 1977, and 1978.
In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
that the scalp was severely stretched. You said that the highly elliptical
shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
shot from six floors up.
What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
before the scalp was stretched. IOW, it would be impossible to have a
highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
skull wound.
Humes even told the ARRB that the skull wound was almost round, a little
ovid.
Again, had the scalp not been stretched the scalp wound would have also
been "almost round, a little ovid.
BTW, before Humes babbled to the HSCA on 9/16/77 he actually was more
definitive to Purdy on 8/17/77 when he implied the Clark Panel was wrong
about the autopsists miscalculating the location of the enrty and that it
was actually 100 mm above the EOP. Humes said, the saw the body and that
photos are inherently limited.
Memo from Andy Purdy, dtd 8/17/77 [ARRB MD 19]
Good show, Humes, but, while he was confident and definitive answering
Purdy's questions, he evidently was overwhelmed or intimidated about a
month later by Baden et al...hence his B/S about the entry being below the
EOP and/or being near the white spot in the photos.
John Canal
P.S. Marsh, before you tell me my theories are wacky, tell us once more
about your theory that most of your imaginary bullet that entered above
his right eye "blew-back" presumably in the direction of the shooter.
P.P.S.S. For PH, I couldn't resist.
>Source:
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_=
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>
>History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
>report=92s placement of the fatal entry wound during his testimony of
>
>History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
>September 7, 1978 and allowed his revision to stand until 1996.
>
>Source:
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
>
>"The second day of testimony related to the medical evidence and analysis
>in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of the
>HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Capt.
>James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
>Humes publicly retracted the autopsy report's placement of the fatal entry
>wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
>originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
>Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
>Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
>
>In reality, Captain Humes and Commander Boswell retracted the placement of
>the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,1977.
>Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
Yes, he did retract on 9/7/78 the ridiculous statement he made on 9/17/77,
>
>Source:
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
>
>"The second day of testimony related to the medical evidence and analysis
>in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of the
>HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Capt.
>James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
>Humes publicly retracted the autopsy report's placement of the fatal entry
>wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
>originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
>Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
>Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
>
>In reality, Captain Humes and Commander Boswell retracted the placement of
>the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,1977.
>Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
i.e. entry was below EOP, white spot, etc.
That said he still didn't definitively on 9/7/78 say that the wound wasn't
100 mm above the EOP and that Baden (not to mention Fisher and/or the
Rockefeller "experts") was wrong.
Humes vacillated and was vague, making excuses for the discrepancy that
Cornwell (and Baden et al) perceived existed. He said there was a
"semantics" issue. Really? "Semantics" = four inches?
In fact he seemed to loosely agree with where Baden said the entry was on
the X-rays....Baden of course said it was near the displaced fracture
which is almost four inches above the EOP...Humes saying, "It is a
fracture line that juts out from that".
Bullshit. That displaced fracture and the jutting out facture line was,
again, almost four inches above the EOP....and "slightly above" is hardly
nearly four inches!
Humes embarrassed himself.
Then he continued his conciliatory blabbering by saying he had "a little
trouble" with Baden et al's entry being 10 cm above the EOP.
"A little trouble"....is that all Humes...just "a little trouble"?
Cripes, man, stand your ground (I would have told him)...and don't be
intimidated by all the highly credentialed "experts".
And geesh, tell them precisely what "slightly above" means! It sure as
hell didn't mean four inches.
So then he continued his ill-fated testimony...sinking further and further
into the sink hole of ridiculousness. He "explained" that the reason the
entry in the photo appears to be so high was that the manner in which they
held him and the bony fractures distorted the picture.
Oh ya? Really Humes?
Earth to heaven...there was no bone behind the scalp when the BOH photos
were taken....and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
And the reason the damn entry is (doesn't just appear to be) so high above
the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
1966, 1977, and 1978.
In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
that the scalp was severely stretched. You said that the highly elliptical
shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
shot from six floors up.
What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
before the scalp was stretched. IOW, it would be impossible to have a
highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
skull wound.
Humes even told the ARRB that the skull wound was almost round, a little
ovid.
Again, had the scalp not been stretched the scalp wound would have also
been "almost round, a little ovid.
BTW, before Humes babbled to the HSCA on 9/16/77 he actually was more
definitive to Purdy on 8/17/77 when he implied the Clark Panel was wrong
about the autopsists miscalculating the location of the enrty and that it
was actually 100 mm above the EOP. Humes said, the saw the body and that
photos are inherently limited.
Memo from Andy Purdy, dtd 8/17/77 [ARRB MD 19]
Good show, Humes, but, while he was confident and definitive answering
Purdy's questions, he evidently was overwhelmed or intimidated about a
month later by Baden et al...hence his B/S about the entry being below the
EOP and/or being near the white spot in the photos.
John Canal
P.S. Marsh, before you tell me my theories are wacky, tell us once more
about your theory that most of your imaginary bullet that entered above
his right eye "blew-back" presumably in the direction of the shooter.
P.P.S.S. For PH, I couldn't resist.
>Source:
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_=
>0166a.htm
>
>"Dr. HUMES. . . . So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the
>27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some
>summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy
>report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We
>made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I
>state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of
>our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound
>of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the
>external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you
>heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious
>to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing of the
>photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object
>is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was,
>above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is
>the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it
>is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull
>under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus
>making some distortion of anatomic structures to produce this picture."
>
>"By the same token, the object in the lower portion, which I apparently
>and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent
>panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit
>with the original autopsy findings."
