The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)

[John Reagor King]

To be clear from the beginning: I am not a forensics or medical expert;
never have been, never will be. I am a retired public schoolteacher,
period, who has simply been very interested in this assassination since
the time of the twenty-fifth anniversary of it in 1988. Since then I have
studied a truly gigantic amount of material relating to many different
aspects of the case, but I do not claim for a moment to be one of the
world's foremost expert researchers on this subject. The only thing I can
safely claim truthfully is that I know more about the assassination than
does the average person.

However, it is a myth that a person absolutely *must* be an expert in a
field to be correct about certain aspects of that field only. To say
otherwise is tantamount to making the implausible claim that unless I am
an expert astronomer, there is no possibility that I will correctly
identify which objects in the sky are the moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
Polaris, or correctly identify the constellations of the Big Dipper,
Orion, and the Pleides. But in fact, without being anything even remotely
close to an expert astronomer I have still correctly identified all of
those many times, merely due to a healthy amateur interest in astronomy.
I don't have to be an expert in astronomy; all I have to do is know
*enough* about how to identify those particular things.

It has also been seen many times throughout recorded history that the
layman will catch things the experts miss, particularly when it relates to
a more general, overall picture. The common saying that one "fails to see
the forest because of the trees" relates to this. The expert is sometimes
seeing the individual "trees" but not comprehending the overall "forest."
In other words the expert, being so intimately involved with the minutiae
of the field of study, will sometimes fail to notice something more
general that can leap out at the layman who is objectively standing
outside of the field of expertise.

We already have a superb example of this very thing in connection with the
very assassination which is the topic of this newsgroup, in the form of
Steve Barber. Mr. Barber, listening to a very poor quality reproduction
of the DPD dictabelt recording on a thin bendable plastic record that was
included in a magazine, noticed something all, or nearly all, of the
bonafide acoustics experts had missed up to that time, and his
observations were made public, prompting the experts to re-examine the
dictabelt.

Now, do not mistake me. I know perfectly well that being a true expert
in a particular field is a superb advantage when discussing that field.
Of course it is. But that alone does not always guarantee that the
expert is right 100% of the time and the layman is wrong 100% of the
time, especially when the layman is discussing only one particular
aspect of that field, or certain individual aspects only.

Again, I am not exactly an "expert" in forensics, pathology, medical
evidence from autopsies, etc. However, I've been studying this
particular autopsy extensively since 1988, and most especially since
2002, and that includes having viewed the photos and x-rays from it many
times, reading what others have said about this evidence many times,
including what many experts in these fields have said many times,
reading the complete, unabridged statements from the original documents,
of the autopsists and others present at the autopsy many times, and so
forth. An absolute expert in these fields I may not be, but at this
late date I'm not exactly a novice either. And it is not an absolute
requirement for me to be an expert to write knowledgeably and plausibly
about certain aspects only of this autopsy, and these photographs. All
that is required is that I know *enough* about these aspects only.

Regarding the chronological ordering of the autopsy photographs, meaning
the approximate order in which they are taken, I shall begin with what I
consider to be plain common-sense notions from a person to some extent
standing objectively outside these fields of expertise. In this first
premise, I rather doubt that the majority of the foremost experts
worldwide in any field that relates to the autopsy of a deceased human
would especially disagree with what I'm about to say next:

Simply common sense would indicate that photographs of an autopsy would
fall into two categories:

1. Photographs taken of the body in its initial state, as the body was
upon arrival at the autopsy, prior to any work being done on the body by
the autopsists.

2. Photographs taken of the body, perhaps in stages, after the
autopsists have begun work on the body.

For reasons that are so obvious that it would be embarrassing to give
them aloud, in writing, or in any other form of communication, it would
be impossible for the photos in category 2 to be taken prior to the
photos in category 1.

I mean, duh. ;-)

Rather obviously I don't need to be anything even remotely like an
expert in any field related to autopsies to be correct without the
slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken in my premise of
those two categories of autopsy photographs. In fact, to come to that
conclusion I literally do not have to know anything more than to simply
know what a photograph is, and know what an autopsy is.

:P

I will now proceed to do what I have been "threatening" to do since at
least August of last year, and that is to examine a further refinement
of chronological ordering of the autopsy photos that would fall into
category 2, the photos taken after the autopsists had begun to work on
the body, along with an extensive discussion of crucial issues that are
related. I shall use as my starting point an article posted by John
Canal in my other "final photographs" thread, and incorporating his
corrections made in another article in that thread. Here Mr. Canal is
identifying these photographs by the numbering given in ARRB document MD
13, which is the "Signed Military Inventory of Autopsy Photos and
X-Rays" dating from November, 1966. The first page of that document can
be seen here,

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/
Image00.htm

and all subsequent pages can be viewed by clicking "Next."

> Part II-Photographic Materials begins with a list of the 4" X 5" Black and
> White Negatives with Prints.

Mr. Canal here is referring to the list of photographs which begins on
page 4 of the document, and is numbered 1 through 52.

> Nos. 1-10 were taken early

Correct. All of these clearly fall into what I have called above
category 1, photos that were taken of the body after its arrival but
before any work had yet been done on it by the autopsists. Photos 1
through 4 are of the left side of the head. Here is one of those photos:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg

Numbers 5 and 6 are of the right side. Here is one of those:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w
/s400/00h.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.JPG

Numbers 7 though 10 are of the superior view of the head, i.e. with the
camera pointed at the top of the head as the body is laying on the
autopsy table. Here is one of those:

http://dialoghiconpietroautier.myblog.it/media/02/01/1532129132.jpg

All of these clearly show a great deal of congealed blood in the hair,
and some of the damage that is visible to the head, including some
protruding bone most obvious in the photos taken of the right side of
the head. Clearly this is before the autopsists have peeled back hair
and scalp to examine the full extent of the damage to the skull
underneath. It should also be noted that these photos, none of which of
course show the back of the head, are quite consistent with the
statements of the majority of witnesses who saw the damage to the head
at any time between the instant the fatal damage was inflicted, and the
beginning of the autopsy when these very photos were taken. The
majority of these witnesses did not describe any significant opening in
the skull, through which one could see brain, on any part of the head
which can be seen in these photos. In other words, almost no one
described any such opening in the skull on the left, right, or top of
his head. Often, when claims are made are made of a serious
contradiction between the majority of the witness statements and the
findings of the autopsy, this matter is overlooked. These 10
photographs, showing the head in the condition in which the body
arrived, agree quite well with what these witnesses noticed, and didn't
notice, about the *top* and *sides* of the head. It is only regarding
the *back* of the head, which is not even shown in these 10 photos, that
the apparent contradiction arises.

But there is one primary piece of photographic evidence which does, on
the surface, seem to be seriously inconsistent with these 10 photos, and
that is the Zapruder film. Immediately after the head shot, the right
side of the face is suddenly and completely obscured by very large open
flaps of scalp and bone, all of which is entirely forward of the right
ear, quite obvious, horrifically obvious, for example, in frame 335:

http://jfkhistory.com/335.png

Yet we do not see such wide open flaps nearly as large in these photos
from the autopsy, this being most especially in photos 5 and 6 of the
right side of the head. Why does this differ so dramatically from the
frames following 313 in the film? Is it evidence of forgery of the
film? Is it evidence of alteration to the damage to the head at some
point between when the film was shot and when the body arrived at
Bethesda and then these 10 photos were taken?

The most plausible explanation is a good deal more straightforward, does
not involve dismissing the majority of the witness statements, and does
not involve dismissing the Zapruder film as faked or altered in any way.
It DOES, however, involve an alteration to the appearance of the damage
to the head, but not by any "conspirator," and certainly not for the
purpose of intentionally disguising this damage. Alteration that was
done by one person, possibly as little as sixty seconds after the bullet
struck the head. And there is more than sufficient evidence to support
this view.

Some of the closest witnesses to the limousine at the time of the head
shot did indeed corroborate, at least fairly well, the appearance of the
damage to the right side of the head that is seen in the film, meaning
that they corroborated that this was the way the damage appeared *at*
*that* *moment* immediately after the head shot, and before the
President fell to his left and out of view as his wife climbed onto the
trunk. Bill Newman, for example, was one of the closest of all, with a
horrifyingly clear view, since the President was almost directly in
front of him at the moment the damage to the head was inflicted, and Mr.
Newman was furthermore standing very close to the street. Although
Newman made a few obvious mistakes, the most obvious being the claim
that the President's right ear had come off, which it hadn't, he has
been fairly consistent over the years that the damage he saw suddenly
appear on the head involved the head essentially exploding open, though
Mr. Newman has worded it differently on different occasions, and since
he was viewing the right side of the head at this instant, it is fairly
obvious that he was seeing what is also seen in the film. In some of
his statements Mr. Newman has even clarified that his impression was
that the shot came from the President's right because it was the right
side of the head that exploded open.

Zapruder himself also consistently described something very similar as
he watched this same damage suddenly appear on the head through his
viewfinder, saying specifically to the WC that the head "opened up."
Since once again it was the right side of the head that Zapruder was
looking at at that moment, it is difficult to believe that he was seeing
anything significantly different from what is seen in his film.

But the witness claims suddenly change with the first witness, besides
the wife of the slain man, to get a close-up look at the damage to the
head. That person is, of course, Clint Hill. Starting with him, and
continuing through all subsequent witnesses who saw the damage before
the limousine reached Parkland, after the limousine reached Parkland,
inside the hospital, a few who saw the damage both in Dallas and at
Bethesda, and ending with the new witnesses at Bethesda seeing the
damage for the first time, there is a consistent *lack* of description
of the glaringly obvious huge flaps of scalp and bone forward of the
right ear that we see in the film, and suggested by some of the closest
bystanders.

This is due to the alteration of the appearance of that damage by the
witness immediately preceding Hill, an alteration that could have only
been done by one person: the wife of the man whose head had just
exploded open on the right side.

We all know of course about her climbing out on the trunk at the same
time Hill rushed forward, jumped on the trunk, and urged her back into
her seat. By the time the limousine passes out of view in the film she
appears to be almost all the way back in the seat, but Agent Hill has
not yet pulled himself far enough forward to be able to look down into
the seat and see the President's head. And unfortunately the only film
to show the limousine at a time between the end of the Zapruder film and
when the limousine reached the entrance ramp to the freeway, the Daniel
film, shows no clear view of Hill on the trunk.

It is thus impossible to know precisely how much time elapsed between
the head shot, and the time that Clint Hill got his first close look at
JFK's head in the back seat. But it almost certainly wasn't very long
at all. Jacqueline Kennedy had rapidly changed the appearance of the
head damage as soon as she had climbed back in the seat and had her
husband's head in her lap, so that when Hill got his first closeup look,
the damage was significantly different in appearance from that seen in
the Zapruder film, and that described by some of the witnesses who saw
that damage at the instant it was first inflicted. There is plenty of
evidence to support this assertion, and it comes with the sudden and
consistent change of description starting with Hill and running
consistently all the way to the Bethesda witnesses and finally ending
with these 10 autopsy photographs, and the difference between what is
shown there, and is shown at the opposite end of the timeline, the film
shot of the right side of the head at the instant the damage was
inflicted.

If that weren't enough, there are the words of Jacqueline Kennedy
herself on this matter. She spoke these words aloud to the Warren
Commission on Friday, June 5, 1964. In the original printing of her
testimony the following September, the words were omitted, and replaced
with "reference to wounds deleted." But subsequently those words were
made public and preserved for posterity:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing ? I
suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you
know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

While this is, perhaps, not as clear a description of what she did as it
might have been ? she did not, for example, specifically say anything to
the effect of, "I closed those large flaps of scalp and bone that were
forward of his right ear" ? what she did say makes it more than
sufficiently plain that she had to have done exactly that. It is
especially plain that this is obviously what she did when we notice the
sudden change of description that begins with the very next person to
see JFK's head up close and remains quite consistent through
approximately forty more witnesses all the way to Bethesda, and then the
photographic evidence of the earliest photos taken at the autopsy as
compared with the earliest photographic evidence of the instant that the
damage was first inflicted in Dealey Plaza.

I now move on to the next set of autopsy photographs.

> Nos. 11 & 12 show the back wound, but also show the BOH scalp...these two
> were taken ****LATE**** after midnight and after the BOH scalp was
> repaired.

This is one of those photos:

http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/.js/jfk05.jpg

> Nos. 15 & 16 show the BOh scalp...these two were also taken ****LATE****.

This is one of those photos:

http://static.amazings.es/media/2011/11/JFK4.jpg

> Nos. 17 & 18 depict the missile wound in the posterior skull after the
> brain was removed....both were taken ****LATE****.

This is one of those photos:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20J
FK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-F8.jpg

> Total B & W pictures (Nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, & 18) taken late =
> 6....account for three filmholders.
> ***************************************

Without yet getting into Mr. Canal's contention of how late these photos
were taken, and most especially of what had supposedly been done with
the scalp by the time four of them were taken, let me first discuss the
two photos omitted from his list, 13 and 14. These are of course the
photographs of President Kennedy looking down at his face and torso, and
showing the tracheotomy on the front of his throat that had been
performed at Parkland across a bullet wound. As there is again no clear
indication in these photos that the autopsists had as yet done any work
on the body, these also would almost certainly fall into category 1.
Here is one of those photos:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/JFK-AUTOPSY.jpg

On the other hand, photos 17 and 18 clearly belong in category 2, photos
taken after the autopsists had begun their work on the body, the key
phrase of course being "after the brain was removed." ;-)

But what about photos 11 and 12, and 15 and 16? Mr. Canal, above, also
puts them late, and thus in what I've called category 2. This means
they would also have been taken after the autopsists had begun their
work. Yet, is there any evidence in the photos themselves,
independently of any other evidence, which demonstrates that anything
had yet been done to the body?

Without yet getting into anything else that had been done to the body,
there is one thing in these photos that is quite different from what we
see in photos 1 through 10, and in 13 and 14:

Much of the congealed blood has obviously been cleaned out of the hair
in photos 11, 12, 15, and 16.

Now this, taken all by itself, might at first glance seem to give no
clear indication that anything *else* had yet been done to the body,
such as any examination of the damage to the skull, of the damage to the
brain, or the removal of the brain, just because a lot of the blood had
now been cleaned out of the hair. But in fact this aspect alone of what
is seen in these photos presents a strong indication of relative
chronology.

Further down in the list are the color photos that correspond to these
black and white photos, and at that point I will discuss my present
views on the chronology of these photos much more extensively.

> Part II continues with a list of of Black and White Negatives---with No
> Prints Available. They include nos. 19-25
> ********************************************

All of these black and white negatives are described as being different
views of the brain, and thus fall into category 2.

Obviously. ;-)

> Part II also includes a list of Color Transparencies, Color Negatives, and
> Color Prints.
>
> Nos. 26 -37 are of JFK's right side, left side, and the top of his
> head...all taken early.

These of course are the color photos that correspond to 1 through 10
above. Here is one of the color photos of the right side of the head:

http://jackiekilledjfk.webs.com/Tippit%20autopsy.jpg

(Interestingly this photo is titled ?Tippit autopsy? on that website.
:P )

> Nos. 38 & 39 show the back wound as well as the BOH...they were taken
> ****LATE****.

These correspond to the black and white photos 11 and 12 above.

> Nos. 40 & 41 show the trach incision/throat wound.....both taken early.

Corresponding to 13 and 14 above.

> Nos. 42 & 43 show the BOH scalp....both were taken
> ****LATE**** after the BOH scalp had been repaired.

Corresponding to 15 and 16 above. Here is one of those photos:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPuIiynTRkI/AAAAAAAAHwI/zzbCDTLLYlg
/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

> Nos. [44] & [45] show the inside of the skull after the brain was
> removed...taken ****LATE****.

Corresponding to 17 and 18 above.

> Nos. [46]-52 were taken during the Supplement[a]ry Autopsy and show the brain.
> ****************

This of course is after the autopsy proper. These are photos of the
brain only, after it was removed from the body.

To be quite clear, Mr. Canal?s position is that these twelve photos were
taken late in the autopsy proper, and thus all belong in what I am
calling category 2:

Number 11
Number 12
Number 15
Number 16
Number 17
Number 18
Number 38
Number 39
Number 42
Number 43
Number 44
Number 45

As I have established above, there isn?t really a serious contradiction
between the majority witness statements and what is shown in the
category 1 photos regarding the damage to the sides and top of the head.
And as I also established, there is a plausible reason to explain the
apparent contradiction between the damage on the right side seen in the
Zapruder film only (and no other photographic evidence) and the few
witnesses who saw that damage in the very short time between the instant
it was inflicted and when JFK fell to his left and out of view as Jackie
climbed onto the trunk.

But now, with these category 2 photos, numbers 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39,
42, and 43 in particular, which are the photos which show the back of
the head, we get into what appears to be a far more serious
contradiction between the majority witness statements and what is shown
here, which is of course directly related to the most serious
controversy that has ever arisen in this case, whether or not there were
multiple shooters. As I have demonstrated above, there is no serious
contradiction between the majority statements and the damage to the
sides and top of the head shown at the autopsy, but regarding the back
of the head, these photos do not seem to even remotely represent what
these witnesses said.

What?s going on here? If the majority witness statements are so
accurate about the damage to the top and sides of the head, particularly
the right side, as it appeared after Jacqueline Kennedy closed the large
flaps seen in the Zapruder film, but not seen in any subsequent
photographic evidence, why wouldn?t they be just as accurate about the
damage in the back of the head which they also viewed after she had
closed the flaps?

As I noted above, Clint Hill was the first person to view the damaged
head up close after Mrs. Kennedy had dramatically changed the appearance
of the damage on the right side of the head. Thus he, and the majority
of the witnesses after him, did not describe any large open flaps of
bone and scalp on the right side of the head. This lack of description
of those flaps, which John Canal has called the ?Devil?s Ear,? is a
consistent thread through their statements all the way to witnesses
seeing the body for the first time at Bethesda. But another claim is
just as consistent among these same witnesses, and it again begins with
Clint Hill: there was a significant hole in the back of the head, with
quite a few witnesses also adding that they could see part of the brain
through the hole.

This time, there seems to be no photographic evidence to bear them out.
Well, almost none.

Many have noted in the Zapruder film, in frames such as 335 that I cited
above, that there is a misshapen aspect to the back of the head there.
Certainly nothing like a hole can be made out with anything even
remotely close to certainty, and this time there are also no obvious
open flaps of scalp and bone such as those forward of the right ear.
But there?s definitely something wrong back there.

For nearly a decade here I have not tired of noting that it does not
take a day of medical training in one?s entire life to identify which
parts of the head are the top, right side, left side, and back (or
rear). One does not have to be even remotely close to an ?expert.? The
average ten-year-old human child can correctly identify each of these
parts of the head without the slightest possibility of being even
slightly mistaken.

Thus it is beyond the realm of plausibility that this many witnesses,
numbering approximately forty in all, would be correct about how the top
and sides of the head appeared (after Mrs. Kennedy made her dramatic
change to the appearance of the right side), but suddenly become
?incorrect? about the appearance of the back of the head. These
witnesses include one who saw the head before the limousine reached
Parkland, more who saw the head outside Parkland before the President
was taken inside, more who saw it inside the hospital, more who saw it
at Bethesda before the autopsists began their work, and even a few who
saw the head in Dallas and Bethesda, and said it still looked the same
as it had in Dallas.

Let me once again be clear about the very consistent claims these
witnesses made:

No wide open flaps on the right side of the head, nor anything about a
hole in the head on the top or either side.

And an obvious hole in the rear of the head.

Yet we see nothing even remotely like that hole in the posterior of the
head in photographs 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43. Why would this
be?

The answer, in fact, is quite simple, and quite plausible.

Turning aside for a moment from those photographs, and concentrating on
the witness statements only, let?s assume, for the moment, that the
witnesses were correct, and that the hole really was there. Why didn?t
Mrs. Kennedy close up that hole too, when she closed up the forward
flaps?

Simple: it wasn?t caused by open flaps of bone and scalp, so it was not
something she could close.

So what was the cause of that hole then?

An extremely large number of people over the past forty-eight years
since the twenty-six Warren Commission volumes were released,
practically all of them believers in multiple gunmen, have said that it
was a hole made by bone being completely blasted out of the skull. In
other words the hole was there, because the bone was completely missing.
And certainly this would explain why Mrs. Kennedy would be unable to
close up the hole. Nearly all of these people assume that this would be
the only possible cause of such a hole being there.

But is it really true that it is the only possible cause? No, it is
not. And one doesn?t have to be anything even remotely close to an
?expert? in forensics to understand it.

Such a hole can instead be caused by an entirely different phenomenon:
severely fractured bone combined with a rip or tear in the scalp with no
bone actually being missing from the skull and no scalp actually being
missing either. When the bone in the skull is severely cracked or
fractured, this means that the fractured pieces of bone are no longer
attached to each other, or to the rest of the skull, although they will
often still be attached to the scalp. If this is combined with a rip or
tear in the scalp, these fractured pieces of bone can be displaced,
meaning that they can be moved from side to side or up and down. It
would take nothing more than two such fractured pieces of bone, both of
which are no longer attached to the rest of the skull, combined with
this rip in the scalp, to be displaced to the sides, one to the right
and one to the left, or for one to be displaced upward and the other to
be displaced downward, and there will indeed be a quite obvious hole
through which the brain can be seen, depending on how far the two pieces
of bone are displaced.

Does this phenomenon require the bullet to exit through that hole? No,
because it does not involve anything being blasted out of the head in
that direction.

It will not require me to be clairvoyant to predict that many people
will disagree with this explanation for that hole in the back of JFK?s
head.

But what it also will not take any clairvoyancy to predict is that it
will be difficult to make a plausible argument that it is impossible for
such a hole in *a* person?s head to be created in this way *in*
*principle*.

Now is there something, anything from the autopsy which might, at least
maybe, support this possibility? Actually there is, and it is something
I have not mentioned yet: an x-ray.

Here is a lateral x-ray of JFK?s head:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20J
FK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

It can of course be seen that the most obvious area where bone is
completely missing is on the right side and forward. But look at the
back of the skull. There are several obvious cracks or fractures from
high in the read, and low in the rear. Still, none of those appear to
be nearly wide enough to account for the hole that so many witnesses
described.

But to proceed further, we may first examine this common-sense
assumption:

If a piece of fractured bone can be displaced in one direction, it can
obviously be displaced in another direction as well.

So, if at least two fractured pieces of bone had moved in opposite
directions combined with a tear in the scalp to cause a hole to open up,
could those be manually be pushed back into place prior to this x-ray
being taken?

Of course.

But that depends mightily on *when* this x-ray was taken during the
autopsy. Was it taken during the time period of the category 1 photos,
that is, before the autopsists had begun any work on the body? Or was
it taken after they had begun work on the body?

Or another way of putting it: was the x-ray taken before or after
anything was done *to* the body?

At first glance it might seem that the answer is clearly ?before.?
After all, we?ve got Humes telling the Warren Commission that, although
x-rays of the body were taken at various times during the autopsy, the
x-rays of the head specifically were taken ?before postmortem
examination was begun.? Pierre Finck, the late arrival, said at both
the Shaw Trial and to the HSCA that x-rays of the cranium were taken
before he arrived. And approximately three decades after the
assassination the ARRB asked Humes pointedly if any fragments of skull
were rearranged at any time prior to the first x-rays being taken, and
his answer was a firm no.

So that clinches it, doesn?t it?

It would, except Humes was not entirely corroborated on this. To the
HSCA John Ebersole, the very Bethesda radiologist in charge of the
x-rays, said that he remembered more rearward damage than was apparent
on what he was being shown. And then there was Thornton Boswell.
Sadly, the WC questioned him only briefly ? his WC testimony is by far
the shortest of the three autopsists ? but many years later to the ARRB
he seemed at least fairly certain that there *was* some rearrangement of
the skull prior to the x-ray being taken.

But getting back to the photographs, as said above, the four photos of
the inside of the cranium after the brain was removed, two black and
white, two color, would of course be quite obviously category 2 photos.
The brain had been removed. But what of 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and
43? These are two black and white and two color photos of the bullet
wound in the back, but also showing a fair amount of the back of the
head, and two black and white and two color specifically of the back of
the head, which seem to have been made specifically for the purpose of
showing the bullet entry in the scalp. Were these taken earlier or
later than the photos of the inside of the cranium, or were some taken
earlier and some taken later?

There is, perhaps, no way to prove any chronology conclusively.
Perhaps. But one can again use simple common sense, and not have to be
anything even remotely like an ?expert? to come to what is more likely
than not to be the most plausible conclusion.

The obvious purposes of photographing the inside of the cranium would be
twofold. One would be simply to document in photographic form the
overall damage to the skull, and the other would be to show the bullet
entry from the inside of the cranium. This would obviously be, then,
when close investigation of these matters was still underway.

But the photos which show the back of the head are a somewhat different
matter, and there is one major clue of chronology regarding those, and
it is very simple: much of the blood has been cleaned out of the hair.

I see no reason for doing that while still investigating the inside of
the cranium, because there would be the risk of getting more material
back into the hair and it would just have to be cleaned again. True, we
can only see a very small amount of hair in those photos of the inside
of the skull and so it is difficult to tell how much it has been
cleaned, but the reason I have given seems to me a quite plausible one,
whether or not it is the only possibility.

And of course there?s the big one: no hole in the back of the head in
11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43. No rip or tear in the scalp even.
It is John Canal?s contention that the torn scalp had been sutured by
this time, and I see no logical reason to disagree.

Photos of the brain by itself were of course taken even later than this,
during the supplementary autopsy, but of course these would not be
considered by most people to be photos of Kennedy himself, but merely of
an organ that was removed from his body and photographed separately.
But it seems to me a good deal more likely than not that the eight
photos which show all or part of the back of the head were indeed the
final photographs ever taken of John Fitzgerald Kennedy himself, alive
or dead.

JRK

[Robert Harris]

The explanation for the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors
saw and the autopsy photos which show a relatively undamaged BOH is
really quite simple. Your link btw, to frame 335 is useful, but this one
of frame 337 is a bit better, because it is an extreme blowup taken by
Robert Groden, from his very high quality second generation copy of the
film.

http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg

A large piece of skullbone, sitting at the upper rear of the head was
probably broken loose by the 313 explosion, and then blown to the rear
by a second headshot, taking with it hair and scalp that was located
forward of it, and leaving a visible indention where the skull piece had
been located.

http://jfkhistory.com/xray.jpg

The skullbone remained attached to the scalp and could be easily flipped
back into place, covering over most of the damage in that area. That is
why there was a discrepancy between Humes' measurement of the large
defect as 13 cm, front to back, and Boswell's of 17 cm. Of course,
Boswell measured it with the head laid open, while Humes measured it
with the skull piece flipped back into place.

Boswell described the damage in his testimony before the ARRB,

"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from
the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably
reflect that."

and..

"Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal
area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed
from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp
actually--scalp missing."

I made several video presentations on this, which go into more detail
and looks at the relevant images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&feature=watch_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Steve's identification of that message does not in and of itself
invalidate the BBN study. That message could still fall after the shots.

> Now, do not mistake me. I know perfectly well that being a true expert
> in a particular field is a superb advantage when discussing that field.
> Of course it is. But that alone does not always guarantee that the
> expert is right 100% of the time and the layman is wrong 100% of the
> time, especially when the layman is discussing only one particular
> aspect of that field, or certain individual aspects only.
>
> Again, I am not exactly an "expert" in forensics, pathology, medical
> evidence from autopsies, etc. However, I've been studying this
> particular autopsy extensively since 1988, and most especially since
> 2002, and that includes having viewed the photos and x-rays from it many
> times, reading what others have said about this evidence many times,

No, you've never seen the complete original Fox set of black and whites
or the Groden set of color photos.

> including what many experts in these fields have said many times,
> reading the complete, unabridged statements from the original documents,
> of the autopsists and others present at the autopsy many times, and so
> forth. An absolute expert in these fields I may not be, but at this

And yet you refuse to read the JAMA articles. You don't even have copies.

> late date I'm not exactly a novice either. And it is not an absolute
> requirement for me to be an expert to write knowledgeably and plausibly
> about certain aspects only of this autopsy, and these photographs. All
> that is required is that I know *enough* about these aspects only.
>

It is a requirement to read the evidence.

[John Fiorentino]

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
have.

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.

Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.

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 F.

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-7FF5CE...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[bigdog]

You seem to be saying what I have said for years. Jackie closed the skull
flaps so the wound appeared different to the personnel at Parkland than it
does in the Z-film and the way it was described at autopsy. The blowout
was much more massive than anyone at Parkland knew because they never got
around to examining the head wound closesly. There was no point. It was
obvious there was nothing they could do. The guy lying on the guerney was
going to be dead in a very short time despite their best efforts. The
staff at Parkland saw the massive bleeding from the head and a few of them
actually took a closer look but nobody actually treated that head wound
which is why they believed the blowout was confined to the rear portion of
the head when in fact it extended all along the upper right side of the
head from back to front or as the autopsy team described it, "chiefly the
parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
regions". This isn't rocket science. Large pieces of skull were blown out
but remained attached to the scalp. Flaps opened up. Flaps were closed.
This dramatically altered the appearance of the wound to those who saw the
head wound with the flaps closed and never got around to examining that
head wound close enough to appreciate the full extent of the blowout.

[Anthony Marsh]

Close, but the head was also covered by extruded brain matter and
clotted blood by the time Parkland saw it.

[John Canal]

In article <504bab0b$1...@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
>have.
>
>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
"position".

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
entry....

...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
train.

>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
scalp?

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 F.

[...]


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

[John Reagor King]

In article <67b87e82-972e-4439...@googlegroups.com>,

Good for you, as long as you're not still thinking what they saw was a
hole caused by the missing Harper Fragment, on which I have corrected
you many times. You've already admitted above that the hole was
partially caused by bone being blown out (although I'd use the term
displaced) but still attached to the scalp. The Harper Fragment was
obviously not still attached to the scalp at the autopsy, since it
wasn't even found in Dallas until the afternoon of the following day.

JRK

[John Reagor King]

In article <504bab0b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> 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
> have.
>
> 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."

I don't see how that is especially significant. The suturing might be
hidden by the hair, depending on how it was done.

>
> Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
> and say, he is simply wrong about this.

Ah, but on what basis? We simply have too many witnesses, in the limo,
outside Parkland, inside Parkland, in Dallas and Bethesda, and at
Bethesda only, saying there was a hole in the back of JFK's head for it
to be at all plausible that it wasn't there. And there can't be a hole
unless there is also a rip or tear in the scalp in that area. If the
scalp is intact, and not torn, there won't be a hole visible from the
outside, even if there is an underlying hole in the skull. So unless
you're prepared to dismiss a much larger amount of the evidence than I
am, and claim that this many witnesses, including quite a few medical
professionals, were mistaken about something so incredibly obvious, or
to claim that these autopsy photos were doctored after they were taken
(a claim that I don't think you or I make), then by far the most
plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction is simply that the
witnesses were correct, and that hole was closed when the photos were
taken. And what is just about the only way it would be closed, so that
there is no hole in the scalp even? Suturing. Do you know of any other
method?

> Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.

I strongly disagree. It is of crucial importance to resolve this, one
of the most serious controversies ever to arise regarding this
assassination, in a way that involves dismissing the smallest amount of
evidence, because only then will the most plausible explanation be
reached. It would obviously then be of crucial importance to determine,
as well as we possibly can, when during the autopsy these photos were
taken. To say they were taken late, perhaps latest, does indeed involve
dismissing the smallest amount of available evidence, since if suturing
was done, it would obviously have been done late.

> It is also important to remember that we do not have the full compliment
> of the autopsy materials in the public domain.

Exactly.

> The "flap" is the same one seen the Z-film and is visible in the BOH
> photo.

Yes and no. It is obviously much larger in the film. I might agree
that part of it is open in the autopsy photos, but not nearly as much of
it as in the film. In the film it is quite obvious that some of the
flap extends lower than the level of his right ear. That is not the
case in the autopsy photos.

> I should think any difference in appearance is due to the brain
> matter also visible in the Z-film.

Well, that may be, and perhaps I should not be referring to all of that
in the film as "flaps" of scalp and bone only. Whatever it is, possibly
a combination of flaps and brain matter hanging out, I was still correct
in stating that not only is the film the only photographic evidence of
the damage in front of his right ear being that huge and obvious at any
time before the autopsists worked on exposing the full damage to the
skull, I have also given a quite plausible explanation as to why the
appearance of the size of that damage changed so quickly, so that nearly
all subsequent observers in the limo, outside Parkland, inside Parkland,
in Dallas and Bethesda, and at Bethesda only (prior to the full exposure
of the damage to the skull) were not of the initial impression that the
damage forward of the right ear was as serious as the damage well behind
the right ear.

JRK

[John Canal]

In article <504bab0b$1...@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
>have.
>
>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."

This was the deceased President of the United States...they were preparing him
for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over the
globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could notice
in the copies of the autopsy photos?

Geesh!

Because you've studied the medical evidence so thoroughly you probably knew
this:

Joe Hagan, who supervised Gawler's team of morticians and was interviewed by the
ARRB's David Marwell, Douglas Horne, Tom Samoluk, Jeremy Gunn, and Tim Wray (at
least they were in attendance) stated, according to Horne, that "....the scalp
was pulled together and sutured into place."

And this:

Tom Robinson, another member of Gawler's team interviewed by the ARRB stated:

"The scalp was sutured together...and "the damage in the back of the head was
obscured by a pillow." I did find that last part interesting...I wondered why if
the BOH looked as undamaged as it did in the BOH photos would they need to
obscure it?

>Canal's ideas on this are simply conjecture, and I'll go a step further
>and say, he is simply wrong about this.

Ouch, see below.

>Which photos were taken in what precise order seems of dubious importance.

Sure. :-(

>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.

It's one thing to be told I'm wrong by someone who knows the medical evidence,
but being told I'm wrong by you is a horse of a different color.

For example, FYI the flap seen blown open above his right ear in the Z-film is
hardly the same flap seen hanging off the front right of his head in the BOH
photos and F8.

The graphic (link to below) will probably confuse you but if you can somehow
decipher it I think you'll be able to figure out that the Z-film flap is
entirely diffent from the BOH photo flap.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6259/flapzfilm2vs.jpg

Now, this is just some more "conjecture" of mine, but IMO the Z-film flap was
closed when the BOH photos were taken...on the other hand the right front flap
prominently seen in the BOH photos [and F8] probably hinged down while they were
removing the brain...when it did come down if offered them a little better
access to the brain---that is to remove it.

And speaking of you being confused about the medical evidence would you please
post a graphic for us showing the path that the bullet took that created the
laceration Humes described in the Supplementry Autopsy Report?

To refresh your memory he said it began, 2.5 cm right of midline at the tip of
the occipital lobe and extended to the tip of the frontal lobe......AND YOU SAID
THAT A BULLET ENTERING IN THE COWLICK COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LACERATION
HUMES DESCRIBED.

I asked you to draw that path several years ago, but you never did...or at least
if you did, I missed it. In any case would you post that graphic for us...again
if you already did?

I am particulary interested in how a bullet could enter the right parietal bone
and still enter the brain at the tip of the occipital lobe.

Maybe it's me that's confused on this specific issue...if so, your graphic might
help me out...so how about it?

Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.

Thanks.

John Canal


>John F.


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

[John Fiorentino]

John C

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.

.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.

(Which makes me believe you are correct and it is *the* entry)

And please don't misrepresent my opinion of Baden. You know better than that
John.

John F.


"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:k2h35...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Canal]

In article <504debc4$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
>John C
>
>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
correct too.

>.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
evidence.

Unbelievable!

>(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
entire case.

Go see the originals.

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

[John Reagor King]

In article <k2h35...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <504bab0b$1...@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
> >have.
> >
> >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
> "position".

Well, I can certainly understand not having time to address things
properly, as I've experienced that myself. We all have other things going
on in our lives besides posting in this newsgroup. Nevertheless, I am
tempted to suggest to Mr. Fiorentino that if he doesn't have time to
address the points in substantive detail, he should perhaps consider
posting no reply at all until he does have time to do so.

JRK

[John Fiorentino]

John C:

Apparently, I only know something about the medical evidence when I agree
with you, i.e., you want to discuss the NA or the 6.5mm artifact.

Frankly, I resent your assertions and have no wish nor desire to argue
with you John.

BTW, I'm not "getting out of Dodge" I just don't wish to continue
entertaining your obsession and being subjected to your innuendos and
insults.

John F.


"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/10/2012 11:03 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <504bab0b$1...@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
>> have.
>>
>> 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."
>
> This was the deceased President of the United States...they were preparing him
> for a possible open-casket funeral in front of dignitaries from all over the
> globe......did you expect the morticians to use something that you could notice
> in the copies of the autopsy photos?
>

At the time the back of the head photos were taken they were still in the
middle of the autopsy, not preparing the body for burial. The body is not
released to the morticians until after the autopsy is over. Some of us
believe that Knudsen took photos of the President for the family AFTER the
morticians finished their work and the government will never release them.

Is that one of them thar divided core bullets them Italians used for
riot control?

[bigdog]

You've corrected me. Really? It has long been my position that the hole
observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment.
Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached
Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would
have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head. Do
you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you
think there was another hole that they didn't observe?

[John Canal]

In article <504e0cfb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
>John C:
>
>Apparently, I only know something about the medical evidence when I agree
>with you, i.e., you want to discuss the NA or the 6.5mm artifact.
>
>Frankly, I resent your assertions and have no wish nor desire to argue
>with you John.

You yourself said you wanted to add your 2 cents worth to the debate on
these issues....well, "frankly", IMHO, you overestimated the value of your
"arguments".

For instance, has there ever been a more ridiculous point made here than
the one you tried to make when you said you were sure McAdams was wrong
about "the defect" in F8 (that I've been saying for a decade is the entry)
being deep inside the cranial cavity.... when.......

.....you've only "eyeballed" F8 (are you saying your eyeballs are better
than McAdams')?

Cripes, then to say your eyeballs tell you that defect [the entry] in F8
is only 2 cm down from the vertex takes the cake.....as if your eyeballs
are some sort of sophisticated measuring instrument!

Moreover, you have the unbelievable gall to say Larry Sturdivan, who you
yourself commended re. his arguments on the NA debate, is wrong when he
says that defect [the entry] is where Humes said it was, especially
since......

...he examined the originals stereoscopically and you haven't even seen
the originals, much less stereoscopically?

Are you suggesting we should trust your eyeballs over Larry's analysis
based on his examination of the originals stereoscopically?

Really?

Ooops, maybe I was wrong.....you may have made an even more ridiculous
point than that.....Indeed, when you implied Humes was wrong about there
being any lower brain damage based on what Dr. Rose said, considering
that.....

...Dr. Rose only saw the pictures of the brain and Humes examined the
actual brain during the supplementary autopsy.

>BTW, I'm not "getting out of Dodge" I just don't wish to continue
>entertaining your obsession and being subjected to your innuendos and
>insults.

JF, your 2 cents will be missed re. these issues.....IMO, not really.

Bye.

John Canal

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

[John Canal]

In article <1ee67c53-b36a-4620...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

[...]

>You've corrected me. Really? It has long been my position that the hole
>observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment.
>Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached
>Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would
>have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head. Do
>you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you
>think there was another hole that they didn't observe?

Excuse me for butting in.

Many of the PH docs said the wound was occipital-parietal.

When you challenged me to name just one of the PH docs who said they saw a
wound in the temporal area, I named three (there were at least four, BTW).
I noticed you didn't respond to that....not even the notion you might have
been wrong?

I also told you that one PH doc said they shined a flashlight down into
his head to get a better look at the wounds, and that two neurosurgeons
lifted his head to get a better look at them....which says that all of
them weren't so preoccupied with saving his life that they didn't take a
few seconds or minues to get a good look at the wounds.

Anyway, setting all that aside, just what compells you the most to insist
the PH docs as well as several Bethesda witnesses didn't see a wound in
the right rear of JFK's head?

Is it the BOH photographs? Is it the lateral X-ray?

As far as the X-rays go Boswell admitted replacing pieces of bone before
the x-rays or photographs were taken and that he thought the pieces he
replaced were in the right rear of the head....sound familiar?

Now this is going to seem like I'm getting off the subject but bear with
me.

I'd like you to answer a question for me as best as you can..I'm not
asking you to be sure about your answer...your best guess is what I want.

Please look at F8 (link below) and tell me if you agree with Dr. McAdams
that the circular looking defect below the ruler and centered in the photo
is deep inside the cranial cavity or agree with Fiorentino that the defect
is in the cowlick or as he has estimated, 2 cm below the vertex.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
&#65279;
I'm confident you'll be honest.

If you say that McAdams might be (or is probably) correct then you'd be
supporting (albeit somewhat) the autopsists, Dr. Grossman (a PH doc),
several Bethesda eyewitnesses as well as Sturdivan & Zimmerman who
examined the originals stereoscopically.

You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH
photographs were taken.

I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity
then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can
only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to
the BOH photos being taken.

Now, if those BOH photos were the main reason why you think literally
dozens of individuals who said they saw a right rear wound and/or
cerebellum (no, one can't see the cerebellum through a hole where the
Harper fragment was) then please reconsider.

It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who
was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of
early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.

And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone,
evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.

Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?

Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?

Why would he do that? Is it not feasible that four months after the
assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter
(a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum
was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?

Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.

John Canal








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

[bigdog]

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you can find a single statement by me in which I said no one saw a wound in the back of JFK's head. What I have said repeatedly is the wound they observed was only part of a much larger wound that had largely been closed by Jackie on the way to Parkland in an effort to hold his head together.

>
>
> Is it the BOH photographs? Is it the lateral X-ray?
>
>
>
> As far as the X-rays go Boswell admitted replacing pieces of bone before
>
> the x-rays or photographs were taken and that he thought the pieces he
>
> replaced were in the right rear of the head....sound familiar?
>

Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were blown out all along the right side of JFK's head. Many of these pieces remained attached to the scalp.

>
>
> Now this is going to seem like I'm getting off the subject but bear with
>
> me.
>
>
>
> I'd like you to answer a question for me as best as you can..I'm not
>
> asking you to be sure about your answer...your best guess is what I want.
>
>
>
> Please look at F8 (link below) and tell me if you agree with Dr. McAdams
>
> that the circular looking defect below the ruler and centered in the photo
>
> is deep inside the cranial cavity or agree with Fiorentino that the defect
>
> is in the cowlick or as he has estimated, 2 cm below the vertex.
>
>
>
> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> &#65279;
>
> I'm confident you'll be honest.
>

I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I don't play doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking about to make judgements about the medical evidence.

>
>
> If you say that McAdams might be (or is probably) correct then you'd be
>
> supporting (albeit somewhat) the autopsists, Dr. Grossman (a PH doc),
>
> several Bethesda eyewitnesses as well as Sturdivan & Zimmerman who
>
> examined the originals stereoscopically.
>
>
>
> You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH
>
> photographs were taken.
>

If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.

>
>
> I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
>
> say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity
>
> then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can
>
> only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to
>
> the BOH photos being taken.
>

So?

>
>
> Now, if those BOH photos were the main reason why you think literally
>
> dozens of individuals who said they saw a right rear wound and/or
>
> cerebellum (no, one can't see the cerebellum through a hole where the
>
> Harper fragment was) then please reconsider.
>

One probably couldn't see cerebellum if the cerebellum is where cerebellum normally is. When there is a massive hole in one's head and brains are oozing out, there's no telling where the cerebellum might end up. Much of JFK's brain end up in places it normally wouldn't be.

>
>
> It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who
>
> was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of
>
> early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
>

It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.

>
>
> And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone,
>
> evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
>

Again, you wonder about such things.

>
>
> Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
>
> rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
>
> over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
>
> announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
>

Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.

>
>
> Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
>
> cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
>

Ya, a real knee slapper.

>
>
> Why would he do that?

Maybe because he saw cerebellum.

> Is it not feasible that four months after the
>
> assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter
>
> (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum
>
> was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
>

Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.

>
>
> Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
>
> then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
>

Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.

[John Canal]

In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

>
>On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:35:32 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <1ee67c53-b36a-4620...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog

[...]

>>the PH docs as well as several Bethesda witnesses didn't see a wound in the
>>right rear of JFK's head?

>There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you can find a single statement by
>me in which I said no one saw a wound in the back of JFK's head. What I have
>said repeatedly is the wound they observed was only part of a much larger wound
>that had largely been closed by > Jackie on the way to Parkland in an effort to
>hold his head together.

Bingo! And all along I thought you were a memberof the dozens f individuals who
said they saw a BOH wound were hallucinating.

Pardon me....but I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

>>As far as the X-rays go Boswell admitted replacing pieces of bone >> before the
>>x-rays or photographs were taken and that he thought >> the pieces he replaced

>>were in the right rear of the head. Sound >> familiar?

>Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were
>blown out all along the right side of JFK's head. Many of > these pieces
>remained attached to the scalp.

Including the right rear....WONDERFUL. Bravo. Good enough.

As my French teaher would say when I got something right..."Praise the Lord and
pass the ammuntion".

I never did understand why she said that.

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

>I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I >don't play
>doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking >about to make
>judgements about the medical evidence.

I try to figure out things like that when the experts you rely on completely
disagree with each other, causing debates like this to perpetuate.

And I try to figure out why they disagree too. Sometimes I have to interview
experts or eyewitnesses...and I've done that many many times.

I realize you could care less, but once I drove over 450 miles to interview one
of this country's leading forensic anthropologists, Dr. Anthony Falsetti
(ironically, a friend of Baden's) to get his take on F8.

I've interviewed Stringer twice in his home.

I could go on and on, but I hate to bore you.

>If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.

That would have been good enough...but it's not necessary anymore.

>>was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of early
>>when all the other autopsy photos were taken.

>It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.

You don't...others don't, but because seemingly a gazillion posts have addressed
this matter, I'd say some do, including me.

>Again, you wonder about such things.

Oh yes.

>Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.

So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the right
rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told, besides
Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest there had been a
frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

Okay, to each his own.

>> Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
>> cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?

>Ya, a real knee slapper.

Maybe I should have used the word, "telling" instead of "funny".

>Maybe because he saw cerebellum.

Yes.

>Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.

Check.

>Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.

I'm glad I didn't...I hardly think this was a waste of time.


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

[John Fiorentino]

John

All of this name dropping is just an attempt to agitate.

Simply put, .John apparently sees it one way, and I another re: F8. Now if
you want to inflame the issues go right ahead. People disagree on this forum
everyday.

BTW, I never defended Sturdivan on the NAA. My issues were with Spiegelman,
et al.

And, frankly John, I never specifically said for instance Larry was wrong, I
simply gave my observations. Your logic is simply amiss. I mean would you
like me to list all of the doctors on the FPP for instance and say that YOU
have some gall in saying they are wrong? Just a silly exercise really.

John F.



"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k2lkr...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Reagor King]

In article <1ee67c53-b36a-4620...@googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You've corrected me. Really?

Yes, several times, and you've almost never responded.

> It has long been my position that the hole
> observed by the Parkland staff was the one left by the Harper fragment.

Yes, I know. The problem is that the autopsy lateral x-ray proves that
the Harper Fragment did not come from anywhere near the rear of the
head. The Harper Fragment was not found until the afternoon of the
following day. The area of the skull shown in the x-ray with bone
completely missing is too far forward to account for what these
witnesses saw. You already admitted this past Saturday that "Large

pieces of skull were blown out but remained attached to the scalp."

Rather obviously the Harper Fragment cannot be one of the pieces that

remained attached to the scalp.

> Since the Harper fragment was obviously gone before the body reached
> Parkland, that would have left a sizeable hole in the head, one that would
> have been readily apparent to anyone taking even a glance at the head.

In a completely different part of the head, not even remotely close to
the rear of the head.

> Do
> you agree that this was the hole the Parkland team observed or do you
> think there was another hole that they didn't observe?

I do not think for a moment that the hole they saw in the rear of his
head was caused by the missing Harper Fragment. The hole in the skull
that of course they didn't observe was the larger more forward hole in
the front half of his head, because of course Jackie closed all of that
up. The hole in the rear of his head was not caused by any bone being
completely missing. It was instead caused, just as you said, by "Large
pieces of skull [that] were blown out but remained attached to the
scalp." I would say "displaced," rather than "blown out," but that's
pretty much the idea. Some of that happened in the rear of his head
too. But not by a bullet exiting the rear from a frontal shot.

And please don't reply to me asking anything like, "Well why don't the
autopsy photos of the back of his head show any hole there, and why
doesn't the lateral x-ray seem to show one either?" I've already
explained that in the first article in this thread. You replied to that
article this past Saturday, proving beyond all possible doubt that you
read at least some of it. If you failed to read more than ten percent
of it, which your present reply seems to suggest, that is hardly my
fault. And I am not the only poster here who has explained this.

JRK

[John Reagor King]

In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you can find a single statement
> by me in which I said no one saw a wound in the back of JFK's head. What I
> have said repeatedly is the wound they observed was only part of a much
> larger wound that had largely been closed by Jackie on the way to Parkland in
> an effort to hold his head together.

Again, that is incorrect. The lateral x-ray shows that the area of
skull in which bone was completely absent did not extend nearly far
enough back for most people who speak English to call it the "back," or
"posterior," or "rear." In fact, bone was missing only to about the
back of the right ear, and no further. As I have told you quite a few
times by now, the hole in the rear of the head that was seen by many
witnesses in Dallas and at Bethesda was not caused by any bone being
entirely missing from the head. It was instead caused by pieces of
severely fractured bone which were no longer attached to each other or
to the rest of the skull, but were still attached to the scalp. This,
combined with a rip or tear in the scalp caused a hole to open up in the
rear of the head, because these pieces of bone were displaced laterally.
This was not something Jackie could close up, since it did not involve
open flaps of scalp and bone that could be closed, unlike those on the
right side of his head, as I explained in my first article in this
thread, which you replied to, but apparently read only about ten percent
of, or you would have already mentioned my explanation by now, even to
say it's wrong.

> Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were
> blown out all along the right side of JFK's head.

Yes, on the right side. Not in the rear. On the right side.

> Many of these pieces
> remained attached to the scalp.

And all of the fractured pieces in the back of the head remained
attached to the scalp too.

> I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I don't
> play doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking about to make
> judgements about the medical evidence.

Oh, you've done it now. Mr. Canal is one of the most knowledgeable
posters in this newsgroup about the medical evidence, and I'm hardly the
only one who says so. Barb Junkkarinen says so too. She hasn't said it
here recently, merely because she hasn't posted here recently, but she
used to post here quite regularly for years. And I still recall you
saying a few weeks ago that you had never seen most of the autopsy
photos. And you, of all people, presume to argue with Mr. Canal, of all
people? He's seen all the ones that have ever been made public, which
is quite a few of them. So have I. And you say you have no idea what
that is or what part of the skull it's from, when it's one of the most
well-known photos from the autopsy, has been public for decades, and has
been discussed in this newsgroup many times?

You make it blatantly plain that you have little knowledge of what that
photo represents, and you claim to have come to an informed conclusion
about the hole in the back of JFK's head?