--
>
>"Dr. HUMES. . . . So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the
>27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some
>summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy
>report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We
>made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I
>state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of
>our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound
>of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the
>external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you
>heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious
>to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing of the
>photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object
>is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was,
>above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is
>the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it
>is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull
>under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus
>making some distortion of anatomic structures to produce this picture."
>
>"By the same token, the object in the lower portion, which I apparently
>and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent
>panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit
>with the original autopsy findings."
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Reagor King
Oct 11, 2012, 10:43:48 PM10/11/12
to
In article
<b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
closer and closer to being irrefutable beyond all reasonable doubt. ;-)
<b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
> It relative position to boney structure underneath it
> is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull
> under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus
> making some distortion of anatomic structures to produce this picture.
Oh yes, I needed that one too. Thanks! It's just getting closer and
> It relative position to boney structure underneath it
> is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull
> under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus
> making some distortion of anatomic structures to produce this picture.
closer and closer to being irrefutable beyond all reasonable doubt. ;-)
John Reagor King
Oct 11, 2012, 10:44:07 PM10/11/12
to
In article <k54u8...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Certainly not behind the entry in the scalp anyway. By now this is
incredibly obvious.
> and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
> discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
> hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
>
> And the reason the damn entry is (doesn't just appear to be) so high above
> the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
> undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
Also incredibly obvious. Except to a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of
irrational naysayers, I guess. But there will always be a few of those.
;-)
> Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
> was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
> the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
> 1966, 1977, and 1978.
Heh.
> In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
> who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
> that the scalp was severely stretched. You said that the highly elliptical
> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
> shot from six floors up.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
> before the scalp was stretched. IOW, it would be impossible to have a
> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
> skull wound.
>
> Humes even told the ARRB that the skull wound was almost round, a little
> ovid.
>
> Again, had the scalp not been stretched the scalp wound would have also
> been "almost round, a little ovid.
>
> BTW, before Humes babbled to the HSCA on 9/16/77 he actually was more
> definitive to Purdy on 8/17/77 when he implied the Clark Panel was wrong
> about the autopsists miscalculating the location of the enrty and that it
> was actually 100 mm above the EOP. Humes said, the saw the body and that
> photos are inherently limited.
>
> Memo from Andy Purdy, dtd 8/17/77 [ARRB MD 19]
And isn't this part interesting:
'Regarding the location of the entrance wound in the President's head, I
asked him whether the wound was in the upper or lower part of the head.
Dr. HUMES said that it was in the "lower head" area.'
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/
Image07.htm
> Good show, Humes, but, while he was confident and definitive answering
> Purdy's questions, he evidently was overwhelmed or intimidated about a
> month later by Baden et al...hence his B/S about the entry being below the
> EOP and/or being near the white spot in the photos.
>
> John Canal
>
> P.S. Marsh, before you tell me my theories are wacky,
Oh he will, don't worry. Every day is a new day. ;-)
> tell us once more
> about your theory that most of your imaginary bullet that entered above
> his right eye "blew-back" presumably in the direction of the shooter.
>
> P.P.S.S. For PH, I couldn't resist.
Give my regards to him, wouldya? Thanks. ;-)
incredibly obvious.
> and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
> discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
> hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
>
> And the reason the damn entry is (doesn't just appear to be) so high above
> the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
> undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
irrational naysayers, I guess. But there will always be a few of those.
;-)
> Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
> was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
> the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
> 1966, 1977, and 1978.
> In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
> who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
> that the scalp was severely stretched. You said that the highly elliptical
> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
> shot from six floors up.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
> before the scalp was stretched. IOW, it would be impossible to have a
> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
> skull wound.
>
> Humes even told the ARRB that the skull wound was almost round, a little
> ovid.
>
> Again, had the scalp not been stretched the scalp wound would have also
> been "almost round, a little ovid.
>
> BTW, before Humes babbled to the HSCA on 9/16/77 he actually was more
> definitive to Purdy on 8/17/77 when he implied the Clark Panel was wrong
> about the autopsists miscalculating the location of the enrty and that it
> was actually 100 mm above the EOP. Humes said, the saw the body and that
> photos are inherently limited.
>
> Memo from Andy Purdy, dtd 8/17/77 [ARRB MD 19]
'Regarding the location of the entrance wound in the President's head, I
asked him whether the wound was in the upper or lower part of the head.
Dr. HUMES said that it was in the "lower head" area.'
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/
Image07.htm
> Good show, Humes, but, while he was confident and definitive answering
> Purdy's questions, he evidently was overwhelmed or intimidated about a
> month later by Baden et al...hence his B/S about the entry being below the
> EOP and/or being near the white spot in the photos.
>
> John Canal
>
> P.S. Marsh, before you tell me my theories are wacky,
> tell us once more
> about your theory that most of your imaginary bullet that entered above
> his right eye "blew-back" presumably in the direction of the shooter.
>
> P.P.S.S. For PH, I couldn't resist.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
Oct 27, 2012, 11:44:14 PM10/27/12
to
not see any indication that there is no bone behind the scalp on the back
of the head or that the scalp is being stretched. Someone is holding a
ruler near the entrance wound and another hand is holding the head in
place for the photo. The only scalp that appears out of place is next to
the thumb and index finger, in addition to the flap.
***Ron Judge
John Canal
Oct 28, 2012, 11:15:14 AM10/28/12
to
[...]
>***I am looking at the color back of head photo in TKOAP, page 81. I do
>not see any indication that there is no bone behind the scalp on the back
>of the head
From just looking at the picture, how would anyone know one way or the
other whether or not there was bone behind the scalp?
>or that the scalp is being stretched.
You're right, there is nothing in that picture that indicates the scalp
"IS being stretched.
But how about if the scalp was undermined and stretched before the picture
was taken?
>Someone is holding a
>ruler near the entrance wound and another hand is holding the head in
>place for the photo. The only scalp that appears out of place is next to
>the thumb and index finger, in addition to the flap.
Here's one hint the picture is misleading; see all that scalp the
autopsist is holding? Don't you think that's a lot of scalp (it appears to
be relatively undamaged) that's forward of the scalp entry?
What I'm getting at is, if you'll refer to HSCA F 66 (the Dox drawing
showing where the HSCA thought the bone pieces blew out of his head from),
all that scalp the autopsist is holding (according to logic, as well as
the autopsists and other witnesses) was either missing or badly
shredded.....when the bone beginning a little forward of the cowlick blew
into DP or the limo.
So where did that scalp the auopsist is holding in the pic come from?
Hint: it was mosty stretchged up from the relatively undamaged (small
entry wound and a scalp tear which was sutured closed) occipital area.
Also, Boswell testified, not that you guys believe anything he said, that
when that photo was taken the bone behind the scalp was missing all the
way to the base of the ear.
The had to cover (for a possible open-casket funeral) the area in the
top/right/front where the scalp was either missing or damaged....according
to the morticians and autopsists they undermined and stretched (as well as
sutured) the scalp.
There's other evidence to support my conclusioons on this, but I'm writing
a book on this aspect of the case so that's enough on this subject right
now....although if you're really really interested Google up my posts on
this matter and piece by piece I've leaked the whole story...to the
chargin of my pulisher. PH, :-)
You might also check up der headwounds on McAdams' site for an article
titled, Misinterpreted Autopsy Photo (or something like that...it's been
so long I forget the title and am too lazy to look right now).
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
>***I am looking at the color back of head photo in TKOAP, page 81. I do
>not see any indication that there is no bone behind the scalp on the back
>of the head
other whether or not there was bone behind the scalp?
>or that the scalp is being stretched.
"IS being stretched.
But how about if the scalp was undermined and stretched before the picture
was taken?
>Someone is holding a
>ruler near the entrance wound and another hand is holding the head in
>place for the photo. The only scalp that appears out of place is next to
>the thumb and index finger, in addition to the flap.
autopsist is holding? Don't you think that's a lot of scalp (it appears to
be relatively undamaged) that's forward of the scalp entry?
What I'm getting at is, if you'll refer to HSCA F 66 (the Dox drawing
showing where the HSCA thought the bone pieces blew out of his head from),
all that scalp the autopsist is holding (according to logic, as well as
the autopsists and other witnesses) was either missing or badly
shredded.....when the bone beginning a little forward of the cowlick blew
into DP or the limo.
So where did that scalp the auopsist is holding in the pic come from?
Hint: it was mosty stretchged up from the relatively undamaged (small
entry wound and a scalp tear which was sutured closed) occipital area.
Also, Boswell testified, not that you guys believe anything he said, that
when that photo was taken the bone behind the scalp was missing all the
way to the base of the ear.
The had to cover (for a possible open-casket funeral) the area in the
top/right/front where the scalp was either missing or damaged....according
to the morticians and autopsists they undermined and stretched (as well as
sutured) the scalp.
There's other evidence to support my conclusioons on this, but I'm writing
a book on this aspect of the case so that's enough on this subject right
now....although if you're really really interested Google up my posts on
this matter and piece by piece I've leaked the whole story...to the
chargin of my pulisher. PH, :-)
You might also check up der headwounds on McAdams' site for an article
titled, Misinterpreted Autopsy Photo (or something like that...it's been
so long I forget the title and am too lazy to look right now).
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner
Oct 28, 2012, 11:23:27 AM10/28/12
to
On Oct 10, 9:40 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a-9bf4-9e9f334ff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Boswell testified that they stretched the scalp a few inches to close
the gap.
> You said that the highly elliptical
> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
> shot from six floors up.
Do you make it a habit to attribute dumber-than-dumb falsehoods to
your opponent? I ask because your other remark on stretching has me
shaking my head and wondering whether you post with a straight face.
In any event, my web page develops and applies the relationships
between the dimensions of an elliptical wound, the relative position
of the shooter and the orientation of the victim when shot.
http://hdblenner.com/punchingholes.htm
> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
> before the scalp was stretched.
Stretching ten inches of scalp by two inches represents a 20 percent
elongation. For this reason, stretching would have elongated one
dimension of the wound by a comparable 20 percent. For example, a 20
percent stretch of a 12.5-mm wound produces a 15-mm wound.
I would not be surprised if you still think that stretching adds a
comparable length to every portion of the scalp.
>IOW, it would be impossible to have a
> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
> skull wound.
The wound on the outer table of the skull was oval, not round, when
viewed normally by Humes. In fact he noted that the shape of the skull
wound corresponded with elliptical wound of the scalp.
I suspect that you are misinterpreting the report by Humes of an
almost round hole on the inner table of the skull when viewed from the
top of the head following removal of the skull cap and the brain.
Frankly, I do not expect someone who thinks that the shape of a wound is
related to the elevation of the shooter above their victim to understand
that every ellipse is round when viewed axially. So the reports of an
elongated oval on the outer table of the skull under normal viewing and an
almost round hole on the axial view of the inner table are consistent with
a highly tangential entry near the EOP and exit near the vertex of the
head.
In my opinion, Humes was struck with the cover story that he told during
the sixties.
http://hdblenner.com/coverstory.htm
Herbert
> In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a-9bf4-9e9f334ff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
the gap.
> You said that the highly elliptical
> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
> shot from six floors up.
your opponent? I ask because your other remark on stretching has me
shaking my head and wondering whether you post with a straight face.