My advice to you is to become far more familiar than you are today with
all of the autopsy photos and x-rays that have been made public before
you presume to disagree with Mr. Canal, or for that matter, me, about
what the cause of that rear hole was. And don't you dare claim you
can't find them. I posted links to at least a fair representation of
them in my first article in this thread.

The one you seem to have read only ten percent of.

> > You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH
> >
> > photographs were taken.
> >
> If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.

Yet you continue to make a not very educated guess about the Harper
Fragment, and about the hole in the back of his head. Why are you not
just as reluctant to express any conclusion about those matters as well,
as you appear to know no more about them than you do about the autopsy
in general?

> > I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
> >
> > say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity
> >
> > then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can
> >
> > only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to
> >
> > the BOH photos being taken.
> >
> So?

What do you mean, "so?" Mr. Corbett? He's just told you why no hole in
the back of JFK's head appears in those photographs, except for the very
small entrance in the scalp.

> One probably couldn't see cerebellum if the cerebellum is where cerebellum
> normally is.

Where are you getting that from? The lateral x-ray clearly shows severe
fractures in the back of the skull running right down to the level where
the cerebellum would be, or very close.

> When there is a massive hole in one's head and brains are oozing
> out, there's no telling where the cerebellum might end up. Much of JFK's
> brain end up in places it normally wouldn't be.

The brain was examined, and the cerebellum was more or less intact, so
that explanation doesn't hold water. Are you ever going to actually
study the autopsy far more carefully, or are you just going to continue
to make these wild, speculative, uneducated guesses?

> > It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who
> >
> > was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of
> >
> > early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
> >
> It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.

Most of the rest of the world doesn't care why there is an apparent, and
very serious, contradiction between the witness statements and what is
shown in those photos, when that is one of the most serious
controversies that has ever arisen in this case? You are way out there
on that one.

> > And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone,
> >
> > evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
> >
> Again, you wonder about such things.

And you should be too, unless you're not all that interested in the JFK
assassination.

> > Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
> >
> > rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
> >
> > over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
> >
> > announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
> >
> Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.

Just saying it is far-fetched, without explaining why, Mr. Corbett, is
not at all convincing. Even most LNs agree that certain agencies, such
as the DPD and FBI obfuscated some of the evidence. Not to cover up
their *own* involvement in the assassination. But to emphasize evidence
of Oswald's sole guilt and downplay what might appear to be evidence to
the contrary, even if it actually wasn't true evidence to the contrary.
Do you deny that the FBI downplayed their contacts with Oswald prior to
the assassination, for example?

So how would it be far-fetched for the autopsists to downplay evidence
that might be interpreted, as it indeed has been ever since by millions
of people worldwide, of a frontal shot? They knew it was not *true*
evidence of a frontal shot. But they knew that many people would
incorrectly assume it to be evidence of the exit of a frontal shot.

> > Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
> >
> > cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
> >
> Ya, a real knee slapper.

Only if one is not serious about resolving this apparent contradiction,
which I call The Contradiction That Wasn't.

> > Why would he do that?
>
> Maybe because he saw cerebellum.

Ya got it. And that's way too low in the head to have anything to do
with any part of the head in which bone was completely missing.

> > Is it not feasible that four months after the
> >
> > assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter
> >
> > (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum
> >
> > was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
> >
> Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.

That he did. A bit slyly though. And it appears that not a single
Commissioner caught on. Neither has the general public to this day.
And you certainly haven't.

> > Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
> >
> > then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
> >
> Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.

Probably because we're wondering why you even needed to be told not to
respond, since you have freely admitted that you have not studied the
autopsy very well at all, and we're wondering, since you've already
admitted it, why you're even posting at all about any aspect of it, and
presuming to come to any conclusion about it yet.

JRK

[John Reagor King]

In article <k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.

Crucially important, actually.

JRK

[John Reagor King]

In article <504e0cfb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> John C:
>
> Apparently, I only know something about the medical evidence when I agree
> with you, i.e., you want to discuss the NA or the 6.5mm artifact.
>
> Frankly, I resent your assertions and have no wish nor desire to argue
> with you John.
>
> BTW, I'm not "getting out of Dodge" I just don't wish to continue
> entertaining your obsession and being subjected to your innuendos and
> insults.

Well, maybe you can try me then. I'm a little bit nicer, but not by
much. ;-)

I would be particularly fascinated to learn more about why you think the
rear scalp was not sutured when photos 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and
43 in the inventory were taken. I have already replied to you earlier
in this thread to the effect that a suture would not necessarily be
visible in those photos, most especially if covered by hair. I would
also love for you to address my notion that this more than plausibly
wraps up the supposed "contradiction" between all those witnesses and
what is seen in these photos, doesn't involve dismissing those
witnesses, doesn't involve dismissing the Zapruder film, and doesn't
involve dismissing a single autopsy photo or x-ray, not at least as
being genuine images taken of the head as it appeared at the moment each
was taken, rather than subsequent doctoring of the images after they
were taken.

That would be peachy. ;-)

JRK

[John Reagor King]

In article <k2lkr...@drn.newsguy.com>,

Hell, I've even looked at 42 and 43 stereoscopically. Not the
originals, of course, but photocopies posted on the Internet. You have
to rotate one of them, of course, for it to work, but it is quite
interesting. One thing alone is quite obvious from that, and one has no
need to be anything even remotely close to a photographic expert to see
it, but the images were quite obviously not altered after they were
taken.

JRK

[John Canal]

In article <504f35b6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>John
>

>All of this name dropping is just an attempt to agitate.
>
>Simply put, .John apparently sees it one way, and I another re: F8. Now if
>you want to inflame the issues go right ahead. People disagree on this forum
>everyday.

But to say McAdams was wrong, as if it was a fact....well, is wrong.

Again your eyeballs are no better than his....so you should have said
something like, "Our interpretations of where the defect in F8 are
different"....not that he was wrong.

>BTW, I never defended Sturdivan on the NAA.

Hmmm, "My complete views on the NAA will be out soon. The gist of it is, I
believe Rahn/Sturdivan got it right." [John Fiorentino. Friday, January 2,
2009 3:12 PM]

My issues were with Spiegelman,
>et al.
>
>And, frankly John, I never specifically said for instance Larry was wrong, I
>simply gave my observations.

Hmmmm, "I also demonstrated why Sturdivan was wrong re: the entry..."

[John Fiorentino]

>Your logic is simply amiss. I mean would you
>like me to list all of the doctors on the FPP for instance and say that YOU
>have some gall in saying they are wrong? Just a silly exercise really.

But almost all of them were friends or close associates of one another.

Don't you think that juuuuust might result in them not advancing their own
independent opinions? No chance? Are you living n the real world?

For example, (and I could go on), you do realize that Spitz (whom I've
interviewed personally, BTW), who was on the Rockefeller team of experts
as well as a member of the FPP, tutored under and worked for Russell
Fisher, right?

My point is that it's absolutely naive to think that Spitz would refute
what Fisher concluded re. the entry location and side with the all but
unknown Humes.

You're not that naive, right?

Also, you do know of course that Spitz and Baden for years hosted an
annual symposium on forensic pathology together, right?

Do you think Baden would disagree with Spitz and agree with Humes?

If so, get real.

BTW, I think your style of posting is telling. You top post and hardly
ever address the specific points made by the person you're addressing.
This moe than hints that you don't have all the answers.

[bigdog]

The HSCA FPP had no disagreement about what the medical evidence showed. They were all experienced medical examiners and it was pretty obvious to them what it revealed.

>
>
> And I try to figure out why they disagree too. Sometimes I have to interview
>
> experts or eyewitnesses...and I've done that many many times.
>
>
>
> I realize you could care less, but once I drove over 450 miles to interview one
>
> of this country's leading forensic anthropologists, Dr. Anthony Falsetti
>
> (ironically, a friend of Baden's) to get his take on F8.
>

How many medico-legal autopsies has he performed?

>
>
> I've interviewed Stringer twice in his home.
>
>
>
> I could go on and on, but I hate to bore you.
>

Really? You are so good at it.

>
>
> >If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.
>
>
>
> That would have been good enough...but it's not necessary anymore.
>
>
>
> >>was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of early
>
> >>when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
>
>
>
> >It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.
>
>
>
> You don't...others don't, but because seemingly a gazillion posts have addressed
>
> this matter, I'd say some do, including me.
>
>
>
> >Again, you wonder about such things.
>
>
>
> Oh yes.
>
>
>
> >Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
>
>
>
> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the right
>
> rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told, besides
>
> Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest there had been a
>
> frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
>

If I were in charge of the autopsy, it would have been an even bigger mistake than allowing it to be done at Bethesda rather than by someone with experience in medico-legal autopsies. But assuming I actually had some expertise in that area, I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my ability and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do exactly that. There was a single shooter. The medical evidence supported that finding. Why do you assume the Bethesda team would need or want to cover anything up?

[John Fiorentino]

Ok Johnny, why don't you post ALL of those pictures and then we can
discuss each one in detail, ok?

Now, THAT would really be *peachy*. ;-)

John F.

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-59556C...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[bigdog]

Don't feel bad. That's ten percent more than I read of Marsh's and Harris' posts.

>
>
> > Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull were
>
> > blown out all along the right side of JFK's head.
>
>
>
> Yes, on the right side. Not in the rear. On the right side.
>

Now your quibbling. Pieces of bone were blown out from the occipital to the temporal regions even if they did remain attached to the scalp. They were no longer connected to the rest of the skull. Jackie closed much of that wound hiding the true extent of it from Parkland. Had the Parkland staff seen how massive that head wound truly was, I doubt they would have even bothered with the measures they did.

>
>
> > Many of these pieces
>
> > remained attached to the scalp.
>
>
>
> And all of the fractured pieces in the back of the head remained
>
> attached to the scalp too.
>
>
>
> > I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I don't
>
> > play doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking about to make
>
> > judgements about the medical evidence.
>
>
>
> Oh, you've done it now. Mr. Canal is one of the most knowledgeable
>
> posters in this newsgroup about the medical evidence,

How many medico-legal autopsies has he performed?

> and I'm hardly the
>
> only one who says so. Barb Junkkarinen says so too.

Someone can be well read on a subject and that still doesn't qualify them as an expert. I prefer the opinions of truly qualified medical examiners to that of the Monday morning quarterbacks.

> She hasn't said it
>
> here recently, merely because she hasn't posted here recently, but she
>
> used to post here quite regularly for years. And I still recall you
>
> saying a few weeks ago that you had never seen most of the autopsy
>
> photos.

I've seen the ones in the public domain which is just a handful of the autopsy photos taken and still more than I need to see since I am not qualified to second guess a panel of the best medical examiners in the country who saw all the autopsy photos and x-rays and knew what that evidence told them.

> And you, of all people, presume to argue with Mr. Canal, of all
>
> people? He's seen all the ones that have ever been made public, which
>
> is quite a few of them. So have I.

Combined, how many years did the two of you spend in medical school? How many autopsies have you performed?

> And you say you have no idea what
>
> that is or what part of the skull it's from, when it's one of the most
>
> well-known photos from the autopsy, has been public for decades, and has
>
> been discussed in this newsgroup many times?
>

How many of the people who discussed it were qualified medical examiners? There is a reason the courts call upon qualified professionals to present expert testimony rather than turning to well read amateurs.

>
>
> You make it blatantly plain that you have little knowledge of what that
>
> photo represents, and you claim to have come to an informed conclusion
>
> about the hole in the back of JFK's head?
>

I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have said. The head wound as described at Parkland is vastly different than that described by the autopsy team, the HSCA FPP, and what we see in the Z-film. Should we conclude the Parkland staff was lying, incompetent, or that the head wound they described looked much different than it does in the Z-film and much different than described at Bethesda and by the FPP. The last one is the only one that makes sense to me. When Oswald's bullet blew open JFK's head, it ceased to be a solid object. There were flaps of skull and scalp that could be opened or closed. The wound would look much different with the flaps closed than it would if they were open. I don't pretend to know exactly what the Parkland staff saw but I find it inconceivable that they observed just how massive the blowout to JFK's skull was. The only plausible explaination I can come up with is that Jackie closed that wound as best she could with the pieces that remained. If you have a better one, I would love to hear it.

>
>
> My advice to you is to become far more familiar than you are today with
>
> all of the autopsy photos and x-rays that have been made public before
>
> you presume to disagree with Mr. Canal, or for that matter, me, about
>
> what the cause of that rear hole was. And don't you dare claim you
>
> can't find them. I posted links to at least a fair representation of
>
> them in my first article in this thread.
>

I have seen all the ones that have been made public. And I'll disagree with anyone I damn well please. And I'll put the findings of the FPP panel way ahead of what you or Canal think you have discovered. That's a no brainer.

>
>
> The one you seem to have read only ten percent of.
>
>
>
> > > You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH
>
> > >
>
> > > photographs were taken.
>
> > >
>
> > If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.
>
>
>
> Yet you continue to make a not very educated guess about the Harper
>
> Fragment, and about the hole in the back of his head. Why are you not
>
> just as reluctant to express any conclusion about those matters as well,
>
> as you appear to know no more about them than you do about the autopsy
>
> in general?
>

I guess I'm just not into playing doctor.

>
>
> > > I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
>
> > >
>
> > > say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial cavity
>
> > >
>
> > > then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that can
>
> > >
>
> > > only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior to
>
> > >
>
> > > the BOH photos being taken.
>
> > >
>
> > So?
>
>
>
> What do you mean, "so?" Mr. Corbett? He's just told you why no hole in
>
> the back of JFK's head appears in those photographs, except for the very
>
> small entrance in the scalp.
>
>
>
> > One probably couldn't see cerebellum if the cerebellum is where cerebellum
>
> > normally is.
>
>
>
> Where are you getting that from? The lateral x-ray clearly shows severe
>
> fractures in the back of the skull running right down to the level where
>
> the cerebellum would be, or very close.
>
>
>
> > When there is a massive hole in one's head and brains are oozing
>
> > out, there's no telling where the cerebellum might end up. Much of JFK's
>
> > brain end up in places it normally wouldn't be.
>
>
>
> The brain was examined, and the cerebellum was more or less intact, so
>
> that explanation doesn't hold water.

Intact is not the same as in place.

> Are you ever going to actually
>
> study the autopsy far more carefully,

Uh, no. More qualified people than me have already done that.

> or are you just going to continue
>
> to make these wild, speculative, uneducated guesses?
>

At least my guesses are based on what qualified people have said on the subject.

>
>
> > > It is also important, IMO, to figure out why the autopsists (or Bukley who
>
> > >
>
> > > was really in charge) took pictures (12 total) of the BOH late instead of
>
> > >
>
> > > early when all the other autopsy photos were taken.
>
> > >
>
> > It's important to you. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care.
>
>
>
> Most of the rest of the world doesn't care why there is an apparent, and
>
> very serious, contradiction between the witness statements and what is
>
> shown in those photos, when that is one of the most serious
>
> controversies that has ever arisen in this case? You are way out there
>
> on that one.
>
>
>
> > > And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of bone,
>
> > >
>
> > > evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
>
> > >
>
> > Again, you wonder about such things.
>
>
>
> And you should be too, unless you're not all that interested in the JFK
>
> assassination.
>

It is no more than a hobby to me. I'm not obsessive enough about it to think I would accomplish anything by reinvestigating a crime that has already been scrutinized more than any crime in history. I consider myself to be a skeptic of the skeptics. In 48 years I have not seen one thing to make me believe the WC didn't get it right the first time and those of you who think you are going to rewrite history are only fooling yourselves.

>
>
> > > Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
>
> > >
>
> > > rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
>
> > >
>
> > > over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
>
> > >
>
> > > announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
>
> > >
>
> > Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
>
>
>
> Just saying it is far-fetched, without explaining why, Mr. Corbett, is
>
> not at all convincing.

It is not my purpose to convince you of anything.

> Even most LNs agree that certain agencies, such
>
> as the DPD and FBI obfuscated some of the evidence.

Really? What poll do you have to support that claim?

Not to cover up
>
> their *own* involvement in the assassination. But to emphasize evidence
>
> of Oswald's sole guilt and downplay what might appear to be evidence to
>
> the contrary,

If Oswald did it by himself, why would you think there would be evidence to the contrary?

> even if it actually wasn't true evidence to the contrary.
>
> Do you deny that the FBI downplayed their contacts with Oswald prior to
>
> the assassination, for example?
>

Covering their ass is not the same as covering up evidence. The FBI's prior involvement with Oswald had nothing to do with the question of whether or not he acted alone.

>
>
> So how would it be far-fetched for the autopsists to downplay evidence
>
> that might be interpreted, as it indeed has been ever since by millions
>
> of people worldwide, of a frontal shot?

You really think that was what they had on their minds the night of 11/22/63? I find that very far fetched.

> They knew it was not *true*
>
> evidence of a frontal shot. But they knew that many people would
>
> incorrectly assume it to be evidence of the exit of a frontal shot.
>

You really think they were thinking that far ahead? Why?

>
>
> > > Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
>
> > >
>
> > > cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
>
> > >
>
> > Ya, a real knee slapper.
>
>
>
> Only if one is not serious about resolving this apparent contradiction,
>
> which I call The Contradiction That Wasn't.
>

So you believe they covered up something that didn't need a cover up? Amazing.

>
>
> > > Why would he do that?
>
> >
>
> > Maybe because he saw cerebellum.
>
>
>
> Ya got it. And that's way too low in the head to have anything to do
>
> with any part of the head in which bone was completely missing.
>
>
>
> > > Is it not feasible that four months after the
>
> > >
>
> > > assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal shooter
>
> > >
>
> > > (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the cerebellum
>
> > >
>
> > > was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
>
> > >
>
> > Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.
>
>
>
> That he did. A bit slyly though. And it appears that not a single
>
> Commissioner caught on. Neither has the general public to this day.
>
> And you certainly haven't.
>

Or maybe we just see coverups where none exist. That requires an active imagination.

>
>
> > > Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
>
> > >
>
> > > then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
>
> > >
>
> > Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.
>
>
>
> Probably because we're wondering why you even needed to be told not to
>
> respond, since you have freely admitted that you have not studied the
>
> autopsy very well at all, and we're wondering, since you've already
>
> admitted it, why you're even posting at all about any aspect of it, and
>
> presuming to come to any conclusion about it yet.
>

Why do you presume that you should be able to present wild, speculative theories of a non-cover up cover up and not be challenged on it.

[John Canal]

In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

>
>On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

Canal's question to bigdog:

So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

[...]

>I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my abi=
>lity and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do exactl=
>y that.

You have no reason to believe the autopsy team reported exactly what they
saw?

They saw cerebellum--and you agreed they did--but they didn't report that?

They replaced pieces of skull before photographs or x-rays...but they
didn't report that they did.

They documented the damage to the BOH with photographs taken after the
rear scalp was repaired...is that reporting what they actually saw?

They told the FBI that the bullet didn't transit JFK's upper back/lower
neck, when that night they knew better...is that reporting what they saw?

They used a metal probe to probe the back wound but did not report that
they did.

They found the back wound right away but led the FBI to believe they found
it "during the later stages of the autopsy"...and didn't report they found
it right away.

There are other examples but I'm not going to beat a dead horse.

>There was a single shooter. The medical evidence supported that finding.

Yes, but the autopsy team did not report what they actually saw...that's a
fact, and I don't have to be a forensic pathologist to know that...I just
needed to study the medical evidence that was reported.

>Why do you assume the Bethesda team would need or want to cover anything up?

Anyone interested in an accurate historical record re. this case, should
have a desire to have the reason for the aforementioned examples of
misreporting explained.

The only thing that makes sense is that they (probably Burkley, who
evidently died thinking there had been a conspiracy) feared the actual
wounds could be misinterpreted as being caused by multiple
shooters........and considering they knew LHO had been to the Soviet
Union, they, being perhaps over-cautious, thought it'd be in the nations
best interest to not report that night the wounds they actually saw.

The misreporting happened, bigdog, do you have a better reason why it did
than I suggested?

Incompetence? Oversights? Rushing?

I don't think so....besides Humes, Boswell, and Finck, there was Ebersole
and Burkley there to decide what to do.

IMO, while perhaps being over-cautious, the misreporting was consciously
done and carefully planned..again with the best interests of the nation in
mind.

[Anthony Marsh]

That explains why you post here obsessively.

>>
>>
>>>> Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just saying it is far-fetched, without explaining why, Mr. Corbett, is
>>
>> not at all convincing.
>
> It is not my purpose to convince you of anything.
>
>> Even most LNs agree that certain agencies, such
>>
>> as the DPD and FBI obfuscated some of the evidence.
>
> Really? What poll do you have to support that claim?
>

Poll?
Did someone take a poll about Hosty destroying the Oswald note? Was that
Gallup or Harris?

> Not to cover up
>>
>> their *own* involvement in the assassination. But to emphasize evidence
>>
>> of Oswald's sole guilt and downplay what might appear to be evidence to
>>
>> the contrary,
>
> If Oswald did it by himself, why would you think there would be evidence to the contrary?
>

Someone slipped up or they didn't realize the evidence existed. No one
realized that there was a live recording of the event.

>> even if it actually wasn't true evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Do you deny that the FBI downplayed their contacts with Oswald prior to
>>
>> the assassination, for example?
>>
> Covering their ass is not the same as covering up evidence. The FBI's prior involvement with Oswald had nothing to do with the question of whether or not he acted alone.

Sometimes they need to cover up evidence to cover their asses and hide
their incompetence.

>>
>>
>> So how would it be far-fetched for the autopsists to downplay evidence
>>
>> that might be interpreted, as it indeed has been ever since by millions
>>
>> of people worldwide, of a frontal shot?
>
> You really think that was what they had on their minds the night of 11/22/63? I find that very far fetched.
>
>> They knew it was not *true*
>>
>> evidence of a frontal shot. But they knew that many people would
>>
>> incorrectly assume it to be evidence of the exit of a frontal shot.
>>
> You really think they were thinking that far ahead? Why?
>>
>>
>>>> Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Ya, a real knee slapper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only if one is not serious about resolving this apparent contradiction,
>>
>> which I call The Contradiction That Wasn't.
>>
> So you believe they covered up something that didn't need a cover up? Amazing.

Standard procedure. Do you really think anyone at the CIA has seen all the
withheld files and understands them? Half of them weren't even alive at
the time of those operations.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/11/2012 8:54 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <504f35b6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> John
>>
>> All of this name dropping is just an attempt to agitate.
>>
>> Simply put, .John apparently sees it one way, and I another re: F8. Now if
>> you want to inflame the issues go right ahead. People disagree on this forum
>> everyday.
>
> But to say McAdams was wrong, as if it was a fact....well, is wrong.
>

Like a broken watch he can't be wrong 100% of the time.

> Again your eyeballs are no better than his....so you should have said
> something like, "Our interpretations of where the defect in F8 are
> different"....not that he was wrong.
>
>> BTW, I never defended Sturdivan on the NAA.
>
> Hmmm, "My complete views on the NAA will be out soon. The gist of it is, I
> believe Rahn/Sturdivan got it right." [John Fiorentino. Friday, January 2,
> 2009 3:12 PM]
>

Hey man, that's so last decade. NAA is dead.

Oh, my God! He top posts? For that alone you should killfile him.
The nerve of some people.

[John Canal]

In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

>
>On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:31:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,

>>=20
>> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have said.

That's your problem IMO. What do you do when the experts disagree with one
another, punt?

I didn't. I interviewed more experts and did more reading....about 12+
years worth.

Okay, you believe Baden, right?

He testified under oath that all the members of the FPP, as well as their
forensic radiologist consultants, were in 100% agreement that the entry
could be seen on the X-rays in the cowlick.

But, his own consulting radiologist, Dr. William Seaman (whom I
interviewed BTW) stated it was inconclusive that an entry could be seen on
the X-rays in the cowlick.

Okay, you want to give Baden a free pass on that...an oversight on his
part, maybe?, fine....but....

Not one of the forensic experts hired by the ARRB saw any cowlick entrance
defect on the X-rays.

You still want to believe Baden...so you can base your beliefs on what he
said?

He said there was no lower brain damage (consistent with a bullet entering
near the EOP)....none, nada, zilcho.

But hold the phone, the autopsy report clearly stated there was a
laceration through the occipital lobe...bigdog. Now, I'm not a forensic
neuropathologist or neurosurgeon but the brain diagram I have on my office
wall indicates the occipital lobe is in the lower part of the
brain....also..

..there was severe hemorraging of the right cerebellar cortex
reported...did Baden even read the reports?

And that's not even to mention that Humes said they saw a lacerated
flocculus. I could go on and on, but it's not worth my time to go
on....you'd think I'm making up far-fetched scenarios anyway.

Believe whatever you want but believe the wrong experts and you end up
being decieved as to what the wounds were really like.

John Canal

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he wasn't. And you can's show me any photographic evidence that he
was leaning forward by about 27 degrees. You are talking nonsense.

> JRK
>

[John Canal]

In article <504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Dale myer's computer analysis says he was leaning forward appx. 27
degrees.

You been blabbering about this case for what now...20+ years...and you
still haven't done a weeks worth of research....I guess you've spent most
of that time posting....your B/S.


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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/11/2012 10:08 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
>
> Canal's question to bigdog:
>
> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
> right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
> besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
> there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
>

False premise. You are revealing Humes incompetence. That was a dab of
tissue on top of the hair, not tissue oozing out of the head.
Parkland already suggested conspiracy when they said the throat wound
was an entrance wound.

> [...]
>
>> I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my abi=
>> lity and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do exactl=
>> y that.
>
> You have no reason to believe the autopsy team reported exactly what they
> saw?
>
> They saw cerebellum--and you agreed they did--but they didn't report that?
>

Nonsense.

Maybe, just maybe they were smart enough to know that it was a
conspiracy and said so then were slapped down and threatened by their
commanding officer.