In any event, my web page develops and applies the relationships
between the dimensions of an elliptical wound, the relative position
of the shooter and the orientation of the victim when shot.
http://hdblenner.com/punchingholes.htm
> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
> before the scalp was stretched.
elongation. For this reason, stretching would have elongated one
dimension of the wound by a comparable 20 percent. For example, a 20
percent stretch of a 12.5-mm wound produces a 15-mm wound.
I would not be surprised if you still think that stretching adds a
comparable length to every portion of the scalp.
>IOW, it would be impossible to have a
> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
> skull wound.
viewed normally by Humes. In fact he noted that the shape of the skull
wound corresponded with elliptical wound of the scalp.
I suspect that you are misinterpreting the report by Humes of an
almost round hole on the inner table of the skull when viewed from the
top of the head following removal of the skull cap and the brain.
Frankly, I do not expect someone who thinks that the shape of a wound is
related to the elevation of the shooter above their victim to understand
that every ellipse is round when viewed axially. So the reports of an
elongated oval on the outer table of the skull under normal viewing and an
almost round hole on the axial view of the inner table are consistent with
a highly tangential entry near the EOP and exit near the vertex of the
head.
In my opinion, Humes was struck with the cover story that he told during
the sixties.
http://hdblenner.com/coverstory.htm
Herbert
John Reagor King
Oct 28, 2012, 6:20:30 PM10/28/12
to
In article <5c681d0f-3fb6-43dc...@googlegroups.com>,
that there is a "flattened" aspect to the top of the head, as if the
scalp is being pulled above the edge of the remaining bone in the back
of the head. Also you need to understand the timeline of when during
the autopsy those photos were taken.
> Someone is holding a
> ruler near the entrance wound and another hand is holding the head in
> place for the photo. The only scalp that appears out of place is next to
> the thumb and index finger, in addition to the flap.
There is much more evidence about what does and does not appear in those
BOH photos than what is seen in the photos by themselves.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> ***I am looking at the color back of head photo in TKOAP, page 81. I do
> not see any indication that there is no bone behind the scalp on the back
> of the head or that the scalp is being stretched.
Try looking at the two BOH photos stereoscopically. It is quite obvious
> ***I am looking at the color back of head photo in TKOAP, page 81. I do
> not see any indication that there is no bone behind the scalp on the back
> of the head or that the scalp is being stretched.
that there is a "flattened" aspect to the top of the head, as if the
scalp is being pulled above the edge of the remaining bone in the back
of the head. Also you need to understand the timeline of when during
the autopsy those photos were taken.
> Someone is holding a
> ruler near the entrance wound and another hand is holding the head in
> place for the photo. The only scalp that appears out of place is next to
> the thumb and index finger, in addition to the flap.
BOH photos than what is seen in the photos by themselves.
John Canal
Oct 28, 2012, 7:38:58 PM10/28/12
to
In article <8dc4c681-27b5-41a9...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 10, 9:40=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a-9bf4-9e9f334ff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>s
>> >in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of th=
>e
>> >HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Cap=
>of
>> >the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,197=
the entry in it.
He was guessing at how much they stretched the scalp...it was probably the
morticians who actually undermined and stretched it anyway.
>> You said that the highly elliptical
>> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
>> shot from six floors up.
>
>Do you make it a habit to attribute dumber-than-dumb falsehoods to
>your opponent? I ask because your other remark on stretching has me
>shaking my head and wondering whether you post with a straight face.
And you post (with a straight face?) that the defect in the blow-up (see
the link below) with the red and green arrows pointing to it is not the
entry?
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
What the heck is it Herbert if it's not the entry?...remember, it's
centered in the photo titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull..." and
the HSCA used stereoscopic visualization to obviously say it's the
entry...plus Sturdivan and Zimmerman, who also used a stereoscopic viewer
agree it is the entry.
>In any event, my web page develops and applies the relationships
>between the dimensions of an elliptical wound, the relative position
>of the shooter and the orientation of the victim when shot.
So what...aren't you the one who said that if a bullet hits a two inch
thick plate of steel slanted away from it's trajectory the bullet would
disintegrate instead of deflecting?
Let me know if you think you didn't say something that ridiculous....so I
can check the folder I have with your name on it with hard copies of your
assertments.
>http://hdblenner.com/punchingholes.htm
>
>> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
>> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
>> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
>> before the scalp was stretched.
>
>Stretching ten inches of scalp by two inches represents a 20 percent
>elongation. For this reason, stretching would have elongated one
>dimension of the wound by a comparable 20 percent. For example, a 20
>percent stretch of a 12.5-mm wound produces a 15-mm wound.
Look, IMO, you should eliminate the scientific mumbo-jumbo that you try to
mask your wacky theories with and consider this: "If the skull entry was
near the EOP (and you can bet it was) then the entry in the scalp that's
seen in the BOH photos about four inches above the EOP pretty much proves
scientifically the rear scalp was stretched very roughly a little less
than four inches."
Your only hope that would show you are not making wacky statements about
how the scalp can't be stretched that much depends on either:
1) the skull entry as seen in the above graphic's blow-up NOT being the
entry...or....
2) the defect in the scalp in the BOH photos not being the entry.
good luck with either of those false hopes.
>I would not be surprised if you still think that stretching adds a
>comparable length to every portion of the scalp.
see above.
> >IOW, it would be impossible to have a
>> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
>> skull wound.
>
>The wound on the outer table of the skull was oval, not round, when
>viewed normally by Humes. In fact he noted that the shape of the skull
>wound corresponded with elliptical wound of the scalp.
But the LAST statement he made re. the shape of the skull entry was that
it was almost round, a little ovid, right?
>I suspect that you are misinterpreting the report by Humes of an
>almost round hole on the inner table of the skull when viewed from the
>top of the head following removal of the skull cap and the brain.
You suspect a lot of things...like the defect in the blow-up image is not
the entry?
Did you see the body or even the originals stereoscopically or something?
Tell us if you did because I really want to know how you have the nerve to
disagree with those who have?
>Frankly, I do not expect someone who thinks that the shape of a wound is
>related to the elevation of the shooter above their victim to understand
>that every ellipse is round when viewed axially. So the reports of an
>elongated oval on the outer table of the skull under normal viewing and an
>almost round hole on the axial view of the inner table are consistent with
>a highly tangential entry near the EOP and exit near the vertex of the
>head.
IMO, you do not believe anyone who disagrees with your wacky theories
understands too much, right?
>In my opinion, Humes was struck with the cover story that he told during
>the sixties.
>
>http://hdblenner.com/coverstory.htm
Sorry, and frankly, I'm not one of those who values your opinion very
much.
John Canal
>Herbert
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 10, 9:40=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a-9bf4-9e9f334ff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
>> >report=3D92s placement of the fatal entry wound during his testimony of
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
>> >September 7, 1978 and allowed his revision to stand until 1996.
>>
>> >Source:
>>
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
>>
>> >"The second day of testimony related to the medical evidence and analysi=
>>
>> >Source:
>>
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
>>
>s
>> >in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of th=
>e
>> >HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Cap=
>t.
>> >James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
>> >Humes publicly retracted the autopsy report's placement of the fatal ent=
>> >James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
>ry
>> >wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
>> >originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
>> >Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
>> >Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
>>
>> >In reality, Captain Humes and Commander Boswell retracted the placement =
>> >wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
>> >originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
>> >Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
>> >Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
>>
>of
>> >the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,197=
>7.
>> >Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
>>
>> Yes, he did retract on 9/7/78 the ridiculous statement he made on 9/17/77=
>> >Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
>>
>,
>> i.e. entry was below EOP, white spot, etc.
>>
>> That said he still didn't definitively on 9/7/78 say that the wound wasn'=
>> i.e. entry was below EOP, white spot, etc.
>>
>t
>> 100 mm above the EOP and that Baden (not to mention Fisher and/or the
>> Rockefeller "experts") was wrong.
>>
>> Humes vacillated and was vague, making excuses for the discrepancy that
>> Cornwell (and Baden et al) perceived existed. He said there was a
>> "semantics" issue. Really? "Semantics" =3D four inches?
>> 100 mm above the EOP and that Baden (not to mention Fisher and/or the
>> Rockefeller "experts") was wrong.
>>
>> Humes vacillated and was vague, making excuses for the discrepancy that
>> Cornwell (and Baden et al) perceived existed. He said there was a
>>
>> In fact he seemed to loosely agree with where Baden said the entry was on
>> the X-rays....Baden of course said it was near the displaced fracture
>> which is almost four inches above the EOP...Humes saying, "It is a
>> fracture line that juts out from that".
>>
>> Bullshit. That displaced fracture and the jutting out facture line was,
>> again, almost four inches above the EOP....and "slightly above" is hardly
>> nearly four inches!
>>
>> Humes embarrassed himself.
>>
>> Then he continued his conciliatory blabbering by saying he had "a little
>> trouble" with Baden et al's entry being 10 cm above the EOP.
>>
>> "A little trouble"....is that all Humes...just "a little trouble"?
>>
>> Cripes, man, stand your ground (I would have told him)...and don't be
>> intimidated by all the highly credentialed "experts".
>>
>> And geesh, tell them precisely what "slightly above" means! It sure as
>> hell didn't mean four inches.
>>
>> So then he continued his ill-fated testimony...sinking further and furthe=
>> In fact he seemed to loosely agree with where Baden said the entry was on
>> the X-rays....Baden of course said it was near the displaced fracture
>> which is almost four inches above the EOP...Humes saying, "It is a
>> fracture line that juts out from that".
>>
>> Bullshit. That displaced fracture and the jutting out facture line was,
>> again, almost four inches above the EOP....and "slightly above" is hardly
>> nearly four inches!
>>
>> Humes embarrassed himself.
>>
>> Then he continued his conciliatory blabbering by saying he had "a little
>> trouble" with Baden et al's entry being 10 cm above the EOP.
>>
>> "A little trouble"....is that all Humes...just "a little trouble"?
>>
>> Cripes, man, stand your ground (I would have told him)...and don't be
>> intimidated by all the highly credentialed "experts".
>>
>> And geesh, tell them precisely what "slightly above" means! It sure as
>> hell didn't mean four inches.
>>
>r
>> into the sink hole of ridiculousness. He "explained" that the reason the
>> entry in the photo appears to be so high was that the manner in which the=
>> into the sink hole of ridiculousness. He "explained" that the reason the
>y
>> held him and the bony fractures distorted the picture.
>>
>> Oh ya? Really Humes?
>>
>> Earth to heaven...there was no bone behind the scalp when the BOH photos
>> were taken....and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
>> discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
>> hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
>>
>> And the reason the damn entry is (doesn't just appear to be) so high abov=
>> held him and the bony fractures distorted the picture.
>>
>> Oh ya? Really Humes?
>>
>> Earth to heaven...there was no bone behind the scalp when the BOH photos
>> were taken....and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
>> discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
>> hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
>>
>e
>> the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
>> undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
>>
>> Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
>> was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
>> the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
>> 1966, 1977, and 1978.