[John Fiorentino]

John:

You just continue to mangle what I've said, and meant.

I ALWAYS "top post" sorry about that........

I'll be more polite next time re: "wrong"

BTW, I didn't say he was wrong John, so again you continue to fudge this
just to agitate.. I said:

"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."

Re: Rahn/Sturdivan What I believe John is that they got the "conclusion"
right as did Guinn. However, there is MUCH more to this which I am working
on an article about.

You can spin my thoughts on Baden anyway you wish, I believe most here
know my feelings.

John F.





"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k2obf...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony:

I must agree Tony.

When you're right, you're right!!!!

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53:34 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> says...
>
> >
>
> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:31:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>
> >> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>=20
>
> >> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have said.
>
>
>
> That's your problem IMO. What do you do when the experts disagree with one
>
> another, punt?
>
>
>
> I didn't. I interviewed more experts and did more reading....about 12+
>
> years worth.
>
>
>
> Okay, you believe Baden, right?
>
>
>
> He testified under oath that all the members of the FPP, as well as their
>
> forensic radiologist consultants, were in 100% agreement that the entry
>
> could be seen on the X-rays in the cowlick.
>
>
>
> But, his own consulting radiologist, Dr. William Seaman (whom I
>
> interviewed BTW) stated it was inconclusive that an entry could be seen on
>
> the X-rays in the cowlick.
>
>
>
> Okay, you want to give Baden a free pass on that...an oversight on his
>
> part, maybe?, fine....but....
>
>
>
> Not one of the forensic experts hired by the ARRB saw any cowlick entrance
>
> defect on the X-rays.
>

Please tell me you're not referring to Doug Horne.

>
>
> You still want to believe Baden...so you can base your beliefs on what he
>
> said?
>
>
>
> He said there was no lower brain damage (consistent with a bullet entering
>
> near the EOP)....none, nada, zilcho.
>
>
>
> But hold the phone, the autopsy report clearly stated there was a
>
> laceration through the occipital lobe...bigdog. Now, I'm not a forensic
>
> neuropathologist or neurosurgeon but the brain diagram I have on my office
>
> wall indicates the occipital lobe is in the lower part of the
>
> brain....also..
>

That was one of the problems the FPP had with the original autopsy team.
They failed to use standard reference points in locating the wounds. The
FPP was composed of people who were among the best medical examiners in
the country. The team at Bethesda was composed of general pathologists who
were more experienced in performing autopsies on victims of cancer and
heart disease than they were in performing medico-legal autopsies.

>
>
> ..there was severe hemorraging of the right cerebellar cortex
>
> reported...did Baden even read the reports?
>
>
>
> And that's not even to mention that Humes said they saw a lacerated
>
> flocculus. I could go on and on, but it's not worth my time to go
>
> on....you'd think I'm making up far-fetched scenarios anyway.
>
>
>
> Believe whatever you want but believe the wrong experts and you end up
>
> being decieved as to what the wounds were really like.
>

Since you aren't a qualified expert I really don't need to make a choice.
Can you name a single experienced forensic medical examiner who shares
your opinion of the FPP conclusions?

[John Reagor King]

In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>,

Same here. However, is that a suggestion that you put me as being 90%
similar to Mr. Marsh? Is it your view that in 90% of my articles I have
no idea what I'm talking about regarding this assassination?

> > > Completely consistent with what I have said all along. Pieces of skull
> > > were
> > > blown out all along the right side of JFK's head.
> >
> > Yes, on the right side. Not in the rear. On the right side.
>
> Now your quibbling. Pieces of bone were blown out from the occipital to the
> temporal regions even if they did remain attached to the scalp.

You may call it quibbling. I think all it is is that you and I use the
term "blown out" in different senses. I use that term to indicate bone
that was completely blasted out of his head, no longer being present there
at all, not bone that is still attached to the scalp. I often use the
term "displaced" for that. But whatever. And you do specifically say
"from the occipital" to the temporal. You admit that some of it is
occipital. You do realize that by your use of that word alone you are not
contradicting my claim of what caused the hole in the back of JFK's head,
correct?

> They were no
> longer connected to the rest of the skull.

That's exactly what I said. Did you post that sentence thinking you
were contradicting me?

> Jackie closed much of that wound
> hiding the true extent of it from Parkland.

Yes, I've already said that as well. Did you post that sentence
thinking that needed to be explained to me?

> Had the Parkland staff seen how
> massive that head wound truly was, I doubt they would have even bothered with
> the measures they did.

Of course. This again contradicts nothing I've said.

> > > I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from. I don't
> > > play doctor. I rely on people who know what they are talking about to
> > > make
> > > judgements about the medical evidence.
> >
> > Oh, you've done it now. Mr. Canal is one of the most knowledgeable
> > posters in this newsgroup about the medical evidence,
>
> How many medico-legal autopsies has he performed?

What a silly question. This once again indicates that you left at least
90% of my first article unread. I demolished the myth that one always
has to be an "expert" in a particular field to still talk knowledgeably
about certain individual aspects of that field. Since you ignored all
that from my original article, I shall here repeat it, and maybe this
time it will sink in.

**********

However, it is a myth that a person absolutely *must* be an expert in a
field to be correct about certain aspects of that field only. To say
otherwise is tantamount to making the implausible claim that unless I am
an expert astronomer, there is no possibility that I will correctly
identify which objects in the sky are the moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
Polaris, or correctly identify the constellations of the Big Dipper,
Orion, and the Pleides. But in fact, without being anything even remotely
close to an expert astronomer I have still correctly identified all of
those many times, merely due to a healthy amateur interest in astronomy.
I don't have to be an expert in astronomy; all I have to do is know
*enough* about how to identify those particular things.

It has also been seen many times throughout recorded history that the
layman will catch things the experts miss, particularly when it relates to
a more general, overall picture. The common saying that one "fails to see
the forest because of the trees" relates to this. The expert is sometimes
seeing the individual "trees" but not comprehending the overall "forest."
In other words the expert, being so intimately involved with the minutiae
of the field of study, will sometimes fail to notice something more
general that can leap out at the layman who is objectively standing
outside of the field of expertise.

We already have a superb example of this very thing in connection with the
very assassination which is the topic of this newsgroup, in the form of
Steve Barber. Mr. Barber, listening to a very poor quality reproduction
of the DPD dictabelt recording on a thin bendable plastic record that was
included in a magazine, noticed something all, or nearly all, of the
bonafide acoustics experts had missed up to that time, and his
observations were made public, prompting the experts to re-examine the
dictabelt.

Now, do not mistake me. I know perfectly well that being a true expert in
a particular field is a superb advantage when discussing that field. Of
course it is. But that alone does not always guarantee that the expert is
right 100% of the time and the layman is wrong 100% of the time,
especially when the layman is discussing only one particular aspect of
that field, or certain individual aspects only.

**********

Now, Mr. Corbett, are you going to make the silly claim that Steve Barber
had to be an "expert" in acoustics to catch something on the dictabelt
recording that all the acoustics experts had so far missed? Rather
obviously he didn't. Are you going to make the silly claim that one has
to be an expert astronomer to correctly identify the moon? Can't you
correctly identify the moon without being an expert astronomer?

One doesn't have to be an "expert" necessarily in the entire field. All
one has to do is know *enough* about certain aspects of that field to talk
knowledgeably about those aspects.

> > and I'm hardly the
> > only one who says so. Barb Junkkarinen says so too.
>
> Someone can be well read on a subject and that still doesn't qualify them as
> an expert.

It doesn't prove that they aren't experts in certain aspects of that
subject either. It also doesn't prove that he doesn't know a good deal
more than you do about this particular subject. It is plain that he knows
this subject tremendously better than you do.

> I prefer the opinions of truly qualified medical examiners to that
> of the Monday morning quarterbacks.

And are you knowledgeable enough about this subject to be able to tell
when these truly qualified medical experts are operating on a bias and
when they are not? I rather doubt you are even close to being that
knowledgeable. You have certain failed utterly to demonstrate such a
thing here.

> > She hasn't said it
> > here recently, merely because she hasn't posted here recently, but she
> > used to post here quite regularly for years. And I still recall you
> > saying a few weeks ago that you had never seen most of the autopsy
> > photos.
>
> I've seen the ones in the public domain which is just a handful of the
> autopsy photos taken

There are more than a "handful" in the public domain, Mr. Corbett, 45 of
the 52, to be exact. And of the 45 that are in the public domain, you
appear to have studied very little. When one of them was shown to you
the other day, showing the inside of the cranial vault after it was
removed, you confessed that you had little idea what you were looking at.

> and still more than I need to see since I am not
> qualified to second guess a panel of the best medical examiners in the
> country who saw all the autopsy photos and x-rays and knew what that evidence
> told them.

You appear to not even be very well acquainted with what these best
medical examiners in the country have said about those photos. Your
replies here make that obvious. I'm curious as to which of these best
medical examiners in the country you can quote verbatim, along with the
original source proving they really said it, specifically disputing my own
view of when during the autopsy photos 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43
were taken. I predict you will be hard-pressed to find even one of them
who disputes my view on that.

> > And you, of all people, presume to argue with Mr. Canal, of all
> > people? He's seen all the ones that have ever been made public, which
> > is quite a few of them. So have I.
>
> Combined, how many years did the two of you spend in medical school? How many
> autopsies have you performed?

Oh please, there you go again. That is tantamount to saying that unless I
am an expert in astronomy, I cannot possibly be correct when I say that
Mercury, Venus, and Earth orbit the Sun, and that Io, Europa, and Ganymede
orbit Jupiter, which is itself also orbiting the Sun. All I have to do is
know *enough* about astronomy to make those statements without the
slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. That is tantamount
to saying that unless Steve Barber was an acoustical expert, he could not
possibly have been correct about what he heard on the dictabelt, even
though he was subsequently proven to be correct by a bit more than one
true acoustics experts. And do I myself have to be an expert in acoustics
to know perfectly well why the 200+ Dealey Plaza witnesses from whom we
have statements preserved for posterity in any form were so divided on
which direction the shots came from? No I do not, and neither do you, as
you ought to have known perfectly well long before today.

It is totally unnecessary for me to have performed a single autopsy in my
life, or even witnessed one being performed even once, to still see the
obvious. And I say again, there are many examples throughout recorded
history of the layman, standing objectively outside of the field of
expertise, noticing something obvious that the experts, with their
involvement in minutiae, and sometimes biases as well, have failed to see.
Do you deny that this is so? Do you think Steve Barber was wrong?

And how can you judge how on-target my observations are, when you ignore
90% of the reasoning I have used to support those observations? And you
continue to trot out your claims of what experts have said, even though it
is clear that you have read less than 10% of what they've said as well.
If you have read more than 10%, your articles here demonstrate no evidence
of that.

> > And you say you have no idea what
> > that is or what part of the skull it's from, when it's one of the most
> > well-known photos from the autopsy, has been public for decades, and has
> > been discussed in this newsgroup many times?
> >
> How many of the people who discussed it were qualified medical examiners?

In those discussions there have been extensive quotations of what
qualified medical examiners have said about that photograph. You appear
to have read less than 10% of what those qualified medical examiners have
said about that photograph. Had you read at least 11% of what they've
said, you would not have been so confused about what you were looking at.

> There is a reason the courts call upon qualified professionals to present
> expert testimony rather than turning to well read amateurs.

Are we in a court here, Mr. Corbett? No, we are in a newsgroup on
Usenet. And in which imaginary court case that never occurred was there
a determination that photographs 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43 were
not the final photographs taken at the autopsy proper, excluding photos
19-25 which were taken later. Do you even know what I'm talking about?
If so, you have not yet demonstrated it in any reply to me that I have
yet read. I explained the circumstances for 19-25 in my first article
in this thread. Was that also part of the 90% that you refused to read?

> > You make it blatantly plain that you have little knowledge of what that
> > photo represents, and you claim to have come to an informed conclusion
> > about the hole in the back of JFK's head?
>
> I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have
> said.

You claim your beliefs to be based on qualified medical professionals
have said about the hole in the back of his head? You should have said:

"I present my beliefs which are based on less than ten percent of what
qualified medical professionals have said."

That would have been a more accurate statement, Mr. Corbett.

> The head wound as described at Parkland is vastly different than that
> described by the autopsy team, the HSCA FPP, and what we see in the Z-film.

Yes, I have already said that, and you have already agreed with me on
that in your earliest reply to me in this thread.

> Should we conclude the Parkland staff was lying, incompetent, or that the
> head wound they described looked much different than it does in the Z-film
> and much different than described at Bethesda and by the FPP.

Why on earth is that addressed to me, of all people? In your first
reply to me you did at least appear to have read *that* part of my
article, in which I made a plausible case that the Parkland staff was
not lying, nor were they incompetent. Ah, but then you stopped reading
at that point in my first article, didn't you, Mr. Corbett? If I'm
wrong, why are you making no reference here to my further explanation of
what the differences observed at Bethesda actually were? When the body
was first unwrapped, prior to anything being done with the President's
head, there were at first *no* significant differences observed at
Bethesda from the Parkland observations. Several witnesses at the
autopsy, including a few who also saw his head in Dallas, said it still
looked the same as at Parkland. The flaps on the right side were still
closed, just as at Parkland. The obvious hole in the back of his head
was still present, just as at Parkland. For you to say that the head
damage was described much differently at Bethesda than at Parkland is
misleading. It began to be described differently at Bethesda *only*
after work was started on the head. When they peeled back the scalp and
hair, for example, then of course the observations at Bethesda became
quite different than at Parkland, because only then could the full
extent of the damage to the skull be seen for the first time. But the
*initial* observations of witnesses at Bethesda, from *before* anyone
touched his head, are quite consistent with the observations made at
Parkland.

I will now issue a challenge to you, Mr. Corbett: please quote verbatim
in their exact words, along with the original source for the quote so
that we may independently verify beyond your word that it was really
said, Dr. Boswell, or Dr. Humes, or Dr. Finck specifically saying that
there was *not* a hole in the back of JFK's head through which
cerebellum could be seen when the body was first unwrapped at Bethesda,
before anyone touched the head or did anything with it otherwise. In
addition, please quote at least one of them verbatim, along with the
original source, as specifically saying that photographs 11, 12, 15, 16,
38, 39, 42, and 43 were definitely not the final photos taken during the
autopsy proper.

I predict you will have a bit of difficulty locating such a quote from
any of the three autopsists.

And they *were* people who had performed autopsies.

> The last one is
> the only one that makes sense to me. When Oswald's bullet blew open JFK's
> head, it ceased to be a solid object. There were flaps of skull and scalp
> that could be opened or closed. The wound would look much different with the
> flaps closed than it would if they were open. I don't pretend to know exactly
> what the Parkland staff saw but I find it inconceivable that they observed
> just how massive the blowout to JFK's skull was. The only plausible
> explaination I can come up with is that Jackie closed that wound as best she
> could with the pieces that remained. If you have a better one, I would love
> to hear it.

As that is practically the same explanation (though in much less
substantive detail) that I gave in my original article in this thread, I
am again at a loss to determine why you address that to me of all people.

Wait, no I'm not at a loss.

It's because you read no more than 10% of my article.

> > My advice to you is to become far more familiar than you are today with
> > all of the autopsy photos and x-rays that have been made public before
> > you presume to disagree with Mr. Canal, or for that matter, me, about
> > what the cause of that rear hole was. And don't you dare claim you
> > can't find them. I posted links to at least a fair representation of
> > them in my first article in this thread.
>
> I have seen all the ones that have been made public.

"Seen" is a rather different thing from "understood."

> And I'll disagree with
> anyone I damn well please.

Of course you can, that is your right. But when your opinions are based
on only 10% of the available evidence, it is natural that others will
not take your disagreement seriously.

> >And I'll put the findings of the FPP panel way
> ahead of what you or Canal think you have discovered. That's a no brainer.

Oh? The FPP specifically said that photos 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42,
and 43 were not the final photos taken during the autopsy proper? When
did they say this, Mr. Corbett? Please quote them verbatim saying this,
along with the original source. I have never once come across them
saying anything even remotely like that, though perhaps I have simply
missed it or have forgotten by now? Otherwise, when, exactly, did the
FPP dispute even one of the claims I made in my original article? I
made many other claims besides when those eight photos were taken.

How on earth have you gotten the extraordinary notion that my claims
differ significantly from the FPP, certainly regarding their overall
conclusions?

Oh that's right: because you read only one-tenth of what I wrote.

> > > > You'd also be agreeing that the scalp was worked on before the BOH
> > > > photographs were taken.
> > > If I did that, I would be making a guess, and not a very educated one.
> >
> > Yet you continue to make a not very educated guess about the Harper
> > Fragment, and about the hole in the back of his head. Why are you not
> > just as reluctant to express any conclusion about those matters as well,
> > as you appear to know no more about them than you do about the autopsy
> > in general?
>
> I guess I'm just not into playing doctor.

You're apparently not very much into investigating the medical evidence
in the JFK assassination either.

> > > > I think you know the reason why I say that....if not let me tell you. I
> > > > say that because if F8 shows the entry was deep inside the cranial
> > > > cavity
> > > > then, because the BOH photographs show the entry in the cowlick, that
> > > > can
> > > > only mean, with 100% certainty, that the rear scalp was worked on prior
> > > > to
> > > > the BOH photos being taken.
> >
> > > So?
> >
> > What do you mean, "so?" Mr. Corbett? He's just told you why no hole in
> > the back of JFK's head appears in those photographs, except for the very
> > small entrance in the scalp.

I see you ignored that, Mr. Corbett.

> > > One probably couldn't see cerebellum if the cerebellum is where
> > > cerebellum
> > > normally is.
> >
> > Where are you getting that from? The lateral x-ray clearly shows severe
> > fractures in the back of the skull running right down to the level where
> > the cerebellum would be, or very close.

And you ignored that too.

> > > When there is a massive hole in one's head and brains are oozing
> > > out, there's no telling where the cerebellum might end up. Much of JFK's
> > > brain end up in places it normally wouldn't be.
> >
> > The brain was examined, and the cerebellum was more or less intact, so
> > that explanation doesn't hold water.
>
> Intact is not the same as in place.

Jeez. Above you cite the FPP to support your, uh, "beliefs," such as
they are, yet here you make that comment. Have you actually read what
the FPP said about whether or not the cerebellum was in place? Have you
actually read what the original autopsists said about whether or not the
cerebellum was still in place?

Apparently not.

You'll have to read at least 11% of what they said to catch that. Maybe
you'll finally do that before your next reply.

> > Are you ever going to actually
> > study the autopsy far more carefully,
>
> Uh, no. More qualified people than me have already done that.

Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha! And there it is, folks. Mr. Corbett is
absolutely going to refuse to ever, ever, ever study the autopsy. He is
instead going to read only 10% of what the more qualified people (and
here I don't mean me, I mean the autopsists and the FPP) have said about
that autopsy, then jump to woefully-uninformed conclusions about that
autopsy.

You're not all that interested in the JFK assassination, are you? You
certainly aren't demonstrating much interest in it here.

> > or are you just going to continue
> > to make these wild, speculative, uneducated guesses?
>
> At least my guesses are based on what qualified people have said on the
> subject.

Your *wild* guesses are based on, at most, 10% of what qualified people
have said on the subject. And I'm talking about the qualified people
you're talking about, not about me.

> > > > And one should wonder why on earth Boswell would replace pieces of
> > > > bone,
> > > > evidently in the right rear of his head, before the x-rays were taken.
> >
> > > Again, you wonder about such things.
> >
> > And you should be too, unless you're not all that interested in the JFK
> > assassination.
> >
> It is no more than a hobby to me.

That is an understatement. It appears not to be even am important hobby
to you, but instead one that is undertaken with only occasional, lazy
investigation of no more than one-tenth of the available evidence.

> I'm not obsessive enough about it to think
> I would accomplish anything by reinvestigating a crime that has already been
> scrutinized more than any crime in history.

So, is it your opinion that it is of no value to attempt to resolve the
most serious controversies in the case in a more plausible way than they
have ever been resolved before? Would you say that Dale Myers's 2003 (I
think) computer animation of the single bullet that was shown on
mainstream television is something that is irrelevant? He
reinvestigated that issue, and came up with something quite plausible,
that has convinced a larger percentage of the public than ever before
that the single bullet really did happen that way. Sure, there is still
plenty of controversy over that. But there is indeed today a *larger*
percentage of the public than ever before who are now convinced of the
single bullet. And this was not done by Myers until 40 years after the
assassination, when the crime had already been scrutinized more than any
other crime in history. But he put something before the general public
that explained things more clearly about the single bullet than they had
ever been explained before.

Notice carefully that I am not putting myself anywhere near the level of
the likes of Myers. I have no delusions of that. But I am at least
*trying* to resolve, in a way that I feel would also be more plausible
to a fair percentage of the general public than it has ever been before,
another of the most serious controversies of all that has ever arisen in
this case, just as serious as that over the single bullet: why photos
11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43 don't show the obvious hole in the
back of his head as described by so many witnesses. If you had actually
read more than 10% of what I wrote, you would already know that my
explanation does *not* support the common belief among the general
public that this involved a coverup of a shot from the front. There was
no shot from the front. The hole in the back of his head was not exit
damage from a shot from the front.

Don't you think it's a worthy goal to explain to the public in a
clearer, more plausible way than it has ever been explained before
exactly *why* photos 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43 do not conflict
in the slightest with the witnesses who said there was a hole in the
back of his head much larger than the entrance hole in his scalp?

> I consider myself to be a skeptic
> of the skeptics.

So do I, and that includes both CT and LN skeptics in my case. Too many
CTs mistakenly believe that the hole in the back of JFK's head is proof
of the exiting of a frontal shot, and mistakenly believe that photos 11,
12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43 were a coverup of true exit damage. They
are wrong. Too many LNs mistakenly believe that photos 11, 12, 15, 16,
38, 39, 42, and 43 prove that there never had been any hole in the back
of his head except for the small entry in the scalp, and mistakenly
believe that if they admit the hole had indeed been there prior to when
those eight photos were taken, it's the same thing as admitting the CTs
are right about that being an exit from a frontal shot. They are wrong
as well.

My explanation, on the other hand, involves dismissing the smallest
amount of available evidence, as you would have already known had you
read more than 10% of it. And at least I am TRYING to present that in a
way that will be considered plausible by a larger percentage of the
public than ever before. I do not claim that I will be SUCCESSFUL at
that ? obviously I do not know yet ? but at least I'm TRYING to do that.

> In 48 years I have not seen one thing to make me believe the
> WC didn't get it right the first time and those of you who think you are
> going to rewrite history are only fooling yourselves.

Again you demonstrate that you have no clear understanding whatsoever of
what my argument is. When have I ever said the WC was wrong about there
being a single shooter firing from the sixth floor of the Depository?
When have I ever said that the WC was wrong about that shooter being
Oswald? And where on earth have you gotten the astonishing idea that I,
of all people, am trying to rewrite history?

Oh that's right, because you read no more than 10% of what I wrote.

I am merely trying to address a serious controversy that the WC did not
adequately resolve. I'll give you a run for your money if you claim the
WC adequately resolved everything. They did not. One of the best
examples of that is that the WC came to no firm conclusion regarding
which shot missed the limo, and which shot involved the single bullet.

> > > > Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that there indeed was a right
> > > > rear wound and the autopsists (and/or Burkley) decided, cautiously (if
> > > > not
> > > > over-cautiously) that it wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to
> > > > announce there was such a wound....a wound that seemed exit-like?
> > > Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
> >
> > Just saying it is far-fetched, without explaining why, Mr. Corbett, is
> > not at all convincing.
>
> It is not my purpose to convince you of anything.

That's fine. But some of us are not just going to stand by idly and let
your woefully-uninformed claims about this case go unchallenged.

> > Even most LNs agree that certain agencies, such
> > as the DPD and FBI obfuscated some of the evidence.
>
> Really? What poll do you have to support that claim?

Poll?? How about the articles by LNs in this newsgroup?

Oh that's right, you wouldn't know, because you've read less than 10% of
them. Plenty of LNs have admitted here that there were some very
misguided aspects of the original investigation. That is not the same
thing as that investigation coming to the wrong overall conclusion, mind
you. They did indeed come to the correct overall conclusion. But they
did it in a way that still left too many questions unanswered, and have
given too many people the impression that they were covering up their
*own* involvement in the assassination, which they weren't.

> Not to cover up

Not to cover up what, Mr. Corbett? Their own involvement in the
assassination? If that's what you meant, I wholeheartedly agree. But
if you are making the absurd claim that they weren't trying to cover up
certain faulty aspects of the investigation, I'll give you a run for
your money on that. The DPD actively tried to make their investigation
look neater and more clean-cut than it actually was, to make it look
better to the public, in other words. There is plenty of evidence to
support that. The FBI actively downplayed their surveillance of Oswald
prior to the assassination to avoid public criticism of the fact that
they had failed to identify Oswald as dangerous prior to the
assassination. There is plenty of evidence to support that as well.
You should not need me to present that evidence to you, as you can
easily find it for yourself. The CIA did not divulge, until about a
decade after the assassination, that they had been trying to assassinate
Castro during the Kennedy administration using the mafia to help them,
the same mafia that Robert Kennedy was prosecuting more vigorously than
any attorney general has before or since. Don't tell me that might not
have clarified Oswald's motives better than the original investigation
clarified them. It quite obviously would have been of relevance. Do I
need to explain to you why, or can you figure that out for yourself?

But you have to read more than 10% of it to understand it.

> > their *own* involvement in the assassination. But to emphasize evidence
> > of Oswald's sole guilt and downplay what might appear to be evidence to
> > the contrary,
>
> If Oswald did it by himself, why would you think there would be evidence to
> the contrary?

There is a lot that *appears* to the general public to be evidence to
the contrary, as you well know. Still today the majority of the general
public believes there was more than one shooter, just to name one
example. Don't you think it's important to finally, for the first time
ever, convince the majority to believe there was only one shooter?

And I don't care whether or not your purpose in posting to this
newsgroup is to convince the public of anything. No matter what your
purpose is here, this is not a private email exchange between you and
me, in which you and I are the only ones reading what is said. This is
a newsgroup that may well be being read by thousands of people who do
not post articles here. If those people are reading claims by you that
I feel to be woefully-uninformed, then I have the right to challenge
those claims as I am doing now, so that they see what I'm saying too,
not only what you're saying.

> > even if it actually wasn't true evidence to the contrary.
> > Do you deny that the FBI downplayed their contacts with Oswald prior to
> > the assassination, for example?
> >
> Covering their ass is not the same as covering up evidence.

*cough* They covered themselves by covering up evidence. Not evidence
of their own involvement in the assassination. Evidence that showed
their investigation to not be as clean and neat as they were trying to
make it out to be. Or will you make the astonishing claim that the FBI
destroying a note written to the FBI by Oswald, so that we will never
know for certain what it said, isn't covering up of evidence?

> The FBI's prior
> involvement with Oswald had nothing to do with the question of whether or not
> he acted alone.

Feh. When we don't have any idea for certain what that note said?

> > So how would it be far-fetched for the autopsists to downplay evidence
> > that might be interpreted, as it indeed has been ever since by millions
> > of people worldwide, of a frontal shot?
>
> You really think that was what they had on their minds the night of 11/22/63?
> I find that very far fetched.

Of course you do, because you've read only 10% of what I've written.
You've also made it plain that you blindly trust only 10% of what your
experts have said about that autopsy, and you've made it plain that you
refuse to ever, ever, ever study the autopsy yourself. You're just
going to leave it up to the experts after reading only one-tenth of what
they've said.

> > They knew it was not *true*
> > evidence of a frontal shot. But they knew that many people would
> > incorrectly assume it to be evidence of the exit of a frontal shot.
>
> You really think they were thinking that far ahead? Why?

Why should I answer you there, when I know you're probably not going to
read my answer anyway? The likelihood of you getting this far through
my article is remote in the extreme. You certainly didn't get very far
through my first article, or if you did, nothing you've said so far
gives any evidence of that. But ok, I'll give it a whirl, since I
suspect thousands of others will read my answer, even if you don't.

Of course you are quite obviously unaware (or I guess you are, or you
would have already mentioned it) that I have several times given a
different explanation for this. So let me now discuss two
possibilities, and be clear that I am considering these to be
*possibilities* only, not proven fact:

1. The autopsists were NOT thinking that far ahead. They might have had
no idea that in later years so many people would notice what appeared to
be a glaring contradiction between the statements of the majority of the
witnesses who saw the damage to JFK's head, and what is and isn't shown
in the autopsy photos, what is and isn't said in the autopsy report,
mainly the lack of photographic documentation of a hole in the back of
the head through which a part of the brain could be seen, and the lack
of clear mention of the hole in the autopsy report and in their WC
testimonies. They obviously had no idea what the Parkland doctors and
nurses would say when testifying to the Warren Commission months later,
and did not know yet that there would even *be* a Warren Commission.
They were primarily concerned with documenting the most serious damage
to the head, and documenting the entrance of the bullet from the rear.
Since they could plainly see that the hole in the back of his head
noticed at Parkland and by some at Bethesda as well was not the most
serious damage to his head, nor was it the much smaller entry, nor was
it evidence of a shot from the front, they were not concerned with
documenting it. After documenting photographically in F8 (the
photograph you said you didn't understand) the inwardly-beveled bullet
entry into the cranium after the brain was removed, in other words
showing the entry from the inside of the skull, as well as documenting
photographically the amount of bone that was completely blown out of the
skull in more forward parts, proving frontal exit (now do you finally
understand what that photograph represents?) they allowed the morticians
to take over to begin to prepare the body for the private open casket
viewing for family and close friends only which did indeed occur later.
Just after the morticians had sutured the rip or tear in the back of the
scalp closed, which of course would hide the hole in the back of the
head noticed by so many witnesses, suddenly the autopsists realized that
although they had photographically documented the bullet entry from the
inside of the cranium in F8, they had not yet documented the bullet
entry through the scalp. So they lifted his head, and the photographer
snapped the photos we know today, which do show the entry in the scalp,
but show no other hole in the scalp. There is also the well-documented
fact that Robert Kennedy kept calling down asking when the autopsy would
be finished, as if he was trying to hurry it up as much as possible. On
various occasions Humes said that this did not influence the autopsists
to rush the autopsy in any way, but his statements were a bit
contradictory on that. He also said to the ARRB, "I have trouble
conjuring up--I wish that the photographs were more graphic and more
specifically helpful than they are. I'm disappointed by that, and I
didn't find that out with certainty, really, until I got to that House
Select Committee hearing."

Ah, but that explanation is problematic due to photos 11 and 12 (in
black and white) and 38 and 39 (in color). Why? Because those show the
bullet entry in his back as well as showing part of the back of the
head, with no opening in the rear scalp showing the hole described by
the majority of the witnesses. So here is the second possibility, the
one I now find to be the more plausible, and the one which dismisses the
smallest amount of available evidence.

2. Drs. Boswell, Finck, and Humes were not blithering idiots, or at
least partially not. It was not at all difficult for them to think
"that far ahead," since such a thought process would be no more than
child's play to men such as these. Once they had examined the overall
damage to the head they knew perfectly well that it was due to a single
shot from the rear, and that the hole in the back of the head was not
*true* evidence of any shot from the front, as it was created not by any
bone being blasted out of the skull to the rear, since there wasn't any
bone in that area that was missing, but instead by the overall explosive
force of the bullet slamming into the pressure cavity of the cranium.
They could see that in the back of the head the bone was severely
fractured, but that none of it was completely missing, and that the hole
was created by the fractured bone being displaced laterally, combined
with a tear in the scalp, causing a hole to open. Not being blithering
idiots, at least to some extent, they knew nevertheless that many
people, experts and layman alike, would ***INCORRECTLY*** interpret that
hole as exit damage due to a bullet shot from the front. Remember also
that they did not yet know about the Zapruder film which would clearly
show frontal exiting from a rear shot. So, just like other government
agencies such as the CIA, DPD, and FBI, they decided purposefully to
downplay anything that might even LOOK like evidence of multiple shots
striking the head from the front and the back, and no photographs
showing any portion of the back of the head were taken until the end,
after the rip in the scalp had been sutured closed, so that no such hole
would be visible. With this explanation also the actions of Robert
Kennedy and what Humes said to the ARRB could be considered relevant.
Months later the autopsists might have finally realized that they could
have been more open about this, and that it might not have been as
problematic as they had assumed, but by then of course it was too late
to rectify their blunder regarding the photographic documentation. Like
so many people have done throughout history, they were reluctant ever
afterward to openly reveal this blunder. But even then Humes still
slipped in a very obscure hint to the Warren Commission, knowing that
they would probably not catch on to it, as indeed they didn't, in this
single sentence in his testimony: "We also noted at this point that the
flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior
sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of
the meninges was also lacerated."

Ah, and do notice carefully that the autopsists never actually said
specifically that there wasn't such a hole in the back of JFK's head
when the body first arrived at Bethesda, nor did they ever specifically
say that photographs 11, 12, 15, 16, 38, 39, 42, and 43 were not the
final photographs taken during the autopsy proper.

> > > > Funny, isn't it, that four months later Humes innocuously, if not
> > > > cleverly, testified that he, Boswell, and Finck saw the cerebellum?

Ah, Mr. Corbett, see that sentence that Mr. Canal wrote to you? Now
compare that to the sentence I quoted above from Humes's WC testimony.
Do you understand the significance of this?

> > > Ya, a real knee slapper.

As that was your response to it, obviously not.

> > Only if one is not serious about resolving this apparent contradiction,
> > which I call The Contradiction That Wasn't.
> >
> So you believe they covered up something that didn't need a cover up?
> Amazing.

Something they erroneously believed needed to be covered up. Not at all
amazing, since the CIA, DPD, and FBI did exactly the same thing. Ever
noticed how many people using the Freedom of Information Act, and on
many other issues besides the JFK assassination, have noted that those
agencies have often fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing even the
most innocuous documents?

> > > > Why would he do that?
> >
> > > Maybe because he saw cerebellum.
> >
> > Ya got it. And that's way too low in the head to have anything to do
> > with any part of the head in which bone was completely missing.

You ignored that too. Why am I not surprised?

> > > > Is it not feasible that four months after the
> > > > assassintion he felt comfortable that there had not been a frontal
> > > > shooter
> > > > (a conspiracy) so he neded to get it into the record that the
> > > > cerebellum
> > > > was exposed that night (after all it wasn't in the autopsy report)?
> >
> > > Or maybe he just testified to what he saw.
> >
> > That he did. A bit slyly though. And it appears that not a single
> > Commissioner caught on. Neither has the general public to this day.
> > And you certainly haven't.
> >
> Or maybe we just see coverups where none exist. That requires an active
> imagination.

"Where none exist." "An active imagination." Cute. Now let's get back
to reality. The investigation did indeed arrive at the correct
*overall* conclusion, that being that only one person fired the shots
with only one weapon, and who that person was, and that almost certainly
no one else knew in advance what he was going to do. But just like
government agencies have done time and time and time again, before and
since this assassination, they downplayed their blunders and emphasized
evidence which made it appear that their investigation was cleaner and
more straightforward than it actually was, rather obviously to try to
avoid public controversy as much as possible. This problem was made
orders of magnitude worse because of when this assassination occurred:
at the height of the cold war and that it occurred only 13 months after
the Cuban Missile Crisis. Several prominent government officials are
conclusively documented as expressing concerns that if the public got
the idea that there had even maybe, possibly, perhaps been multiple
shooters, that too many of the public might believe that Cuba or the
Soviet Union or both were behind the assassination. The problem was
further exacerbated by Jack Ruby's spontaneous murder of the accused
assassin, which immediately gave millions of people the impression that
Oswald was being silenced because there were more people involved in the
assassination than him, even though the case for Ruby being a lone nut
is actually *stronger* than that for Oswald, as I have discussed
extensively in another thread less than a month ago. Because of at
least some of those blunders having been revealed publicly, in the years
and decades since, far, far, far too many people, millions of them, have
arrived at the incorrect conclusion that these agencies were covering up
an *actual* conspiracy in the assassination *itself*, rather than coming
to the correct conclusion that this was just another example, to be
added to so many others before and since, of government agencies trying
to make themselves look better than they actually were, and trying to
cover up their blunders.

> > > > Ok, bigdog, if this scenario isn't even a tiny bit concievable to you,
> > > > then don't bother replying to this...and I'll leave you alone.
> >
> > > Why didn't you tell me that up front and save me a lot of time.
> >
> > Probably because we're wondering why you even needed to be told not to
> > respond, since you have freely admitted that you have not studied the
> > autopsy very well at all, and we're wondering, since you've already
> > admitted it, why you're even posting at all about any aspect of it, and
> > presuming to come to any conclusion about it yet.
>
> Why do you presume that you should be able to present wild, speculative
> theories of a non-cover up cover up and not be challenged on it.

Oh, I don't mind challenges. In fact I thrive on them. And I love
being proven wrong, that is when I really *am* wrong, and not wrong in
someone else's opinion only. Of course you have not come within a
million light-years of proving me wrong on any of my claims. And my
theories are hardly "wild," as you would know if you had read more than
10% of what I've written. My theories instead involve the
acknowledgement of the largest amount of available evidence, and the
dismissal of the smallest amount of it.

I don't have to claim the Zapruder film to be even slightly altered to
support my views.

I don't have to claim that the majority of the witnesses who saw JFK's
body were wrong.

I don't have to claim that even one of the photographs and x-rays taken
at the autopsy were altered after they were taken.

I don't have to claim that the autopsists were wrong in what they *did*
mention.

I don't have to claim that the FPP was wrong it what it *did* mention.

I don't have to claim that there isn't any evidence of various
government agencies trying to make themselves look better than they
actually are.

In short, my explanation requires the dismissal of a smaller amount of
evidence than does the typical CT or LN explanation.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k2org...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:31:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> >> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>=20
> >> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have
> >said.
>
> That's your problem IMO. What do you do when the experts disagree with one
> another, punt?
>
> I didn't. I interviewed more experts and did more reading....about 12+
> years worth.

Ah yes, there's another point, Mr. Corbett. Mr. Canal interviewed John
Stringer, *twice*. Have you ever talked in real life with anyone who was
present at the autopsy of President Kennedy, Mr. Corbett? I think not, or
you would have surely mentioned it long before now. So what if Mr. Canal
has never himself performed an autopsy? He's talked in real life to a
person who really was there.

You haven't, he has.

For that reason alone, which claims, yours or his, are more likely to be
taken seriously by a larger number of people?

The answer to that ought to be obvious.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/12/2012 5:24 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
>>>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
>>>
>>> Crucially important, actually.
>>>
>>
>> No, he wasn't. And you can's show me any photographic evidence that he
>> was leaning forward by about 27 degrees. You are talking nonsense.
>
> Dale myer's computer analysis says he was leaning forward appx. 27
> degrees.
>

Yes, that's my point exactly, Dale Myers lies.

> You been blabbering about this case for what now...20+ years...and you
> still haven't done a weeks worth of research....I guess you've spent most
> of that time posting....your B/S.
>
>

I am the guy who corrected the HSCA map. I am the guy who proved that
the Zapruder film is authentic. And you? Nothing.

[John Canal]

In article <505006f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 9/11/2012 10:08 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>> says...

This post is exactly why I took you off my killfile.....the things you say
are so ridiculous they humor me.

>> Canal's question to bigdog:
>>
>> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
>> right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
>> besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
>> there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
>>
>
>False premise. You are revealing Humes incompetence. That was a dab of
>tissue on top of the hair, not tissue oozing out of the head.

If you're referring to the dab of tissue below the EOP as seen in the BOH
photos (you know the one just about every one else that knows anything
about this case besides you shows the entry wound in the scalp) let me say
this:

The white dab represents muscle or tissue from one of the lower of the
five layers of scalp that exuded through a breach in the top scalp layers
accidently caused when they undermined the scalp.

Now, read carefully and don't be in such a hurry to make your quota of 50
posts:

If the tissue exuded upfrom the lower scalp layers his damn hair wouldn't
have preveted it from ending up on top of his hair.

Hell, a five year old can understand that.

Now, let me see what other foolishness you've bothered me with.

>Parkland already suggested conspiracy when they said the throat wound
>was an entrance wound.

Duh....and....?

>> [...]
>>
>>> I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my abi=
>>> lity and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do exactl=
>>> y that.
>>
>> You have no reason to believe the autopsy team reported exactly what they
>> saw?
>>
>> They saw cerebellum--and you agreed they did--but they didn't report that?
>>
>
>Nonsense.

Huh? Have you not read either the autopsy report or Humes' WC testimony?
Neither one...really. Why am I not surprised....you might find a ton of
evidence that helps debunk your wacky theories...that's why.

Marsh, you keep saying the defect over his right eye was an entry
wound....but you are smart enough to realize I hope that if a bullet
entered there that bullet would have had to create a pathway throught his
brain, right? No? Oh well.

Anyway, news flash, Marsh...there was only ONE pathway through the brain
noted and it hardly lined up with either your entry or Harris'.

Sorry...I'd say nice try but both theories are ill thought out.

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

[John Reagor King]

In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>,

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> > In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> > says...
> > >On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:35:32 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:

And bigdog wrote:

> > >I have no idea what that is or what part of the skull it is from.

Hehehehehehehehehehe, I still continue to be amused by that one.

> > >I don't
> > >play
> > >doctor.

Or apparently pretend to be especially interested in the assassination
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

> > >I rely on people who know what they are talking >about to make
> > >judgements about the medical evidence.

That should have read: "I rely on no more than ten percent of what is
said by people who know what they are talking about to make judgements

about the medical evidence."

> > I try to figure out things like that when the experts you rely on
> > completely
> >
> > disagree with each other, causing debates like this to perpetuate.
> >
> The HSCA FPP had no disagreement about what the medical evidence showed. They
> were all experienced medical examiners and it was pretty obvious to them what
> it revealed.

That the evidence revealed that a single shot struck the President's
head from the rear. Are you under the unfortunate delusion that Mr.
Canal disagrees in the slightest with that conclusion?

> > And I try to figure out why they disagree too. Sometimes I have to
> > interview
> > experts or eyewitnesses...and I've done that many many times.
> >
> > I realize you could care less, but once I drove over 450 miles to interview
> > one
> > of this country's leading forensic anthropologists, Dr. Anthony Falsetti
> > (ironically, a friend of Baden's) to get his take on F8.
> >
> How many medico-legal autopsies has he performed?

How many Google searches have you performed, Mr. Corbett? I'm assuming
you know what a Google search is? Within seconds of the first Google
search I've ever done in my life on Dr. Falsetti (just before typing the
sentence I'm now typing) I have learned that Dr. Falsetti is quite
renowned for identifying cause of death in human remains, including very
*old* human remains. He's rather good at looking at bones and
determining what evidence they do and do not show regarding damage, and
thus how that damage was inflicted. Did you not know before today that
there are other fields of expertise besides being an autopsist that can
still have superb relevance on the findings of autopsies. See the word
"forensic" in Mr. Canal's description of Dr. Falsetti's occupation?

Oh, and here's another surprise for you, Mr. Corbett: the autopsy of JFK
was not exactly a "medico-legal" autopsy, if you by that term meant a
standard criminal autopsy such as would have been done in a typical
murder case, and what would almost certainly been the type of autopsy
done if the body had been left in Texas, as it was supposed to be by
state law (and at that time there was no federal law which superseded
it, as the murder of a U.S. president was not yet a federal crime). At
that time autopsies performed by the military (which the Bethesda
autopsy certainly was) did not follow the same procedures as standard
criminal autopsies. Wanna know why I say that? I'll tell you even if
you don't, since you won't be the only person reading this article. I
was told this very thing by a very real medical expert who was one of my
mother's best friends, Dr. Betty Williams, who passed away in 2004. I
realize that because she is no longer with us, she cannot now confirm
that she really told me this, but since I do not *ever* lie in this
newsgroup about anything even half as important as this, if I say she
told me this then it is the truth, whether I am believed or not. She
also, as it so happened, was very interested in the JFK assassination,
and she and I talked at great length on many occasions about it. If you
or anyone else makes any reply whatsoever that I interpret to be in any
way disparaging of my mother or of Dr. Williams, my reply will be in the
harshest words that are allowed by the moderators.

And no matter what you say, unless you can ***PROVE*** that Dr. Williams
was incorrect, no statement you make to that effect will be taken
seriously.

> > I've interviewed Stringer twice in his home.
> >
> > I could go on and on, but I hate to bore you.
>
> Really? You are so good at it.

That is certainly the one culinary implement accusing the other of being
the same hue. Mr. Canal and I do not reply to you because we find you
to be at all interesting (how could we, with your incessant repetition
of ill-informed claims?), we instead reply to you, and challenge you,
because we know that others, including people who never post here, are
reading this newsgroup, and naturally, being more interested in the JFK
assassination than you appear to be, we refuse to give these readers the
impression that your claims are altogether valid.

I of course have long known, Mr. Corbett, that you at least once engaged
in a radio debate with Tom Rossley. I have heard some of that. Of
course I have been saying here since at least 2005 (the year Mr. Rossley
falsely accused me of something of which I was not even slightly guilty,
and then refused and refused and refused to admit it ever afterward)
that I find his credibility to be, uh, "rather low." I am wondering if
you think the same of me? Tell ya what, let's put that to the test.
Since you were willing to debate Mr. Rossley, perhaps you are willing to
do the same with me. I'm game if you are. Let's find out how you and I
fare in that. What shall be our topic? Maybe the autopsy of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy?

A refusal on your part to do it will of course be interpreted as a tacit
admission on your part that you are unable to refute me, whether you
realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, most especially when you
already agreed to debate the far-fetched Rossley, who opines a vast
conspiracy requiring an absolute minimum of 1000 people knowingly
participating in it to pull it off, whereas I will express no such
opinion.

Deal?

> > >Far fetched would be a better way to describe that idea.
> >
> > So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
> > right
> > rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told, besides
> > Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest there had
> > been a
> > frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
>
> If I were in charge of the autopsy,

Whoa. Yesterday you said this:

"I prefer the opinions of truly qualified medical examiners to that of
the Monday morning quarterbacks."

Now you are engaging in exactly the same thing you said above that you
prefer not to do, Monday morning quarterbacking, whether you realize it
or not, whether you admit it or not. If you were in charge of the
autopsy. Yep, there it is, Monday morning quarterbacking. So now we
see that, contrary to what you said previously, you too find it valuable
to analyze this autopsy in hindsight. Analyzing *anything* in hindsight
is Monday morning quarterbacking, according to most English-speakers
worldwide who are familiar with that idiom. Whenever you express any
opinion whatsoever, no matter what that opinion is, about any event that
happened earlier than today, you are engaging in Monday morning
quarterbacking. Capisce?

> it would have been an even bigger mistake
> than allowing it to be done at Bethesda rather than by someone with
> experience in medico-legal autopsies.

I'm not sure you realized the significance of what you said there. The
autopsy at Bethesda was not performed in the same manner as a standard
criminal autopsy.

> But assuming I actually had some
> expertise in that area, I would reported exactly what I found to the best of
> my ability

No matter what the political climate of the time? No matter what your
superiors told you to do and told you not to do?

> and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do
> exactly that.

Because you have learned no more than 10% of the context of that
autopsy, perhaps?

> There was a single shooter.

Yep.

> The medical evidence supported that
> finding.

Yep, when *correctly* interpreted.

> Why do you assume the Bethesda team would need or want to cover
> anything up?

This has already been explained to you. It is not our fault that you
refuse to read more than 10% of the explanations.

But ok, I'll give it another try, not just for your sake, but for the
sake of others who read this newsgroup, including those who never post
articles here.

It is a common aspect of government agencies to have a strong tendency
to make themselves look better than they actually are. In fact, it is a
common aspect of *humans* to have a tendency to make themselves look
better than they actually are. There are a gargantuan number of
examples of this regarding the United States government alone. Let us
go back to the only assassination of a U.S. president that *was* the
result of a conspiracy, that of Lincoln. This was in the context of the
Civil War, and there were plenty of political considerations as a
result. Were all of the conspirators correctly identified? Many
historians dispute to the present day whether or not Mary Surratt
deserved to be hanged as being involved in that conspiracy. But the
Union government needed some scapegoats.

Fast forward to near the end of WWII. The Truman administration did not
reveal to the public that one of its considerations in the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not just to end the war quickly
so to avoid massive casualties in a land invasion of Japan (the only
reason given to the public at the time, and the reason still given in
school textbooks decades later), but that it was also for the purpose of
demonstrating to the Soviet Union the awesome power of this new weapon
that at the time only the United States possessed, and this was in spite
of warnings by expert physicists such as Albert Einstein, Neils Borh,
and Leo Szilard (the first human to conceive of a nuclear weapon in
practical terms, also the person who together with Einstein convinced
the U.S. government to undertake the Manhattan Project as a deterrent to
Nazi Germany's possible development of such weapons, but was
subsequently horrified at the possible use of the weapons on Japan after
Germany had been defeated) that this would lead to a nuclear arms race.

They were right, it did.

Then we get to President Kennedy himself. Is it, or is it not provably
true that his administration (and his family, of which one member was
also a member of his administration) actively covered-up his extremely
serious health problems, and his infidelity to his wife, which included
an affair with none other than Judith Campbell, who was also having an
affair at the same time with Sam Giancana, one of the very leaders of
the same Mafia that the President's brother was prosecuting more
vigorously than any attorney general before or since, and yet who was
*also* one of the Mafia bosses whom the CIA was contacting for possible
help in assassinating Castro? Even the majority of LNs do not deny in
the slightest that every bit of that is true. How could they, when it
is by now so well-documented?

Now fast forward to the JFK assassination. This was at the height of
the very nuclear arms race that these physicists I named above correctly
predicted. Only 13 months earlier the world had come closer to all-out
nuclear war than has ever happened before or since: the Cuban Missile
Crisis. And it was less than a decade after the McCarthy Communist
witch-hunts (and it should be remembered that Robert Kennedy was an
assistant counsel to McCarthy during part of that time). In 1963 there
was virulent anti-communist sentiment expressed by many here, and
outrage that a Communist country existed a bare 90 miles south of Key
West, Florida.

And then the same U.S. President who had adroitly convinced Khrushchev
to pull the nuclear weapons out of Cuba in October, 1962, by wisely
giving Khrushchev a way to save face with the Communist Party, just as
he had the previous year when he allowed Khrushchev to save face by
downplaying complaints (at least those made directly to Khrushchev)
about the building of the Berlin Wall...

...this same U.S. President is suddenly assassinated by a man who only a
few months earlier had given a radio interview in New Orleans in which
he said that he was a Marxist, and an ardent supporter of Fidel Castro.

To say that "all hell broke loose" is an understatement.

Top officials in the U.S. government were instantaneously concerned (why
on earth wouldn't they be?) that this assassination might have been
perpetrated by a Communist conspiracy.