>>
>> In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
>> who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
>> that the scalp was severely stretched.
>
>Boswell testified that they stretched the scalp a few inches to close
>the gap.
Gee, he also stated that one of the late-arriving skull pieces had part of
>> the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
>> undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
>>
>> Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
>> was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
>> the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
>> 1966, 1977, and 1978.
>>
>> In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
>> who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
>> that the scalp was severely stretched.
>
>Boswell testified that they stretched the scalp a few inches to close
>the gap.
the entry in it.
He was guessing at how much they stretched the scalp...it was probably the
morticians who actually undermined and stretched it anyway.
>> You said that the highly elliptical
>> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
>> shot from six floors up.
>
>Do you make it a habit to attribute dumber-than-dumb falsehoods to
>your opponent? I ask because your other remark on stretching has me
>shaking my head and wondering whether you post with a straight face.
the link below) with the red and green arrows pointing to it is not the
entry?
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
What the heck is it Herbert if it's not the entry?...remember, it's
centered in the photo titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull..." and
the HSCA used stereoscopic visualization to obviously say it's the
entry...plus Sturdivan and Zimmerman, who also used a stereoscopic viewer
agree it is the entry.
>In any event, my web page develops and applies the relationships
>between the dimensions of an elliptical wound, the relative position
>of the shooter and the orientation of the victim when shot.
thick plate of steel slanted away from it's trajectory the bullet would
disintegrate instead of deflecting?
Let me know if you think you didn't say something that ridiculous....so I
can check the folder I have with your name on it with hard copies of your
assertments.
>http://hdblenner.com/punchingholes.htm
>
>> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
>> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
>> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
>> before the scalp was stretched.
>
>Stretching ten inches of scalp by two inches represents a 20 percent
>elongation. For this reason, stretching would have elongated one
>dimension of the wound by a comparable 20 percent. For example, a 20
>percent stretch of a 12.5-mm wound produces a 15-mm wound.
mask your wacky theories with and consider this: "If the skull entry was
near the EOP (and you can bet it was) then the entry in the scalp that's
seen in the BOH photos about four inches above the EOP pretty much proves
scientifically the rear scalp was stretched very roughly a little less
than four inches."
Your only hope that would show you are not making wacky statements about
how the scalp can't be stretched that much depends on either:
1) the skull entry as seen in the above graphic's blow-up NOT being the
entry...or....
2) the defect in the scalp in the BOH photos not being the entry.
good luck with either of those false hopes.
>I would not be surprised if you still think that stretching adds a
>comparable length to every portion of the scalp.
> >IOW, it would be impossible to have a
>> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
>> skull wound.
>
>The wound on the outer table of the skull was oval, not round, when
>viewed normally by Humes. In fact he noted that the shape of the skull
>wound corresponded with elliptical wound of the scalp.
it was almost round, a little ovid, right?
>I suspect that you are misinterpreting the report by Humes of an
>almost round hole on the inner table of the skull when viewed from the
>top of the head following removal of the skull cap and the brain.
the entry?
Did you see the body or even the originals stereoscopically or something?
Tell us if you did because I really want to know how you have the nerve to
disagree with those who have?
>Frankly, I do not expect someone who thinks that the shape of a wound is
>related to the elevation of the shooter above their victim to understand
>that every ellipse is round when viewed axially. So the reports of an
>elongated oval on the outer table of the skull under normal viewing and an
>almost round hole on the axial view of the inner table are consistent with
>a highly tangential entry near the EOP and exit near the vertex of the
>head.
understands too much, right?
>In my opinion, Humes was struck with the cover story that he told during
>the sixties.
>
>http://hdblenner.com/coverstory.htm
much.
John Canal
>Herbert
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Oct 28, 2012, 7:44:00 PM10/28/12
to
>On Oct 10, 9:40=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a-9bf4-9e9f334ff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>s
>> >in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of th=
>e
>> >HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Cap=
>of
>> >the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,197=
> >IOW, it would be impossible to have a
>> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
>> skull wound.
>
>The wound on the outer table of the skull was oval, not round, when
>viewed normally by Humes. In fact he noted that the shape of the skull
>wound corresponded with elliptical wound of the scalp.
the entry (which it obviously is), but, FWIW, it certainly doesn't look
too elliptical to me.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>I suspect that you are misinterpreting the report by Humes of an
>almost round hole on the inner table of the skull when viewed from the
>top of the head following removal of the skull cap and the brain.
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
>> In article <b36f86bc-9a24-4b7a-9bf4-9e9f334ff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
>> >report=3D92s placement of the fatal entry wound during his testimony of
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >History Matters reports that Captain Humes retracted the autopsy
>> >September 7, 1978 and allowed his revision to stand until 1996.
>>
>> >Source:
>>
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
>>
>> >"The second day of testimony related to the medical evidence and analysi=
>>
>> >Source:
>>
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol1.htm
>>
>s
>> >in the case. Much of this was presented by Dr. Michael Baden, head of th=
>e
>> >HSCA's nine-member Medical Panel. This day also saw the testimony of Cap=
>t.
>> >James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
>> >Humes publicly retracted the autopsy report's placement of the fatal ent=
>> >James J. Humes, the lead prosector at the autopsy of President Kennedy.
>ry
>> >wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
>> >originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
>> >Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
>> >Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
>>
>> >In reality, Captain Humes and Commander Boswell retracted the placement =
>> >wound, which the Medical Panel determined was 4 inches away from the
>> >originally-noted spot. In 1992 for the Journal of the American Medical
>> >Association, and again in 1996 before the Assassinations Record Review
>> >Board, Humes retracted this retraction."