Now enter Kenny O'Donnell, not only one of JFK's most trusted aides, but
one of his closest friends. JFK had just been declared dead, and in
talking to his widow O'Donnell discovered that she refused to leave
Dallas without her late husband's body. In pity for her, he decided to
take upon himself (it is a factoid that this was LBJ's decision, since
multiple witnesses confirm him as saying to O'Donnell, "I am in your
hands.") the decision violate Texas law and remove JFK's body from Texas
and place it upon Air Force One, along with the widow, the most popular
First Lady in all of United States history, as O'Donnell clearly and
plausibly explained in his WC testimony. The removal of the body from
Texas was not done, as has so often been mistakenly claimed, to hide
evidence of multiple shooters, and this is further supported by the fact
that several witnesses at Bethesda, including a few who saw the body in
both Dallas and Bethesda, reported that the head damage still looked
about the same when the body was first unwrapped at Bethesda, as it had
in Dallas, with the same lack of description of the gigantic, nasty,
horrific open flaps of scalp and bone on the right side of his head
forward of the right ear, and the same descriptions of the obvious hole
in the rear of his head.

Onboard Air Force One the most popular First Lady in all of United
States history was asked where she wanted the autopsy of her late
husband performed. She was given a choice between the Walter Reed Army
hospital and the Bethesda Naval Hospital, and her answer was that
because her husband had served in the Navy, it should be performed at
the Naval hospital, Bethesda.

Thus, as a combination of the choices she was given, and the choice she
made, a military autopsy was chosen, rather than the standard criminal
autopsy that was performed, then and now, in the vast majority of
civilian criminal murder cases.

This is an important distinction.

This guaranteed that the autopsists would not independent of the federal
government, but would instead be under the direct authority of the
military, which is NEVER the situation, then and now, in the vast
majority of murder cases in the U.S.

Now enter the three autopsists, all of whom (notice I didn't say almost
all) were members of the military. They would have been under very
different circumstances than civilian autopsists, and under very
different circumstances than than military or civilian autopsists would
be today. Never before or since has there been a military, not
civilian, autopsy of a U.S. president who was the only U.S. president
with a sibling as Attorney General, the only U.S. president whose widow
was the most popular First Lady we've ever had, the only U.S. president
who was murdered less than two years after the one and only time the
world has come almost to the brink of all-out nuclear war, and to add to
that this was a military autopsy, not a civilian one.

Boswell, Finck, and Humes were never, ever, ever as free to express
their opinions as civilian autopsists would have been, even after they
retired from the military.

By the time the autopsy began, although Oswald had not yet been formally
charged, it was already being reported in the media that he was a
"Communist" who had first "defected" to the Soviet Union, then
"defected" right back to the U.S. (with a Russian wife and child to add
further complications), and it is extremely doubtful that the U.S.
military "didn't already know" this prior to the beginning of the
autopsy.

All three autopsists were members of the U.S. military, in case that
proven fact is not clear by now.

Upon the unwrapping of the body, a rather obvious hole was noticed in
the rear of the deceased President's head. At first, this might have
been interpreted as exit damage from a frontal shot. But upon further
examination it was seen that not only was there no bone completely
missing in the rear of the deceased's head, the vast majority of the
bone that was completely missing was much farther forward, and the
natural conclusion was that this indicated exit damage due to a shot
from the rear. Nevertheless, due to the stringent political
considerations of the time, and most especially because all three
autopsists were members of the military who were performing a military
autopsy, not a criminal civilian autopsy, it was decided, just as our
government has decided many other times before and since, to downplay
anything that might *seem* *as* *if* it was evidence of multiple
shooters, even though the military autopsists could clearly see that it
wasn't *true* evidence of multiple shooters, but not being quite the
idiots that they are too often portrayed as being, they knew that if
they made too much out of this, it would give the public the *false*
impression that there were multiple shooters.

So quite plausibly, they purposefully downplayed the *appearance* of
multiple shooters, and emphasized evidence of a single shooter.

Just as government agencies have done many, many, many times before and
since on many, many, many different issues.

In other words they made an almost identical mistake as the Truman
administration had, when considering one aspect of how posterity would
view their actions, but failing to consider another aspect. They had
foresight on one aspect, and lack of foresight on another.

Mr. Corbett, your fault here with your Monday morning quarterbacking is
that you only consider only what *you* alone would do if you had been in
charge of this autopsy. But you fail to take into consideration the
*full* *context* of the circumstances surrounding this autopsy.

(Watch everybody, Mr. Corbett will probably address only ten percent of
what I've said, but I dearly hope he proves me wrong on that. I do so
enjoy being proven wrong. :P )

[John Canal]

In article <2ad1730a-64ce-4b69...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog

says...
>
>On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53:34 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:

>> In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdo=
>g
>>=20
>> says...
>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:31:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:

>>=20

>> >> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,
>>=20

>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> [...]
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> >I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals hav=
>e said.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> That's your problem IMO. What do you do when the experts disagree with on=
>e=20
>>=20
>> another, punt?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I didn't. I interviewed more experts and did more reading....about 12+=20
>>=20
>> years worth.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> Okay, you believe Baden, right?

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> He testified under oath that all the members of the FPP, as well as their=
>=20
>>=20
>> forensic radiologist consultants, were in 100% agreement that the entry=
>=20
>>=20

>> could be seen on the X-rays in the cowlick.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> But, his own consulting radiologist, Dr. William Seaman (whom I=20
>>=20
>> interviewed BTW) stated it was inconclusive that an entry could be seen o=
>n=20
>>=20

>> the X-rays in the cowlick.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Okay, you want to give Baden a free pass on that...an oversight on his=20
>>=20
>> part, maybe?, fine....but....
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Not one of the forensic experts hired by the ARRB saw any cowlick entranc=
>e=20
>>=20
>> defect on the X-rays.
>>=20

>Please tell me you're not referring to Doug Horne.

>>=20
>>=20
>> You still want to believe Baden...so you can base your beliefs on what he=
>=20
>>=20
>> said?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> He said there was no lower brain damage (consistent with a bullet enterin=
>g=20
>>=20

>> near the EOP)....none, nada, zilcho.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> But hold the phone, the autopsy report clearly stated there was a=20
>>=20
>> laceration through the occipital lobe...bigdog. Now, I'm not a forensic=
>=20
>>=20
>> neuropathologist or neurosurgeon but the brain diagram I have on my offic=
>e=20
>>=20
>> wall indicates the occipital lobe is in the lower part of the=20
>>=20
>> brain....also..
>>=20

>
>That was one of the problems the FPP had with the original autopsy team.
>They failed to use standard reference points in locating the wounds. The
>FPP was composed of people who were among the best medical examiners in
>the country. The team at Bethesda was composed of general pathologists who
>were more experienced in performing autopsies on victims of cancer and
>heart disease than they were in performing medico-legal autopsies.

Are you actually saying that Baden was right when he testified there was no
lower brain damage reported (that would be consisent with a bull entering near
the EOP)?

Tell me that's not so.

>>=20
>>=20
>> ..there was severe hemorraging of the right cerebellar cortex=20
>>=20

>> reported...did Baden even read the reports?

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> And that's not even to mention that Humes said they saw a lacerated=20
>>=20
>> flocculus. I could go on and on, but it's not worth my time to go=20
>>=20

>> on....you'd think I'm making up far-fetched scenarios anyway.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Believe whatever you want but believe the wrong experts and you end up=20
>>=20

>> being decieved as to what the wounds were really like.

>>=20

>
>Since you aren't a qualified expert I really don't need to make a choice.
>Can you name a single experienced forensic medical examiner who shares
>your opinion of the FPP conclusions?

Since you're not familiar with the medical evidence let me name a few. Dr.
Joseph Davis, who was the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, FL and on the
FPP, opined that the bullet first impacted where Humes said it did....this was
in direct conflict with what the other FPP members stated. Davis was correct.

The three forensic experts for the ARRB disagreed with Baden et al on the X-rays
supposedly showing a bullet had entered the cowlick of JFK....and I assure you
they were correct. But then don't take my word for keep beieving Baden.

Now, Zimmerman and Sturdivan weren't bonafide forensic medical examiners or
experts but they were certainly qualified to disagree with the FPP after
examining the originals stereoscopically and they certainly did. Sturdivan was
indeed a bonafied wound-ballistics expert and Zimmerman reads X-rays every day
as part of his profession.

Again, almost all of the Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA experts were close associates or
friends of one another. To think that they would have offered independent
opinions, is naive.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/12/2012 8:07 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <505006f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 9/11/2012 10:08 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>>> says...
>
> This post is exactly why I took you off my killfile.....the things you say
> are so ridiculous they humor me.
>

Jesus, what the Hell do I have to do to get you to put me back on your
killfile? You promised me 5 times that I would always be on your
killfile. Now you've gone back on your promises. Maybe I need to invent
some new swear words to get around the censors. The software will
usually intercept commonly used swear words and reject the message even
before it can get to the censors. Do you speak Klingon? How about Swahili?

>>> Canal's question to bigdog:
>>>
>>> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
>>> right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
>>> besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
>>> there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
>>>
>>
>> False premise. You are revealing Humes incompetence. That was a dab of
>> tissue on top of the hair, not tissue oozing out of the head.
>
> If you're referring to the dab of tissue below the EOP as seen in the BOH
> photos (you know the one just about every one else that knows anything
> about this case besides you shows the entry wound in the scalp) let me say
> this:
>
> The white dab represents muscle or tissue from one of the lower of the
> five layers of scalp that exuded through a breach in the top scalp layers
> accidently caused when they undermined the scalp.
>

Fine, if you are not brain enough to call it brain tissue. But it did
not have to ooze out through a hole. It could have gotten there from a
doctor's hand when handling the head.
It was deposited on top of the hair, not oozing out of the head.

> Now, read carefully and don't be in such a hurry to make your quota of 50
> posts:
>
> If the tissue exuded upfrom the lower scalp layers his damn hair wouldn't
> have preveted it from ending up on top of his hair.
>

It would also appear below the top of the hair.

> Hell, a five year old can understand that.
>
> Now, let me see what other foolishness you've bothered me with.
>
>> Parkland already suggested conspiracy when they said the throat wound
>> was an entrance wound.
>
> Duh....and....?
>

The CIA writers had not yet come up with their fiction of JFK turning
around to look back at the TSBD exposing his throat to the sniper's nest.

>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I would reported exactly what I found to the best of my abi=
>>>> lity and I have no reason to believe the team at Bethesda did not do exactl=
>>>> y that.
>>>
>>> You have no reason to believe the autopsy team reported exactly what they
>>> saw?
>>>
>>> They saw cerebellum--and you agreed they did--but they didn't report that?
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Huh? Have you not read either the autopsy report or Humes' WC testimony?
> Neither one...really. Why am I not surprised....you might find a ton of
> evidence that helps debunk your wacky theories...that's why.
>

I don't care what they said, only what actually happened.
And once again you falsely claimed that I conceded something when I
never did.

I don't have a pathway. I don't believe a bullet went from back to front.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/12/2012 8:06 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <k2org...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:31:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> =20
>>>> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have
>>> said.
>>
>> That's your problem IMO. What do you do when the experts disagree with one
>> another, punt?
>>
>> I didn't. I interviewed more experts and did more reading....about 12+
>> years worth.
>
> Ah yes, there's another point, Mr. Corbett. Mr. Canal interviewed John
> Stringer, *twice*. Have you ever talked in real life with anyone who was
> present at the autopsy of President Kennedy, Mr. Corbett? I think not, or
> you would have surely mentioned it long before now. So what if Mr. Canal
> has never himself performed an autopsy? He's talked in real life to a
> person who really was there.
>
> You haven't, he has.
>

So he claims.

> For that reason alone, which claims, yours or his, are more likely to be
> taken seriously by a larger number of people?
>

No one is rushing to Canal's defense.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k2oq6...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
>
> Canal's question to bigdog:
>
> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
> right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
> besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
> there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

Again, a crucial point. Mr. Corbett, in his Monday morning
quarterbacking regarding what he would do if he was in charge of the
autopsy, is obviously operating on the incorrect assumption of the
political circumstances of today, in 2012, and failing to take into
account that the political circumstances of 1963 were extremely
different from 2012, to put it mildly. (And in my previous reply to
him, posted just minutes ago, I didn't even mention the V-word, you
know, that country in southeast Asia; that adds to it considerably).

Very much unlike today, there was much more virulent anti-communism
among the general public.

Very much unlike today, many, many, many people in 1963 were outraged
about the Castro regime in Cuba being extremely dangerous to the
security of the U.S. Today the general public thinks of Cuba as not
really being all that much of a big deal as far as our national security
is concerned. Why do they think that today? Because Cuba *isn't* a big
deal. Never has been since the 1960s.

But before the autopsy began on 11-22-63, the media was already
reporting that the accused assassin, even though he had not yet been
formally charged, had defected to the Soviet Union, then had defected
back to the U.S. bringing with him a Russian wife and child, and who had
given a radio interview in New Orleans in which he said he was a Marxist

and an ardent supporter of Fidel Castro.

And J. Edgar Hoover certainly knew all of this before the autopsy began.
How could he not have known it? His own FBI had already been keeping
tabs on Oswald ever since his return from the Soviet Union.

And if that weren't enough, let's get into the common phenomenon of
various U.S. agencies refusing to share information with each other,
which persisted before, and long after, 1963. Does "anyone but me"
remember September 11, 2001? The eleventh anniversary of that was
yesterday. I defy anyone to demonstrate how naive they are by claiming
that even that long after the JFK assassination, there "isn't any
evidence" that the CIA, FBI, and U.S. Military were ***ABSOLUTELY***
***REFUSING*** to share information with each other. The official 9/11
report indicates otherwise.

Is there absolute proof that they were also refusing, purposefully, to
share information with each other in 1963?

Mountains of it.

In case someone, anyone here, CT and LN alike has "forgotten," all three
autopsists, not almost all of them, but all of them, were members of the
military. An irrational refusal to share information with the FBI was
commonplace, then, and decades later, and decades earlier.

[John Canal]

In article <5050fe33$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 9/12/2012 5:24 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>> In article <k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
>>>>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Crucially important, actually.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, he wasn't. And you can's show me any photographic evidence that he
>>> was leaning forward by about 27 degrees. You are talking nonsense.
>>
>> Dale myer's computer analysis says he was leaning forward appx. 27
>> degrees.
>>
>
>Yes, that's my point exactly, Dale Myers lies.

You think everyone involved in the case, including all the doctors and
eyewitnesses who disgree with you (that's virtually all of them) lied...or is
dumber than a bag of hammers.

>> You been blabbering about this case for what now...20+ years...and you
>> still haven't done a weeks worth of research....I guess you've spent most
>> of that time posting....your B/S.
>>
>>
>
>
>I am the guy who corrected the HSCA map. I am the guy who proved that
>the Zapruder film is authentic.

And your the guy who says that a bullet entered above his right eye even though
no pathway through the barin near your entry was noted...now that's truly a
magic bullet you've discovered....LOL.

And you? Nothing.

I think I'm the first one to replicate F8 using a model skull, and to note that
Humes switched out the word falx in the autopsy report with the word flocculus
when he testified....and make a few other contributions.

[John Reagor King]

In article <504f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Ok Johnny, why don't you post ALL of those pictures and then we can
> discuss each one in detail, ok?
>
> Now, THAT would really be *peachy*. ;-)

Er, didn't I already do that in my first article in this thread? I
"seem to recall" that I posted links to at least a fair representation
of "those pictures" (meaning the autopsy photos, of course) in that
article. As I am looking right now, in the midst of typing this
sentence, at your direct reply to that article, I am seeing absolute
proof that you saw that article. If you didn't see it, how could you
post a reply to it? Yet sadly, your first sentence in your reply is
this:

"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
have."

Are you intimating that you now have time? If so, cool. Let us now
commence, you and I, in front of the thousands of readers of this
newsgroup, including the ones who never post here but still read here,
to discuss in quite explicit detail these photographs. If you will
discuss them in at least 51% of the substantive detail that I do, I
might be satisfied with that.

I do so love peer review. ;-)

First of all, did you, or do you now, understand what I meant by putting
the autopsy photos into two groups, category 1 and category 2? Whether
you did then, or do now, understand that, I will nevertheless explain it
again. It is really quite simple:

The category 1 photos would be those photos taken of the President's
body as-is, as it appeared right after it was unwrapped, before anything
at all otherwise was done with it, no matter what that was.

Natural and average common sense would thus indicate that I am proposing
any autopsy photo that was taken *after* anything at all was done to the
body, no matter what it was, besides unwrapping it and laying it on the
examination table, as category 2 photos. This might also reasonably
include x-rays in either category.

Now let us join virtual hands and discuss these photos in substantive
detail, where your reply is at least 51% as substantive as the article I
am at present typing, and in case there is the slightest confusion
(which I can't imagine there ought to be) I shall be going in the order
given by the signed 1966 inventory as reproduced in ARRB document MD 13.
As I already gave a link to the first page of that document in my first
article in this thread (which you replied to, proving that you saw the
article itself, at least) it should not be necessary to give it again,
but I shall do so anyway:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/
Image00.htm

If that URL is split into more than one line, everyone, all one has to
do is copy and paste both lines into one's browser address window,
making sure that the entire URL appears in one line, without spaces, and
with none of the characters missing.

(That will dispense with any legitimate excuse from ppl who read this
only on the drastically-inadequate Google Groups, and claims that the
"URL doesn't work" or similar claims will not be taken seriously. I'm
on the page right now, and the URL works just fine.)

And as I said in my original article in this thread, all one has to do
to see subsequent pages of MD 13 is to click the link with the English
word "Next." To go back a page, click "Prev," which stands for the
English word "previous."

All that said, with the average 10-year-old English reading/speaking
child able to understand it before finishing the sentence, let us go to
page 4, which is here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/
Image03.htm

(Above statements about the URL still apply.)

Here is the beginning of the list of autopsy photographs (that would be
photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy, in case the readers,
but not Mr. Fiorentino, who I assume doesn't need to be told any of
this, since he is better at this than I am, are confused still). As the
document indicates, photos 1-10 are all in black and white, in negatives
and prints. Numbers 1-4 are "depicting the left side of the head and
shoulders" and "similar" views, and since I already gave a link to one
of those photos in my first article in this thread, even those reading
on Google Groups only should be able to easily scroll up to that and see
the link. Now, poor layman though I am, I see no evidence that anything
has been done *to* the body other than taking it out of the casket,
unwrapping it, and placing it on the examination table. I "fervently
hope" that I do not have to type, yet again, my extensive reasons given
in the original article to support this claim, regarding the Zapruder
film as opposed to the dramatic changes that were made to the overall
appearance of the damage to the head between when that film was shot,
and when the limousine came to a stop outside Parkland Hospital in
Dallas, Tx., along with my reasoning as to the only possible person who
made these dramatic changes to the appearance, or how very consistent
the appearance is in photos 1-10 with what was said by witnesses in the
limousine, outside Parkland, inside Parkland, inside Bethesda
immediately after the body was unwrapped, and by a few witnesses in both
Dallas and Bethesda. It is my contention that, for blatantly obvious
reasons, photos 1-4 were taken before anything was done *to* the body,
besides unwrapping it and placing it where we see it. Thus category 1.
Do you agree, Mr. Fiorentino? If you do not, please explain in at least
51% of the substantive detail that I did in my first article, and/or in
my subsequent articles, why you do not agree.

Photos 5 and 6 are "depicting the right side of the head and right
shoulder." As I have been looking at these photos since 1988, I am
supremely confident that you, Mr. Fiorentino, who are better at this
than I am, will instantly know without any further description, which
photos these are, and in any case I posted a link to one of them in my
first article in this thread. In fact by now (and I'm assuming you can
do it better than me) know more or less from memory, without ever having
to see them again, what these photos look like. It is blatantly obvious
that we see nothing at all like the humongous, nasty, disgusting,
horrific open flaps of bone/underside of scalp/brains/whatever on the
right side of his head forward of his right ear that we see, all too
plainly, in the Zapruder film. We kindasorta see just a bit of that,
but nothing at all as huge in the film, so huge there that it completely
obscures the entire right profile of his face from the camera, a profile
so plainly seen in many frames prior to Z313, and never seen in a single
frame after that. As I said in my first article, meaning it should be
totally unnecessary to repeat all that here, there is only one possible
human (a female) who could have physically changed the appearance of the
right side of his head so dramatically, and I have also quoted her
verbatim as saying, more or less, that she did this. This is further
supported by the fact that the first witness to see his head up close
after Zapruder stopped filming, Clint Hill, already gave a description
which did not include anything even remotely large enough on the right
side of JFK's face to entirely hide the right profile of his face, and
this lack of mention of such a thing runs consistently through the vast
majority of all further witnesses, outside Parkland, inside Parkland, in
both Dallas and Bethesda, and at Bethesda only, until things started to
be done *to* the head at Bethesda only. Thus I put these also in
category 1. Do you agree, Mr. Fiorentino, and if you disagree, please
explain in substantive detail why.

Photos 7-10 are "depicting superior view of head" (that would be the top
of the head, folks) while the body is laying on the examination table.
Here we can see (as in the color photos later in the list which
correspond to these) a good deal of congealed blood, etc., in JFK's
hair, but since we cannot see any obvious hole in the head/skull on the
top of the head here, it seems that still nothing has been done *to* the
head other than unwrapping the body and placing on the examination
table, and again these photos are not significantly at variance with the
majority of witness statements. Category 1, still, I say. Do you
disagree, Mr. Fiorentino, and if so, in substantive detail, why?

And now here they are: photos 11 and 12, "showing posterior view of
wound of entrance of missile high in shoulder." But that isn't quite
all these photos show. They also show most of the back of the head.
And suddenly here, for the first time, we see a very dramatic difference
between the majority witness statements and what is shown. Not, of
course, the "entrance of missile high in shoulder." The majority of the
witnesses didn't even see that, for obvious reasons. But the problem,
if it is one, is the back of the head. The majority of the witnesses
were superbly accurate regarding the right side, left side, and top of
his head as far as how the damage appeared *after* Zapruder stopped
filming and you-know-who dramatically changed the appearance of the
right side of the head especially, which is borne out by the previous
photos in this list. Since the likelihood of all these witnesses being
correct about what the sides and top of his head looked like, but being
abysmally incorrect about what the back of his head looked like is
remote in the extreme, such an absurd possibility should not be
seriously considered by any reasonable person. After all, as I have
been saying here since October of 2002, the average ten-year-old child,
without a day of medical training, knows where the back of a human head
is. Starting with Clint Hill, the vast majority of these witnesses said
there was an obvious hole in the back of JFK's head. More than one
certified and licensed neurosurgeon at Parkland even said a portion of
the cerebellum could be seen through that hole, indicating that it could
not be too high on the rear of the head, since the cerebellum is rather
low on the brain. The hole would also, rather obviously, have to be
somewhere behind the ear. Even more obviously, for any part of the
brain to be seen, no matter what part it was, there would have to be a
hole not only in the skull, but also in the hair and scalp. Yet we see
no hole even remotely like that in these autopsy photos. What's up with
that? Since it is beyond the realm of plausibility to the reasonable
person that all these witnesses could be so superbly accurate in their
descriptions of the top and both sides of the head, yet turn around an
absolute 180 degrees and suddenly be totally wrong about what the rear
of the head looked like, it is nothing even remotely like a "wild guess"
on my part that now, something has been "done to" the back of the head,
and thus these photos should belong in what I call category 2.

Do you disagree with this, Mr. Fiorentino? If so, please explain, in
substantive detail, in terms most English-speaking humans who are 10 or
older would agree are plausible, exactly why you disagree.

I'm stopping here for the sole reason that I've been typing into this
newsgroup for quite a few hours today, starting this morning, and it is
now 10:25 p.m. CDT here. Let's discuss these photos first, Mr.
Fiorentino, and then if the discussion is adequately substantive, and
not some variation of "you're wrong just because I say you are, period,"
we might continue with more of these photos tomorrow.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k2obf...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> BTW, I think your style of posting is telling. You top post and hardly
> ever address the specific points made by the person you're addressing.

Do you see that, Mr. Fiorentino? I have noticed that too. I am
supremely confident that you will not do that in the reply that I posted
to you minutes ago, the reply to you agreeing to discuss the autopsy
photos with me in detail (although I'm wondering what's up with you
calling me "Johnny" there, as I did not call you that. :P ). I am
confident that you, Mr. Fiorentino (notice I use what are called
"manners" in stating your name) will, instead of top-posting, address
what I said there point by point, inserting your replies within my text,
so that the discussion can be followed coherently.

My confidence in you is not misplaced, is it Mr. Fiorentino?

[John Fiorentino]

"My confidence in you is not misplaced, is it Mr. Fiorentino?"

Yes, I'm afraid it is.........

I almost always "top post" as I've told John in another reply.

I've been on this forum for umptiump years under my real name and only you
and Canal seem disturbed by the way I respond.


Frankly, some of these threads get so long it's difficult to post within
text, or let me put it this way, I find it difficult.

BTW, make sure you post the actual pic that you wish to discuss.

John F.



"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-FD2673...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Canal]

In article <5050b399$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
>John:
>
>You just continue to mangle what I've said, and meant.
>
>I ALWAYS "top post" sorry about that........
>
>I'll be more polite next time re: "wrong"
>
>BTW, I didn't say he was wrong John, so again you continue to fudge this
>just to agitate.. I said:
>
>"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."

You seem to be somewhat forgetful...we can forgive your bad memory, but
you really ought to keep better track of what you say and what you don't
say.

In the thread, "Challenge for DVP", you wrote, "1st .john is mistaken, and
what I said and have ALWAYS said, is "IF" what is shown in F8 is the
entry, then it's only several inches down from the vertex."

Got it now, John?

Write it down if you have to, but don't tell me I'm mangling what you say
when I've keep a hard copy of most of our exchanges.

>Re: Rahn/Sturdivan What I believe John is that they got the "conclusion"
>right as did Guinn. However, there is MUCH more to this which I am working
>on an article about.

Again, you wrote: "My complete views on the NAA will be out soon. The gist

of it is, I believe Rahn/Sturdivan got it right." [John Fiorentino.
Friday, January 2, 2009 3:12 PM]

But you recently wrote: "I never defended Sturdivan on the NAA."

If that's not defending Sturdivan on the NAA I don't know what is!

Cripes, John, please get organized and take responsibility for what you
say...and at least try to remember what that is.

>You can spin my thoughts on Baden anyway you wish, I believe most here
>know my feelings.

Yes, you and him agree the entry was in the cowlick and that there was no
BOH wound...essentially agreeing with him that all the individuals who saw
the body were wrong about what they said about the wounds and all the
experts on the Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA who saw only photographs and X-rays
were right.

Live with it.


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

[John Fiorentino]

John K

You have listed the inventory, you need to post the pictures, and since
most are not in the public domain, a discussion of a photo without being
able to view it is absurd.

Perhaps using some brevity rather than writing "articles" on a newsgroup
would move things along.

John F.




"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-E18A57...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2012 9:16 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <5050fe33$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 9/12/2012 5:24 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>>> In article <k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
>>>>>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Crucially important, actually.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he wasn't. And you can's show me any photographic evidence that he
>>>> was leaning forward by about 27 degrees. You are talking nonsense.
>>>
>>> Dale myer's computer analysis says he was leaning forward appx. 27
>>> degrees.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's my point exactly, Dale Myers lies.
>
> You think everyone involved in the case, including all the doctors and
> eyewitnesses who disgree with you (that's virtually all of them) lied...or is
> dumber than a bag of hammers.

List which doctors and eyewitnesses disagree with me. I look for the
scientific evidence rather than believe liars as you do.

>
>>> You been blabbering about this case for what now...20+ years...and you
>>> still haven't done a weeks worth of research....I guess you've spent most
>>> of that time posting....your B/S.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am the guy who corrected the HSCA map. I am the guy who proved that
>> the Zapruder film is authentic.
>
> And your the guy who says that a bullet entered above his right eye even though
> no pathway through the barin near your entry was noted...now that's truly a
> magic bullet you've discovered....LOL.
>

I never said there was a pathway way of an intact bullet. There is a
snowstorm of fragments left over by an explosive bullet.

> And you? Nothing.
>
> I think I'm the first one to replicate F8 using a model skull, and to note that
> Humes switched out the word falx in the autopsy report with the word flocculus
> when he testified....and make a few other contributions.
>

So that's your conspiracy theory? And then you expect me to innocently
believe whatever the autopsy doctors said?

> John Canal
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2012 9:16 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <k2oq6...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <d9a6c116-e55b-40f6...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>> says...
>>
>> Canal's question to bigdog:
>>
>> So, if you were in charge of the autopsy and saw brain oozing from the
>> right rear of JFK's head you would have told the FBI, who may have told,
>> besides Hoover, who knows who else there was a wound that may suggest
>> there had been a frontal shooter and a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
>
> Again, a crucial point. Mr. Corbett, in his Monday morning
> quarterbacking regarding what he would do if he was in charge of the
> autopsy, is obviously operating on the incorrect assumption of the
> political circumstances of today, in 2012, and failing to take into
> account that the political circumstances of 1963 were extremely
> different from 2012, to put it mildly. (And in my previous reply to
> him, posted just minutes ago, I didn't even mention the V-word, you
> know, that country in southeast Asia; that adds to it considerably).
>

And more importantly the public still remembered how close we came to
WWIII because of confrontation over Cuba.

> Very much unlike today, there was much more virulent anti-communism
> among the general public.
>
> Very much unlike today, many, many, many people in 1963 were outraged
> about the Castro regime in Cuba being extremely dangerous to the
> security of the U.S. Today the general public thinks of Cuba as not
> really being all that much of a big deal as far as our national security
> is concerned. Why do they think that today? Because Cuba *isn't* a big
> deal. Never has been since the 1960s.
>
> But before the autopsy began on 11-22-63, the media was already
> reporting that the accused assassin, even though he had not yet been
> formally charged, had defected to the Soviet Union, then had defected
> back to the U.S. bringing with him a Russian wife and child, and who had
> given a radio interview in New Orleans in which he said he was a Marxist
> and an ardent supporter of Fidel Castro.
>
> And J. Edgar Hoover certainly knew all of this before the autopsy began.
> How could he not have known it? His own FBI had already been keeping
> tabs on Oswald ever since his return from the Soviet Union.
>

Another factor that you didn't mention was that the Dallas authorities
were preparing to charge Oswald with killing the President as part of "an
International Communist Conspiracy" and Hoover had to personally threaten
them to take out that conspiracy language.

Hoover personally knew that it was a conspiracy. He had the evidence in
his hands. But he agreed with LBJ that it had to be covered up for the
good of the country.

> And if that weren't enough, let's get into the common phenomenon of
> various U.S. agencies refusing to share information with each other,
> which persisted before, and long after, 1963. Does "anyone but me"
> remember September 11, 2001? The eleventh anniversary of that was

McAdams says you are not allowed to bring up 9/11.

> yesterday. I defy anyone to demonstrate how naive they are by claiming
> that even that long after the JFK assassination, there "isn't any
> evidence" that the CIA, FBI, and U.S. Military were ***ABSOLUTELY***
> ***REFUSING*** to share information with each other. The official 9/11
> report indicates otherwise.
>

The official 9/11 report is a lie.
Read the new book "500 Days." The CIA warned Bush that al Qaeda was
planning an attack in the US.

> Is there absolute proof that they were also refusing, purposefully, to
> share information with each other in 1963?
>
> Mountains of it.

SOP.

>
> In case someone, anyone here, CT and LN alike has "forgotten," all three
> autopsists, not almost all of them, but all of them, were members of the
> military. An irrational refusal to share information with the FBI was
> commonplace, then, and decades later, and decades earlier.
>

They had no choice. They were under orders. What about Parkland? They
were not military. But they were all gathered in a room by Baxter and
threatened to keep silent.

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, a few year ago Arthur Schlesigner wrote an article revealing the fact
that he had gathered all the Kennedy aides together and got them to agree
to LIE about the Cuban Missile Crisis to maintain the hero image of JFK.
It was actually JFK who blinked first, giving in to the Soviet demands.
But they kept this fact secret from the American public.

[John Fiorentino]

John:

Perhaps you should examine the rigor and the erroneous way that you
approach this subject John.

I'm not going to respond and explain everything you posted, it's simply
silly.

But, I do say as a friend your responses are becoming increasingly shrill.

John F.



"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k2st3...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

John:

I think it's important to understand how I arrived at my thoughts on the
skull entry.

You are aware that Dr. Lattimer wrote an intro. for my book. I worked with
him and corresponded with him frequently.

As you know he was the first *non-governmental* physician to view the
autopsy materials. He examined those materials and he described them to
me, and he also wrote in his book:

"The head wound of entry could be clearly seen in FOUR (Emphasis mine) of
the color photographs to consist of an ovoid penetrating wound of the back
of the head, about 7 by 15 mm in size, and about 2 cm to the right of the
midline, high up above the hairline where the top of the skull was
starting to curve forward, the area of the cowlick. This accounted for its
ovoid shape, since is was slightly tangential to the surface of the skull.
The long axis of this ovoid wound ran in a back-to-front direction. It
conformed in position to the hole in the back of the skull seen in lateral
X-ray film 2. This position, clearly shown in the photographs, was
considerably higher than that depicted in the schematic drawings of the
head wounds in the Warren report, since it lay about 10cm higher than the
occipital tuberosity of the skull, rather than just above it. It made it
obvious that this bullet came within an inch or two of missing the
President's head altogether.

ppgs 209-210 - Kennedy and Lincoln

That is what I believe John. It's really as simple as that.

John F.




"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k2st3...@drn.newsguy.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2012 4:23 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> John K
>
> You have listed the inventory, you need to post the pictures, and since
> most are not in the public domain, a discussion of a photo without being
> able to view it is absurd.
>

But McAdams won't let us post pictures here. Some day in the future some
genius will create an interactcive newsgroup where posters can discuss
something and upload photos and documents with the ability yo highlight
and comment in real time.

[John Canal]

In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Once your "explosive" bullet supposedly penetrated the skull above his
right it would have had to penetrate the brain creating a pathway through
it.....there was no pathway at all there!!!!!

The snowstorm would have accounted for only a small percentage of the
whole missile....the rest of the missile would have had to create a
pathway through the brain and, again, there was no other pathway found
that began anywhere near your imaginary entry wound in the skull above his
right eye.

You and Harris have the same problem....no pathway through the brain to
support your ficticious frontal shots.

Poorly concocted conspiracy theory.

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

[John Canal]

In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>John:
>

>I think it's important to understand how I arrived at my thoughts on the
>skull entry.

I don't know why I should pay any attention to your thoughts when you've
never addressed each of the reasons I'm 100% positive the entry was where
Humes put it...but I'll be more considerate than you and read what you
have to say.

But return my gesture...you read my remarks..all of them....and you might
even have to get away from that telling top posting habbit of yours to do
that [reply to each of my points].

>You are aware that Dr. Lattimer wrote an intro. for my book. I worked with
>him and corresponded with him frequently.

And he and I corresponded as well.

>As you know he was the first *non-governmental* physician to view the
>autopsy materials. He examined those materials and he described them to
>me, and he also wrote in his book:
>
>"The head wound of entry could be clearly seen in FOUR (Emphasis mine) of
>the color photographs to consist of an ovoid penetrating wound of the back
>of the head, about 7 by 15 mm in size, and about 2 cm to the right of the
>midline, high up above the hairline where the top of the skull was
>starting to curve forward, the area of the cowlick.

Not to interupt but those photos were taken after midnight and after they
had worked on the rear scalp...of course Lattimer didn't know
that....neither did Posner or Bugliosi.

>This accounted for its
>ovoid shape, since is was slightly tangential to the surface of the skull.

Interesting, but if you look closely at the shape of the entry in the
photo..(use the link below)

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

you can see a more circular shape than oval. So how on God's green earth
one might ask could the scalp entry be so elliptical? I wondered too. And
BTW, Humes finally admitted that the skull entry was "almost round, a
little oval".

It's because they stretched the hell out of the scalp before they took
those pictures....IOW before they stretched it the scalp entry surely
wound have been, "almost round, a little oval".

Not that I agree with very much that Blenner writes (he won't even admit
he had F8 misorientated...I have no desire to listen to individuals who
know they're wrong and won't admit it), but he is correct that the
elliptical shape of the scalp entry wound reveals a trajectory that is not
even close to a shot from six floors up and behind JFK.

Also look at Boswell's face sheet where he drew the top half of the entry
on a piece of skull he said fir on top of the edge of the intact skull
where the bottom half of the entry was.

One more. The HSCA said the beveled defect was semicircular...not
semi-oval or semi-elliptical.

Anyway, I'm still listening.

>The long axis of this ovoid wound ran in a back-to-front direction. It
>conformed in position to the hole in the back of the skull seen in lateral
>X-ray film 2.

Interesting, but none of the ARRB forensic experts saw any entry on the
X-rays in the cowlick.

Moreover, the forensic radiologist, William Seaman, whom I interviewed on
the phone many years ago, stated that it was inconclusive that an entry
could be see in the cowlick on the X-rays.

And if the entry was in the cowlick, what happened to the bone that was
beveled out around the entry...there were no tiny pieces of bone clustered
around the cowlick entry, but there sure as hell were some around the
EOP....as seen by the HSCA's Joe Davis, Zimmerman and Sturdivan.

IOW, if the entry was in the cowlick did the bone chips vaporize?

>This position, clearly shown in the photographs, was
>considerably higher than that depicted in the schematic drawings of the
>head wounds in the Warren report, since it lay about 10cm higher than the
>occipital tuberosity of the skull, rather than just above it. It made it
>obvious that this bullet came within an inch or two of missing the
>President's head altogether.

>ppgs 209-210 - Kennedy and Lincoln

Yes, John, he certainly did think the entry was in the cowlick...how could
he not given the fact that he did not know that the BOH photos which show
the entry in the cowlick were taken after they repaired the rear scalp? No
one can blame anyone too much for believing the entry was where Humes put
it.

The bigest mistake the autopsists made which caused them to be ridiculed
for the rest of their careers, is that they made F8 too hard to decipher.
They could have easily identified anatomical landmarks such as the lateral
sinus or cur edge of the tentorium and made F8 deciperable...if they had
we wouldn't be having this exchange.

>That is what I believe John. It's really as simple as that.

I presented some of my case to Lattimer and he was receptive and
encouraging....offering even to provide the logistics for some tests on
skulls.

I too became cloe with a highly credentialed expert, Dr. Joseph Davis. He
was willing to open up with me because he was bitter that Baden et al.
wouldn't listen to him when he opined that Humes was correct about where
the bullet first impacted.

I've asked him to go on the record and he said he trusts that our emails
will remain in confidence.

John, I could overwhelm you with evidence that Humes was correct, but why
would I do that...you've made up your mind.

Before I close though, I still would like you to draw the path of the
bullet through JFK's brain, as you visualize it took...keeping his head
tilted forward about 27 degrees.

Last question coming. All three autopsists stated that when they reflected
the scalp to remove the brain rear skull pieces (Boswell even drew some on
his face sheet) came out or stuck to the scalp all the way down to the
EOP. If they were even close to being correct the entire entry wound have
been in one of those bone pieces that came out....vs. being seen
(partially) in F8.

So my question is, do you think they were mistaken and those rear skull
pieces did not come out down to the EOP?

You're so wrong about this.

That's why Baden had to lie under oath, shut Davis up, not show Sturdivan
a clear copy of F8, crop the EOP off the published copies of the lateral,
and alter Boyers statement.

John Canal

>John F.

[...]


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

[John Fiorentino]

I post pics here as attachments Tony.

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5052687f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

THere is no pathwat and there does not need to be one. There is a
snowstorm, a cone of fragments going up from the forehead to the top of
the head.

> The snowstorm would have accounted for only a small percentage of the
> whole missile....the rest of the missile would have had to create a
> pathway through the brain and, again, there was no other pathway found
> that began anywhere near your imaginary entry wound in the skull above his
> right eye.
>

You know nothing about explosive bullets. The rest of the missile was
blown out of the wound and never found. Exactly as happened to James
Brady. Exactly as described by Dr. McCarthy.
You are just an amateur guessing at these things.

> You and Harris have the same problem....no pathway through the brain to
> support your ficticious frontal shots.
>

I don't need no damn stinkin pathway.
Straw man argument.

> Poorly concocted conspiracy theory.
>

[John Reagor King]

In article <2ad1730a-64ce-4b69...@googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53:34 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> > In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> > says...

> > >On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:31:57 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > >> In article <72ba9909-d5e8-440b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >

> > >I present my beliefs which are based on what qualified professionals have
> > >said.
> >
> > That's your problem IMO. What do you do when the experts disagree with one
> > another, punt?
> >
> > I didn't. I interviewed more experts and did more reading....about 12+
> > years worth.
> >

> > Okay, you believe Baden, right?
> >

> > He testified under oath that all the members of the FPP, as well as their

> > forensic radiologist consultants, were in 100% agreement that the entry

> > could be seen on the X-rays in the cowlick.

> >
> > But, his own consulting radiologist, Dr. William Seaman (whom I

> > interviewed BTW) stated it was inconclusive that an entry could be seen on

> > the X-rays in the cowlick.
> >

> > Okay, you want to give Baden a free pass on that...an oversight on his

> > part, maybe?, fine....but....
> >
> > Not one of the forensic experts hired by the ARRB saw any cowlick entrance
> > defect on the X-rays.

>
> Please tell me you're not referring to Doug Horne.

Please tell me why you would even need to ask that of John Canal, of all
people.

Oh wait, never mind: because you've read no more than 10% of what he's
written.

Doug Horne says photos 19-25 are not of JFK's brain, but of someone
else's.

You really think Canal, of all people, subscribes to Doug Horne?

This is yet another example, to be added to so very many previous ones,
of you quite obviously having nothing even remotely approaching a clear
understanding of the arguments that are being made to you.

> > You still want to believe Baden...so you can base your beliefs on what he

> > said?
> >
> > He said there was no lower brain damage (consistent with a bullet entering

> > near the EOP)....none, nada, zilcho.
> >

> > But hold the phone, the autopsy report clearly stated there was a

> > laceration through the occipital lobe...bigdog. Now, I'm not a forensic

> > neuropathologist or neurosurgeon but the brain diagram I have on my office

> > wall indicates the occipital lobe is in the lower part of the

> > brain....also..

>
> That was one of the problems the FPP had with the original autopsy team.
> They failed to use standard reference points in locating the wounds.

Ah, very good. You've at least been paying attention to 10% of the
evidence. Any way you could get that up to 20% of it? Or are you still
of the illusion that Canal disagrees with that statement?

> The
> FPP was composed of people who were among the best medical examiners in
> the country. The team at Bethesda was composed of general pathologists who
> were more experienced in performing autopsies on victims of cancer and
> heart disease than they were in performing medico-legal autopsies.

Could be. The FPP, however, had one distinct disadvantage compared to
the autopsists: the FPP weren't at the autopsy, and could rely on
nothing but photos and x-rays. The autopsists, however, plus other
witnesses who were there, could see things that are not clearly
documented in the photos and x-rays.

> > ..there was severe hemorraging of the right cerebellar cortex

> > reported...did Baden even read the reports?
> >

> > And that's not even to mention that Humes said they saw a lacerated

> > flocculus. I could go on and on, but it's not worth my time to go

> > on....you'd think I'm making up far-fetched scenarios anyway.
> >

> > Believe whatever you want but believe the wrong experts and you end up

> > being decieved as to what the wounds were really like.
>

> Since you aren't a qualified expert I really don't need to make a choice.

He's many times closer to being an expert than you are, however.

> Can you name a single experienced forensic medical examiner who shares
> your opinion of the FPP conclusions?

Lol, he had already named several to you days before you posted this
article.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5050b407$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Anthony:
>
> I must agree Tony.
>
> When you're right, you're right!!!!

Is he now? Mr. Fiorentino, are you claiming the Zapruder film doesn't
show JFK's head tilted forward by something very close to 27�, if not
more, in the last frames before the head shot?

[John Reagor King]

In article <505203e0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> John K
>
> You have listed the inventory, you need to post the pictures, and since
> most are not in the public domain, a discussion of a photo without being
> able to view it is absurd.

This will be the second time I have reminded you that I did exactly that
in my first article in this thread. In this present reply of yours you
quoted me as telling you that very thing. You also replied to my first
article in this thread, proving that you saw it, otherwise you would not
have known the article existed to be able to reply to it. If you failed
to notice, when posting that reply, that I had done exactly what you now
say I didn't do, that is hardly my fault. You are here doing exactly
what John Canal the other day criticized you for doing: dancing around
any substantive discussion of the points raised to you by making only a
very brief top post. And don't you know these photographs well enough
by now not to need links to them to be posted in every article in this
thread in which they are discussed? For example, the black and white,
and color, photos of the right side of JFK's head while he is laying on
the autopsy table? I know those photos so well by now that all I have
to do is look at the descriptions in the inventory and I can immediately
see which ones those are, 5 and 6 (in black and white), and 26, 27, and
28 (in color). Can't you identify which photos these are from their
descriptions in the inventory alone at least as well as I can?

Oh, but fine. Here I will copy and paste from my original article in
this thread (which you saw) the links you say I never posted:

**********

All of these clearly fall into what I have called above
category 1, photos that were taken of the body after its arrival but
before any work had yet been done on it by the autopsists. Photos 1
through 4 are of the left side of the head. Here is one of those photos:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg

Numbers 5 and 6 are of the right side. Here is one of those:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w
/s400/00h.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.JPG

Numbers 7 though 10 are of the superior view of the head, i.e. with the
camera pointed at the top of the head as the body is laying on the
autopsy table. Here is one of those:

http://dialoghiconpietroautier.myblog.it/media/02/01/1532129132.jpg

**********

I then went on to discuss another group of photos, and did indeed post
some of them:

**********

> Nos. 11 & 12 show the back wound, but also show the BOH scalp...these two
> were taken ****LATE**** after midnight and after the BOH scalp was
> repaired.

This is one of those photos:

http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/.js/jfk05.jpg

> Nos. 15 & 16 show the BOh scalp...these two were also taken ****LATE****.

This is one of those photos:

http://static.amazings.es/media/2011/11/JFK4.jpg

> Nos. 17 & 18 depict the missile wound in the posterior skull after the
> brain was removed....both were taken ****LATE****.

This is one of those photos:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20J
FK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-F8.jpg

**********

> Perhaps using some brevity rather than writing "articles" on a newsgroup
> would move things along.

There are some things I could trim out, sure, but these photos cannot
come anywhere close to being adequately discussed in articles that are
too short. If you do not have the attention span to address what I say
in substantive detail then tell me in your next reply, so that I will
know that you are unable to refute my arguments with any sort of
substantial or plausible rebuttal. The only possible way for you to
demonstrate otherwise is to get it done in something quite different
from a brief top post.

> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-E18A57...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>

> > Here is the beginning of the list of autopsy photographs (that would be
> > photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy, in case the readers,
> > but not Mr. Fiorentino, who I assume doesn't need to be told any of
> > this, since he is better at this than I am, are confused still). As the
> > document indicates, photos 1-10 are all in black and white, in negatives
> > and prints. Numbers 1-4 are "depicting the left side of the head and
> > shoulders" and "similar" views, and since I already gave a link to one
> > of those photos in my first article in this thread, even those reading
> > on Google Groups only should be able to easily scroll up to that and see
> > the link.

And there's where you quoted me saying that I had already posted that
photo before, yet in your same reply you say I didn't.

I shall give you the same advice, Mr. Fiorentino, that I have been
giving to Mr. Corbett (bigdog): it helps if you read more than 10% of
the article to which you're going to reply to before you reply to it.
Had you done so, you might have noticed that I already posted the photos
you now falsely say I didn't post.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5051ef7d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> "My confidence in you is not misplaced, is it Mr. Fiorentino?"
>
> Yes, I'm afraid it is.........
>
> I almost always "top post" as I've told John in another reply.
>
> I've been on this forum for umptiump years under my real name and only you
> and Canal seem disturbed by the way I respond.

What I have been "disturbed" about in this thread is how insubstantial
your replies are, whether they're posted at the top or bottom or wherever.
You have so far addressed practically none of the points I've raised about
these photos, which gives me the impression you don't even know what they
are, or do know, and feel unable to address them.

> Frankly, some of these threads get so long it's difficult to post within
> text, or let me put it this way, I find it difficult.

That would hardly prevent you from quoting a few paragraphs from my
articles in your reply and responding in detail to each of those points at
least.

> BTW, make sure you post the actual pic that you wish to discuss.

This will be the third time I've reminded you that I already did that in
my first article in this thread. I still see your direct reply to that
article which proves you saw it, otherwise you would not have known that
the article existed in order to post a reply to it. If you did not glance
down through the article to see the links I posted to those photos, that
is hardly my fault. Are you wanting me to post the links in every one of
my articles in this thread in which I discuss them? is that what the
problem is here?

[John Fiorentino]

John:

As I said, I almost always "top post" so if you want to communicate you'd
better get used to it.

"So my question is, do you think they were mistaken and those rear skull
pieces did not come out down to the EOP?"

Please provide a quote here

Re: "stretching the skull"

I simply don't agree, I tried an experiment after Larry's book came out
and I found the scalp would tear before being "stretched" LESS than 1/2
in.

"John, I could overwhelm you with evidence that Humes was correct, but why
would I do that...you've made up your mind."

And I could overwhelm you with evidence re: Humes and I'll include Finck,
et al being very confused individuals.

Sorry, John, we just disagree.

John F.





"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k2u7m...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Canal]

In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>Attached is a very fine B&W of the BOH given to me by David Belin.
>
>It's quite apparent that the contour of JFK's head is intact and there has
>been no "stretching" or "suturing" of his scalp.

Ridiculous point.

The suturing would have been made to the bottom layers (out of the five total)
and would not have shown up in the BOH photos...and that should make some sense
to anyone over the age of 12....IOW they were preparing him for a possible
open-casket funeral...they wouldn't have wanted any sutures to show, even if it
was the BOH!

Draw me that diagram of how you visualize the bullet path went supposedly
entering the cowlick and the entering at the tip of the occipital lobe and
exiting at the tip of the frontal lobe.

Come on, I want to see this....and don't forget to show his head tilted forward
appx. 27 deg.

Thanks.

Anyone at all reading this...you can bet your last dime JF will not post such a
graphic.

John Canal

>John F.
>
>
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

>news:k2u7m...@drn.newsguy.com...

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

[John Canal]

In article <2ad1730a-64ce-4b69...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog

says...
>
>On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53:34 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>>says...

I missed seeing your comment...probably because your posts seem to be mangled
with = signs and 20 20 characters.

IMHO, that your replies are mangled like that seems fitting considering the
absence of substance of what you are saying anyway.

In any case:

Canal wrote: "Not one of the forensic experts hired by the ARRB saw any cowlick

entrance defect on the X-rays."

bigdog replied:

"Please tell me you're not referring to Doug Horne."

Canal now replies:

He wrote the report but by asking that question you show me that you haven't
even read those reports...a fact that is consistent with the notion you've only
read about 10% of the record re. the mediacl evidence....which still doesn't
slow you down from posting about it.

In any event, for your information, when the forensic experts were interviewed
by the ARRB, besides Horne, David Marwell, Jeremy Gunn, Tom Samoluk, and Steve
Tilley of NARA were present......so do you think Horne misreported what the
forensic experts said about their examination of the originals?

Get real.