>>
>of
>> >the fatal entry wound during their joint testimonies of September 16,197=
>7.
>> >Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
>>
>> Yes, he did retract on 9/7/78 the ridiculous statement he made on 9/17/77=
>> >Humes retracted his retraction on September 7, 1978.
>>
>,
>> i.e. entry was below EOP, white spot, etc.
>>
>> That said he still didn't definitively on 9/7/78 say that the wound wasn'=
>> i.e. entry was below EOP, white spot, etc.
>>
>t
>> 100 mm above the EOP and that Baden (not to mention Fisher and/or the
>> Rockefeller "experts") was wrong.
>>
>> Humes vacillated and was vague, making excuses for the discrepancy that
>> Cornwell (and Baden et al) perceived existed. He said there was a
>> "semantics" issue. Really? "Semantics" =3D four inches?
>> 100 mm above the EOP and that Baden (not to mention Fisher and/or the
>> Rockefeller "experts") was wrong.
>>
>> Humes vacillated and was vague, making excuses for the discrepancy that
>> Cornwell (and Baden et al) perceived existed. He said there was a
>>
>> In fact he seemed to loosely agree with where Baden said the entry was on
>> the X-rays....Baden of course said it was near the displaced fracture
>> which is almost four inches above the EOP...Humes saying, "It is a
>> fracture line that juts out from that".
>>
>> Bullshit. That displaced fracture and the jutting out facture line was,
>> again, almost four inches above the EOP....and "slightly above" is hardly
>> nearly four inches!
>>
>> Humes embarrassed himself.
>>
>> Then he continued his conciliatory blabbering by saying he had "a little
>> trouble" with Baden et al's entry being 10 cm above the EOP.
>>
>> "A little trouble"....is that all Humes...just "a little trouble"?
>>
>> Cripes, man, stand your ground (I would have told him)...and don't be
>> intimidated by all the highly credentialed "experts".
>>
>> And geesh, tell them precisely what "slightly above" means! It sure as
>> hell didn't mean four inches.
>>
>> So then he continued his ill-fated testimony...sinking further and furthe=
>> In fact he seemed to loosely agree with where Baden said the entry was on
>> the X-rays....Baden of course said it was near the displaced fracture
>> which is almost four inches above the EOP...Humes saying, "It is a
>> fracture line that juts out from that".
>>
>> Bullshit. That displaced fracture and the jutting out facture line was,
>> again, almost four inches above the EOP....and "slightly above" is hardly
>> nearly four inches!
>>
>> Humes embarrassed himself.
>>
>> Then he continued his conciliatory blabbering by saying he had "a little
>> trouble" with Baden et al's entry being 10 cm above the EOP.
>>
>> "A little trouble"....is that all Humes...just "a little trouble"?
>>
>> Cripes, man, stand your ground (I would have told him)...and don't be
>> intimidated by all the highly credentialed "experts".
>>
>> And geesh, tell them precisely what "slightly above" means! It sure as
>> hell didn't mean four inches.
>>
>r
>> into the sink hole of ridiculousness. He "explained" that the reason the
>> entry in the photo appears to be so high was that the manner in which the=
>> into the sink hole of ridiculousness. He "explained" that the reason the
>y
>> held him and the bony fractures distorted the picture.
>>
>> Oh ya? Really Humes?
>>
>> Earth to heaven...there was no bone behind the scalp when the BOH photos
>> were taken....and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
>> discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
>> hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
>>
>> And the reason the damn entry is (doesn't just appear to be) so high abov=
>> held him and the bony fractures distorted the picture.
>>
>> Oh ya? Really Humes?
>>
>> Earth to heaven...there was no bone behind the scalp when the BOH photos
>> were taken....and the way JFK was held hardly caused the four inch
>> discrepancy (one's EOP is typically about 2-2.5 inches above one's
>> hairline and the entry is a good 6-7 inches above his hairline).
>>
>e
>> the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
>> undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
>>
>> Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
>> was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
>> the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
>> 1966, 1977, and 1978.
>>
>> In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
>> who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
>> that the scalp was severely stretched.
>
>Boswell testified that they stretched the scalp a few inches to close
>the gap.
>> the EOP in the photos is because the autopsists and the morticians
>> undermined and stretched the scalp before those photos were taken!
>>
>> Evidently HB&F forgot the scalp was stretched or didn't want to admit it
>> was because incredibly (to the ARRB) they didn't agree that the wound in
>> the photos was the entry....yes the same wound they said was the entry in
>> 1966, 1977, and 1978.
>>
>> In any case, Herbert, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you
>> who first mentioned something that was actually circumstantial evidence
>> that the scalp was severely stretched.
>
>Boswell testified that they stretched the scalp a few inches to close
>the gap.
Gee, he also stated that one of the late-arriving skull pieces had part of
the entry in it.
He was guessing at how much they stretched the scalp...it was probably the
morticians who actually undermined and stretched it anyway.
the entry in it.
He was guessing at how much they stretched the scalp...it was probably the
morticians who actually undermined and stretched it anyway.
>> You said that the highly elliptical
>> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
>> shot from six floors up.
>
>Do you make it a habit to attribute dumber-than-dumb falsehoods to
>your opponent? I ask because your other remark on stretching has me
>shaking my head and wondering whether you post with a straight face.
>> shape of the scalp wound in the photos was totally inconsistent with a
>> shot from six floors up.
>
>Do you make it a habit to attribute dumber-than-dumb falsehoods to
>your opponent? I ask because your other remark on stretching has me
>shaking my head and wondering whether you post with a straight face.
And you post (with a straight face?) that the defect in the blow-up (see
the link below) with the red and green arrows pointing to it is not the
entry?