John canal


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

[John Canal]

In article <50535b34$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 9/13/2012 11:05 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 9/13/2012 9:16 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <5050fe33$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2012 5:24 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>>> In article <504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>>>>>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
>>>>>>>>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crucially important, actually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he wasn't. And you can's show me any photographic evidence that he
>>>>>>> was leaning forward by about 27 degrees. You are talking nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dale myer's computer analysis says he was leaning forward appx. 27
>>>>>> degrees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's my point exactly, Dale Myers lies.

?????????????????????????????????????/

You asked me for photographic evidence that JFK was leaning forward about 27
degrees and I gavee it to you: "Dale Myers' computer analysis of the frame Z-312
shows JFK's head was tilted forward 27.1 degrees".

Then you say he was lying.

Did you use your computer to analyze that frame?

Pardon me, but whatever you came out with I'll go with Myers' anaylsis.

[...]

>>>>And you're the guy who says that a bullet entered above his right eye even

>>>>though
>>>> no pathway through the barin near your entry was noted...now that's truly a
>>>> magic bullet you've discovered....LOL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said there was a pathway way of an intact bullet.

Of course you didn't, I pointed that out to you.

>There is a
>>> snowstorm of fragments left over by an explosive bullet.
>>
>> Once your "explosive" bullet supposedly penetrated the skull above his
>> right it would have had to penetrate the brain creating a pathway through
>> it.....there was no pathway at all there!!!!!

>THere is no pathwat and there does not need to be one. There is a
>snowstorm, a cone of fragments going up from the forehead to the top of
>the head.
>
>> The snowstorm would have accounted for only a small percentage of the
>> whole missile....the rest of the missile would have had to create a
>> pathway through the brain and, again, there was no other pathway found
>> that began anywhere near your imaginary entry wound in the skull above his
>> right eye.
>>
>
>You know nothing about explosive bullets. The rest of the missile was
>blown out of the wound and never found.

Earth to Marsh...you cannot eliminate matter. Even with an explosive bullet the
bullet's lead (minus the snowstorm which accounted for a small percentage of the
missile) would have had to go somewhere.

And your explanation is:
Ah ha, the rest of the bullet (which would have been most of it) was BLOWN OUT
YOUR IMAGINARY ENTRANCE WOUND...TOWARDS THE SHOOTER??????????????????

And you've spent decades studying this case (or at least posting about it) all
to make a unbelievable wacky statement like that??????????

If your silly imaginary bullet entered above his right eye all the lead that's
not in that snowstorm would have created a channel-like pathway through the
brain....read closely: THERE WAS NO CHANNEL-LIKE PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN THERE
BECAUSE NO DAMN BULLET ENTERED THAT DEFECT ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GEESH!!!!!!!!

John Canal

[Anthony Marsh]

We were talking about the SBT not the head shot.

[John Canal]

In article <5053add0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>John:
>

>As I said, I almost always "top post" so if you want to communicate you'd
>better get used to it.

IMO, the reason you top post is so you can avoid addressing the individual
points made by the person you're "replying" to.

Do you think we don't know that.

>"So my question is, do you think they were mistaken and those rear skull
>pieces did not come out down to the EOP?"
>
>Please provide a quote here

It's clearly in Humes' WC testimony...have you even read that?

It's also in the autopsy report that the entry near the EOP caused many
radiating complete fractures......you do know what that ["complete"] means,
don't you?

Boswell drew on his face shee a piece of skull with the top half of the entry
along its lower margin...that piece was loose.

He also said that when the BOH photos were taken the bone behind the scalp was
missing all the way to the base of his ear.

The jagged skull edge along which part of the entry is located, as seen in F8,
is consistent with them saying little or no sawing was needed to remove the
skull and access the brain.

>Re: "stretching the skull"
>
>I simply don't agree, I tried an experiment after Larry's book came out
>and I found the scalp would tear before being "stretched" LESS than 1/2
>in.

Read up on the process of "undermining" and then consult some morticians and or
hair restoration professionals.

"Re. undermining, that seemed like the right thing to do." [Dr. Robert Karnei,
who assisted the autopsists on 11-22-63]

>"John, I could overwhelm you with evidence that Humes was correct, but why
>would I do that...you've made up your mind."
>
>And I could overwhelm you with evidence re: Humes and I'll include Finck,
>et al being very confused individuals.
>
>Sorry, John, we just disagree.

John you're not knowledgeable enough about the medical evidence to make me
concerned one iota that you disagree with me...and, again, that's why you top
post.

John Canal

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

[John Fiorentino]

John, I've forgotten more about the medical evidence than you ever knew,
or will hope to know.

I do see a little obsessive compulsiveness in your posts.

John F.



"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k30sk...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

I say bet MORE than a dime, because I have no intention of being led around
by the nose.

On a technical note, you'd have to demonstrate 27 degrees to me.

John F.



"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:k30t0...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

You can post photos as attachments to your e-mails.

John F.

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-8453ED...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

I believe Anthony already answered this question.

BTW Mr. King, I've viewed the Z-film more times than you have hairs on your
......

John F.

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-C12253...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Reagor King]

In article <k30ts...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <2ad1730a-64ce-4b69...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> says...
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53:34 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >>In article <43beb417-cf4a-4ae4...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
> >>says...
>
> I missed seeing your comment...probably because your posts seem to be mangled
> with = signs and 20 20 characters.
>
> IMHO, that your replies are mangled like that seems fitting considering the
> absence of substance of what you are saying anyway.
>
> In any case:
>
> Canal wrote: "Not one of the forensic experts hired by the ARRB saw any
> cowlick
> entrance defect on the X-rays."
>
> bigdog replied:
>
> "Please tell me you're not referring to Doug Horne."
>
> Canal now replies:
>
> He wrote the report but by asking that question you show me that you haven't
> even read those reports...

It also shows that almost every time he reads one of your articles, he
only reads about one-tenth of it, and then decides he disagrees with you,
even though he has no clear idea of what he's disagreeing with. He's
frequently arguing with arguments you haven't made, which of course is
called a strawman. I once again burst into laughter which startled my dog
when I saw that he suggested that you, of all people, subscribe to Horne.

He also ought to put a C&C warning when he posts things like that.

> a fact that is consistent with the notion you've
> only
> read about 10% of the record re. the mediacl evidence....which still doesn't
> slow you down from posting about it.

Lol, yep yep.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k30v0...@drn.newsguy.com>,

And of course there is photographic evidence independent of Myers. I
seem to recall it is known as "The Zapruder Film." Anyone who claims
they "can't see" that JFK's head is tilted significantly forward in the
last frames before the head shot would have to have well below average
vision, or perhaps is operating on an agenda and merely pretending not
to see it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 10:07 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <50535b34$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 9/13/2012 11:05 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2012 9:16 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <5050fe33$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2012 5:24 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <504ff507$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <k2jok...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>>>>>>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and when [if] you draw that graphic, please remember that JFK was leaning
>>>>>>>>>> forward about 27 degrees....that's pretty important IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Crucially important, actually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, he wasn't. And you can's show me any photographic evidence that he
>>>>>>>> was leaning forward by about 27 degrees. You are talking nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dale myer's computer analysis says he was leaning forward appx. 27
>>>>>>> degrees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's my point exactly, Dale Myers lies.
>
> ?????????????????????????????????????/
>

As I predicted, you refuse to show any photographic evidence that JFK

was leaning forward by about 27 degrees.

> You asked me for photographic evidence that JFK was leaning forward about 27
> degrees and I gavee it to you: "Dale Myers' computer analysis of the frame Z-312
> shows JFK's head was tilted forward 27.1 degrees".
>

Cop out. You rely on a liar. Why didn't you also cite the HSCA? Surely
you saw their lie from the FAA analysis.

> Then you say he was lying.
>
> Did you use your computer to analyze that frame?
>

No. No need. Just a good copy and a protractor.

> Pardon me, but whatever you came out with I'll go with Myers' anaylsis.
>

You like to stick with the liars.

Translation? You know nothing about ballistics. In the Reagan
assassination attempt Hinckley used explosive bullets. In the shot which
hit James Brady only 4 or 5 tiny slivers went into his brain. The base of
the bullet was blown backwards out of the entrance wound. On the shot
which missed, it hit a window across the street. A few tiny bullet
fragments were found inside the building, but the base of the bullet was
blown back and fell onto the sidewalk below the window. Dr. Roger McCarthy
explained on Mythbusters that in his tests most of the mass of an
explosive bullet will be blown back out of the entrance wound.

> And your explanation is:
> Ah ha, the rest of the bullet (which would have been most of it) was BLOWN OUT
> YOUR IMAGINARY ENTRANCE WOUND...TOWARDS THE SHOOTER??????????????????
>

Not what I said, but that is how explosive bullets work.

> And you've spent decades studying this case (or at least posting about it) all
> to make a unbelievable wacky statement like that??????????
>

I cite a real authority, Dr. Roger McCarthy and I even post the videos.
You, nothing.

> If your silly imaginary bullet entered above his right eye all the lead that's
> not in that snowstorm would have created a channel-like pathway through the
> brain....read closely: THERE WAS NO CHANNEL-LIKE PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN THERE
> BECAUSE NO DAMN BULLET ENTERED THAT DEFECT ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

No, because the base of the bullet was blown backwards out of the wound.

> GEESH!!!!!!!!
>
> John Canal
>
> [...]
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 10:03 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>> Attached is a very fine B&W of the BOH given to me by David Belin.
>>
>> It's quite apparent that the contour of JFK's head is intact and there has
>> been no "stretching" or "suturing" of his scalp.
>
> Ridiculous point.
>
> The suturing would have been made to the bottom layers (out of the five total)
> and would not have shown up in the BOH photos...and that should make some sense
> to anyone over the age of 12....IOW they were preparing him for a possible
> open-casket funeral...they wouldn't have wanted any sutures to show, even if it
> was the BOH!
>

Not by then. Not after the morticians did their work. And Morticians are
not allowed to do their work until the autopsy is over.

> Draw me that diagram of how you visualize the bullet path went supposedly
> entering the cowlick and the entering at the tip of the occipital lobe and
> exiting at the tip of the frontal lobe.
>

How about the phony Dox drawing?
Let's see your phony diagram of the bullet entering at the EOP and then
forgetting to fragment into several pieces. You are big on issuing phony
challenges and short on producing.

> Come on, I want to see this....and don't forget to show his head tilted forward
> appx. 27 deg.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Anyone at all reading this...you can bet your last dime JF will not post such a
> graphic.
>

Let's see YOUR phony graphics.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 10:03 AM, John Canal wrote:

> In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>> Attached is a very fine B&W of the BOH given to me by David Belin.
>>
>> It's quite apparent that the contour of JFK's head is intact and there has
>> been no "stretching" or "suturing" of his scalp.
>
> Ridiculous point.
>
> The suturing would have been made to the bottom layers (out of the five total)
> and would not have shown up in the BOH photos...and that should make some sense
> to anyone over the age of 12....IOW they were preparing him for a possible
> open-casket funeral...they wouldn't have wanted any sutures to show, even if it
> was the BOH!
>
> Draw me that diagram of how you visualize the bullet path went supposedly
> entering the cowlick and the entering at the tip of the occipital lobe and
> exiting at the tip of the frontal lobe.
>
> Come on, I want to see this....and don't forget to show his head tilted forward
> appx. 27 deg.
>

As usual, when you try your phony Argument by Authority you don't even
know what your Authority said. You claim that Dale Myers said that JFK's
head was tilted down 27.1 degrees. But relative to what? Relative to the
car? Relative to the ground? Relative to the Earth. No, he said relative
to Zapruder.
As always you can't quote what your authority actually said. Maybe you
don't have the computer skills to cut and paste from his Web site. So I
will:

By contrast, the computer recreation found the orientation of JFK's head
at Zapruder frame 312 to be turned away from Zapruder by 25.7 degrees,
tilted to the left 18.1 degrees, and nodding forward 27.1 degrees -
relative to Zapruder's view.

The computer calculations, which contain a 2 degree margin of error, are
comparable with the HSCA findings - with the exception of the pitch
(forward nodding) of JFK's head. The computer recreation shows the angle
to be about 16 degrees steeper than Canning calculated. Using Canning's
figures to position JFK's head in the computer recreation reveals an
obvious misalignment with the Zapruder film. For this reason, the
computer recreation is believed to represent a closer match to the
actual orientation of JFK's head, than the position proposed by the HSCA
Photographic Panel.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Attached is a very fine B&W of the BOH given to me by David Belin.
>
> It's quite apparent that the contour of JFK's head is intact and there has
> been no "stretching" or "suturing" of his scalp.

I posted a link to this same photo in my first article in this thread:

http://static.amazings.es/media/2011/11/JFK4.jpg

And I see no legitimate reason why posting a link to the photo, rather
than posting the photo within the article, should not be considered just
as satisfactory. Also the photo in the link I posted is oriented
properly. Yours is rotated 90 degrees clockwise, making it appear that
Boswell is standing horizontally. The proper orientation is with JFK
lying on his left side. Your version is also 656 x 850 pixels, according
to my newsreader anyway, whereas the scan linked to above that I have now
posted at least twice in this thread is 1988 x 1537 pixels, meaning the
detail is a good deal clearer when zooming in. Also I will not take
seriously an argument that that link doesn't work. It worked just fine
when I posted eight days ago, and it is still coming right up now in the
midst of me typing this article.

But you're simply doing the same thing you did before in your first reply
to me in this thread a week ago. You're simply saying there is no
suturing, but you are giving no justification for your view other than
showing us the photograph, even though I already showed everyone a
higher-resolution (and properly-oriented) version of that photograph eight
days ago in my first article in this thread. Again, a link is just as
good as posting the photo in the article itself. I also asked you four
days ago how you can tell there's no suturing when the hair would almost
certainly cover that. In your reply, you did not even mention that I had
asked you that, and I have still not seen you address that, so perhaps you
will finally do so this time.

In the meantime, simply saying I'm wrong about the suturing, or that John
C. is wrong, or anyone who says it is wrong, without saying precisely
*why* we're wrong is quite unconvincing. I can plainly see that the hair
throughout the right rear of his head is brushed or smoothed by hand
toward the right of his head. I can also plainly see that the hair is
very thick, and still quite damp. All of this can quite obviously
completely hide a suture in the scalp.

You also still seem to be ignoring the extensive reasoning I gave in my
first article in this thread to support the view that that photo was taken
very late in the autopsy, and that it obviously had to be taken after the
appearance of the rear of the head was changed dramatically from what c.40
witnesses in Dallas and at Bethesda said it looked like, and I compared
that to what they said about the appearance of the right side of his head
during the same observations. Surely you don't expect me to repeat all of
that reasoning again in every one of my replies, when you can so easily go
back and read it in my first article in this thread. I can tell from your
full headers that you are posting through the Marquette server just as I
am, and my first article in this thread is still clearly visible on that
server; it obviously wouldn't have already expired from the server in only
eight days. I'm still seeing articles much older than that on the server.

I'm also not going to take you seriously if you claim my original article
in this thread is "too long" for you to easily scroll down and view my
justifications for what I've said regarding all autopsy photographs
showing the back of the head as compared to all autopsy photographs
showing the right side of the head. I would take that seriously only if
my article was at least 1000 lines, but my newsreader shows it as only 676
lines. Easy as pie for anyone with no more than average fluency in
English to find where in that article I gave these extensive
justifications.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5053add0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> John:
>
> As I said, I almost always "top post" so if you want to communicate you'd
> better get used to it.
>
> "So my question is, do you think they were mistaken and those rear skull
> pieces did not come out down to the EOP?"
>
> Please provide a quote here
>
> Re: "stretching the skull"
>
> I simply don't agree, I tried an experiment after Larry's book came out
> and I found the scalp would tear before being "stretched" LESS than 1/2
> in.

I am not at all convinced by that because you are giving far too little
detail. How, exactly, did you conduct this experiment? Did you use the
scalp from the rear of a human head within 24 hours of that person being
deceased?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 4:39 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> You can post photos as attachments to your e-mails.
>

They don't appear unless you beg McAdams to make them appear. Read
through the old messages and see how the process works.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 4:39 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:

> I say bet MORE than a dime, because I have no intention of being led
> around by the nose.
>
> On a technical note, you'd have to demonstrate 27 degrees to me.
>
> John F.
>

He got is from Dale Myers, but didn't understand what he was reading.
Naturally he is not brave enough to quote the Web site where he read it,
so I will:

By contrast, the computer recreation found the orientation of JFK's head
at Zapruder frame 312 to be turned away from Zapruder by 25.7 degrees,
tilted to the left 18.1 degrees, and nodding forward 27.1 degrees -
relative to Zapruder's view.

The computer calculations, which contain a 2 degree margin of error, are
comparable with the HSCA findings - with the exception of the pitch
(forward nodding) of JFK's head. The computer recreation shows the angle
to be about 16 degrees steeper than Canning calculated. Using Canning's
figures to position JFK's head in the computer recreation reveals an
obvious misalignment with the Zapruder film. For this reason, the
computer recreation is believed to represent a closer match to the
actual orientation of JFK's head, than the position proposed by the HSCA
Photographic Panel.

Relative to Zapruder's viewpoint, not to the limo or to the TSBD or the
road or the horizon.

[John Canal]

In article <5054ca64$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY, ZAPRUDER WAS HOLDING HIS CAMERA SO IT WAS TILTED
LEFT OR RIGHT?

IF SO, PLEASE PROVE THAT...IF NOT THE APPX 27 FORWARD TILT OF JFK'S HEAD
WAS RELATIVE TO TRUE HORIZONTAL.

GOT THAT, MARSH?

MEDICAL EVIDENCE 101 SESSION 2000 CLOSED FOR MARSH.

THAT'S WHY THE WORD APPX. WAS USED.

John Canal

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

[John Canal]

In article <505492a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
>John, I've forgotten more about the medical evidence than you ever knew,
>or will hope to know.

Well, great......in that case you ought to be able to explain to me how a
bullet that allegedly (according to Baden and you et al) entered in the
cowlick (parietal bone and right parietal lobe of his brain) could have
caused the pathway through his brain (longitudinal laceration) that began
at the tip of the occipital lobe.

To illustrate why I have so much difficulty understanding how a bullet
could do that I offer you a graphic (see the link below).

http://imageshack.us/a/img89/9650/cowlickbrainentryfatalf.jpg

The red arrow depicts the appx. alleged trajectory for Baden's (and yours)
cowlick entry.

The green arrow depicts the appx. pathway (longitudinal laceration)
through JFK's brain as described by the autopsists.

So, again, how did a bullet that supposedly entered in the cowlick cause
the pathway through the brain that began at the tip of the occipital lobe,
as described by the autopsists?

Did your bullet double back?

Thanks for enlightening us.

>I do see a little obsessive compulsiveness in your posts.

Obsessive, maybe. Compulsive, probably not so much.

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

[John Fiorentino]

Mr. King:

I am thrilled that you are keeping track of pixels and lines on your
newsreader.

The BOH *problem* was solved years ago re: Parkland and Bethesda.

There was no damage to JFK's head in the area behind his right ear for
instance as has been claimed. There was no *gaping hole* in the BOH
either.

I did my experiments years ago, after the release of Sturdivan's book. I
spoke with several morticians and frankly was generally laughed at, so you
will excuse me if I don't go through the entire useless exercise again.

John has been touting this stuff for years, I doubt he has many converts.
And one of them is certainly not me.

John F.




"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-0C887F...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[David Emerling]

On Friday, September 7, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, John Reagor King wrote:
> To be clear from the beginning: I am not a forensics or medical expert;

Very well written. It's an excellent theory and an entirely plausible
explanation for the seeming discrepancies in the head wound descriptions.

When dealing with those conspiracy theorists who are adamant about a huge,
gaping wound in the back of the president's head, I have never felt the
need to challenge them any further than the obvious lack of bone loss in
the back of the head, as is made very clear by the x-ray. They want there
to be an exit wound back there because they desperately want there to be a
gunman placed in FRONT of the limousine.

As you've astutely pointed out, there is obvious, severe fracturing back
there. But no bone loss.

To me, the refutation is far simpler.

1. The conspiracy theorists say there is a gaping hole in the back of the
president's head. They make this argument as evidence of a rear exit
wound.

2. They cite testimony (usually Parkland personnel) of this.

3. The photographs, but MOSTLY the x-ray, categorically proves this to be
incorrect. This often forces the conspiracy theorists to further assert
that the x-rays and photographs are fraudulent.

4. The determination of the direction a bullet passed through a skull is
actually a very elementary medical determination to make. The bone
beveling is a dead giveaway EVERY time.

5. The president's head wound was inflicted from behind. There can be no
question about that and the notion that three doctors got this wrong while
examining the president's wounds for HOURS is simply ludicrous. This often
forces the conspiracy theorists to assert that the doctors were part of
the conspiracy or that they were coerced in some manner.

* * *

Great work, John!

A long read, but well worth it. By far, one of the more reasoned posts in
a long time regarding the head wound controversy that never seems to go
away.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John Reagor King]

In article <505495c4$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> I believe Anthony already answered this question.

IIRC he said JFK's head isn't tilted forward by 27 degrees. Is that the
"answer" that you're talking about?

> BTW Mr. King, I've viewed the Z-film more times than you have hairs on your
> ......

As you have no possible way of knowing how many years ago I first saw
the film or how many times I've seen it since, that is quite a silly
statement.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5054...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> You can post photos as attachments to your e-mails.

Emails? This is a newsgroup, not email. And yes, I know that images can
be posted as an attachment to an article here, by crossposting it to
alt.binaries.pictures. However, for some reason my newsreader always
displays an error message when I try. But since posting a working link to
a photo is just as satisfactory, that shouldn't be a problem.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5054...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> I say bet MORE than a dime, because I have no intention of being led around
> by the nose.

Whatever. But you've been told about the undermining of the scalp and
you still haven't addressed that, that I've yet seen anyway. You also
still haven't addressed my point that suturing would almost certainly be
obscured by the thick, wet hair, nor have you addressed my point about
what the witnesses said about the appearance of the right side of his
head versus what they said about the appearance of the back of his head,
making it quite obviously that the photos of the right side and the
photos of the back were taken at two different stages of the autopsy.

[John Reagor King]

In article <505492a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> John, I've forgotten more about the medical evidence than you ever knew,
> or will hope to know.

How do you work that out? And this from you, when you claimed to "know"
that you've seen the Zapruder film more times than I have, when of
course you would have no possible way of knowing that, so for you of all
people to claim that you know something better than another person is
not convincing.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 11:16 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <505492a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> John, I've forgotten more about the medical evidence than you ever knew,
>> or will hope to know.
>
> Well, great......in that case you ought to be able to explain to me how a
> bullet that allegedly (according to Baden and you et al) entered in the
> cowlick (parietal bone and right parietal lobe of his brain) could have
> caused the pathway through his brain (longitudinal laceration) that began
> at the tip of the occipital lobe.
>

That would be no problem for you since you already claimed that the bullet
entering at the EOP left a trail of fragments in the TOP of the head. And
you seem to think the bullet deflected and/or broke up when it hit the
head, although you are not brave enough to state when and where that
happened and how many fragments and where they went.

> To illustrate why I have so much difficulty understanding how a bullet
> could do that I offer you a graphic (see the link below).
>
> http://imageshack.us/a/img89/9650/cowlickbrainentryfatalf.jpg
>
> The red arrow depicts the appx. alleged trajectory for Baden's (and yours)
> cowlick entry.
>
> The green arrow depicts the appx. pathway (longitudinal laceration)
> through JFK's brain as described by the autopsists.
>

Garbage. The autopsy doctors never drew that. It is your faulty
interpretation of what they said. And your first error is relying on
them for anything. They were incompetent.
You have no basis in fact for your starting point or your exit or the
idea of a perfectly straight line. Is it just a coincidence that your
exit point for the green line is exactly where Dr. Lawrence Angle noted
a semi-circular wound on the forehead?
If you really believe a bullet broke up when it hit the head, why
couldn't one bullet account for all that with multiple fragments>
If your green line is supposed to be the true path of the bullet it does
not line up with the fragments left in the head or the photographs of
the brain.

> So, again, how did a bullet that supposedly entered in the cowlick cause
> the pathway through the brain that began at the tip of the occipital lobe,
> as described by the autopsists?
>

That is only your interpretation of what the autopsists said.

> Did your bullet double back?
>

How does your green line leave fragments in the top of the head.
Again you will duck the tough questions.
Time to killfile me again.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 11:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <5054ca64$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY, ZAPRUDER WAS HOLDING HIS CAMERA SO IT WAS TILTED
> LEFT OR RIGHT?
>
> IF SO, PLEASE PROVE THAT...IF NOT THE APPX 27 FORWARD TILT OF JFK'S HEAD
> WAS RELATIVE TO TRUE HORIZONTAL.
>
> GOT THAT, MARSH?
>
> MEDICAL EVIDENCE 101 SESSION 2000 CLOSED FOR MARSH.
>
> THAT'S WHY THE WORD APPX. WAS USED.
>
> John Canal
>

I am merely pointing out that you were misrepresenting what Myers said.
He said relative to Zapruder's view.
I don't care what you think. Just make it clear that it is YOUR opinion,
not his.
And "27.1" is not "approximately."

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't ask people to prove things they just make up. How rude of you.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 9:25 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

> In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> Attached is a very fine B&W of the BOH given to me by David Belin.
>>
>> It's quite apparent that the contour of JFK's head is intact and there has
>> been no "stretching" or "suturing" of his scalp.
>
> I posted a link to this same photo in my first article in this thread:
>
> http://static.amazings.es/media/2011/11/JFK4.jpg
>
> And I see no legitimate reason why posting a link to the photo, rather
> than posting the photo within the article, should not be considered just
> as satisfactory. Also the photo in the link I posted is oriented

Because certain people here refuse to click on a link so that way they
can pretend they never saw it.