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
What the heck is it Herbert if it's not the entry?...remember, it's
centered in the photo titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull..." and
the HSCA used stereoscopic visualization to obviously say it's the
entry...plus Sturdivan and Zimmerman, who also used a stereoscopic viewer
agree it is the entry.
the link below) with the red and green arrows pointing to it is not the
entry?
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
What the heck is it Herbert if it's not the entry?...remember, it's
centered in the photo titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull..." and
the HSCA used stereoscopic visualization to obviously say it's the
entry...plus Sturdivan and Zimmerman, who also used a stereoscopic viewer
agree it is the entry.
>In any event, my web page develops and applies the relationships
>between the dimensions of an elliptical wound, the relative position
>of the shooter and the orientation of the victim when shot.
>between the dimensions of an elliptical wound, the relative position
>of the shooter and the orientation of the victim when shot.
So what...aren't you the one who said that if a bullet hits a two inch
thick plate of steel slanted away from it's trajectory the bullet would
disintegrate instead of deflecting?
Let me know if you think you didn't say something that ridiculous....so I
can check the folder I have with your name on it with hard copies of your
assertments.
thick plate of steel slanted away from it's trajectory the bullet would
disintegrate instead of deflecting?
Let me know if you think you didn't say something that ridiculous....so I
can check the folder I have with your name on it with hard copies of your
assertments.
>http://hdblenner.com/punchingholes.htm
>
>> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
>> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
>> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
>> before the scalp was stretched.
>
>Stretching ten inches of scalp by two inches represents a 20 percent
>elongation. For this reason, stretching would have elongated one
>dimension of the wound by a comparable 20 percent. For example, a 20
>percent stretch of a 12.5-mm wound produces a 15-mm wound.
>
>> What I'm suggesting is that, not only was the scalp wound "moved up" due
>> to the stretching of the scalp, but also the shape of the scalp wound was
>> grossly distorted...i.e., made much more elliptical that what it was
>> before the scalp was stretched.
>
>Stretching ten inches of scalp by two inches represents a 20 percent
>elongation. For this reason, stretching would have elongated one
>dimension of the wound by a comparable 20 percent. For example, a 20
>percent stretch of a 12.5-mm wound produces a 15-mm wound.
Look, IMO, you should eliminate the scientific mumbo-jumbo that you try to
mask your wacky theories with and consider this: "If the skull entry was
near the EOP (and you can bet it was) then the entry in the scalp that's
seen in the BOH photos about four inches above the EOP pretty much proves
scientifically the rear scalp was stretched very roughly a little less
than four inches."
Your only hope that would show you are not making wacky statements about
how the scalp can't be stretched that much depends on either:
1) the skull entry as seen in the above graphic's blow-up NOT being the
entry...or....
2) the defect in the scalp in the BOH photos not being the entry.
good luck with either of those false hopes.
mask your wacky theories with and consider this: "If the skull entry was
near the EOP (and you can bet it was) then the entry in the scalp that's
seen in the BOH photos about four inches above the EOP pretty much proves
scientifically the rear scalp was stretched very roughly a little less
than four inches."
Your only hope that would show you are not making wacky statements about
how the scalp can't be stretched that much depends on either:
1) the skull entry as seen in the above graphic's blow-up NOT being the
entry...or....
2) the defect in the scalp in the BOH photos not being the entry.
good luck with either of those false hopes.
>I would not be surprised if you still think that stretching adds a
>comparable length to every portion of the scalp.
see above.
>comparable length to every portion of the scalp.
> >IOW, it would be impossible to have a
>> highly elliptical scalp entry wound and an corresponding almost round
>> skull wound.
>
>The wound on the outer table of the skull was oval, not round, when
>viewed normally by Humes. In fact he noted that the shape of the skull
>wound corresponded with elliptical wound of the scalp.
But the LAST statement he made re. the shape of the skull entry was that
it was almost round, a little ovid, right?
Also, not that you think the defect in the blow-up (see the link below) is
it was almost round, a little ovid, right?
the entry (which it obviously is), but, FWIW, it certainly doesn't look
too elliptical to me.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>I suspect that you are misinterpreting the report by Humes of an
>almost round hole on the inner table of the skull when viewed from the
>top of the head following removal of the skull cap and the brain.
You suspect a lot of things...like the defect in the blow-up image is not the
entry?
Did you see the body or even the originals stereoscopically or something?
Tell us if you did because I really want to know how you have the nerve to
disagree with those who have?
entry?
Did you see the body or even the originals stereoscopically or something?
Tell us if you did because I really want to know how you have the nerve to
disagree with those who have?
>Frankly, I do not expect someone who thinks that the shape of a wound is
>related to the elevation of the shooter above their victim to understand
>that every ellipse is round when viewed axially. So the reports of an
>elongated oval on the outer table of the skull under normal viewing and an
>almost round hole on the axial view of the inner table are consistent with
>a highly tangential entry near the EOP and exit near the vertex of the
>head.
>related to the elevation of the shooter above their victim to understand
>that every ellipse is round when viewed axially. So the reports of an
>elongated oval on the outer table of the skull under normal viewing and an
>almost round hole on the axial view of the inner table are consistent with
>a highly tangential entry near the EOP and exit near the vertex of the
>head.
IMO, you do not believe anyone who disagrees with your wacky theories
understands too much, right?
understands too much, right?
>In my opinion, Humes was struck with the cover story that he told during
>the sixties.
>
>http://hdblenner.com/coverstory.htm
--
>the sixties.
>
>http://hdblenner.com/coverstory.htm
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
0 new messages