For Jean D.
John Canal
>
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:iedi5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> [....]
>>
>>> The disappearance of the brain is not unexplained and doesn't
>>>point toward coverup, unless you think RFK was part of the coverup.
>>>The missing brain illustrates the point Bigdog is making: unexplained
>>>events aren't evidence of anything, no matter what suspicion tells
>>>you.
>>> Jean
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> I also pretty much agree with Bigdog's point about missing evidence. That
>> said, if in a case there was a pattern of such disappearances I might want
>> to check to see if there was something going on besides sloppy evidence
>> control.
>>
>> What I find more interesting about the brain is not its disappearance, but
>> the appearance of it in the drawings and/or photos (wherever they are) as
>> well as the dramatic conflicts in the official record regarding the
>> supplementry autopsy...the number of which, going from memory, is
>> substantial.
>>
>> And keep in mind that I doubt there's anyone who believes more than I that
>> LHO acted alone.
>>
>> Look, there were a number of lies told and instances of deception that I'm
>> certain occurred....even the hard-line LNers will agree some of them took
>> place. I could go on and on but a good example is JFK's forward lean in
>> the Rydberg drawing, CE-388. Humes said they used Z-312 to deermine the
>> forward lean for the drawing, but JFK's lean in CE-388 is about 50 deg.
>> and Dale Myer's computer measured that lean in Z-312 to be about 27 deg.
>> Wouldn't you agree that's too much of a difference to be an innocent
>> mistake? More likely, Humes couldn't get his [IMO, correct] near EOP entry
>> and [IMO, grossly incorrect] straight-through-the-head bullet path to
>> point back to the SN without cheating on JFK's lean.
>
> I don't know, John. I try to stay out of the medical >issues,
Hi Jean,
>.....but I don't recall Humes mentioning Z-312. He told the WC >that Rydberg
>"had no photographs from which to work." Humes was >fallible, like everybody
>else.
"....I have identified as Commission Exhibits 389 and 390 which at a later
time will be identified as being two frames from the motion picture camera
operated by one Abraham Zapruder......would assist in evaluating the angle
of the Presdident's head corresponding to that exhibit 388."
[Specter to Chief Earl Warren during Humes' WC testimony....2WCH353].....I
believe it's 389 that's Z-312.
This is important, IMO, because it catches them in a bold faced lie....the
error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) is just too
big to have been an innocent mistake.
If Humes had only realized the bullet deflected up about 23 deg. as it
penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessary...and it
wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the 6.5 mm fake
bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
They had to lie...and their deception was hardly limited to this
instance...that said, IMHO, their lies were well intended, i.e. they
thought it best not to demonstrate that their findings often seemed to be
more consistent with a multiple shooter scenario than a lone-assassin one.
That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's head until
after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two dozen
medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
Do you really think the autopsists didn't see the clothes.....and that the
official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff them in his
WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
Do you think a NASA engineeer [Canning] would have accidently measured,
again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was 27 deg.?
One can't make stuff like that up.
In the nation's best interest, they'd have done a Hell of a lot more than
lie.
:-)
>I can't really comment on the rest, sorry.
Jean, for my money studying the medical evidence has been far more
interesting than studying the rest of the case (that's not to say, of
course, I ever knew the rest of the case as well as you do)....but that's
just my humble opinion. Sorting out the lies (well-intended or otherwise)
from the truth has been a fascinating, albeit about a decade long,
experience..
And what has it earned me?...I'm pretty much the pariah of both
sides....not that I mind....in fact, in some ways, I enjoy the part.
:-)
Take care,
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
>Jean
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
HistorianDetective
> In article <4d0bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
RE:
> Jean, for my money studying the medical evidence has been far more
> interesting than studying the rest of the case
If I may interject something here...
What is fascinating about this case and why I think that one of the
reasons this event is popular for many is that there is something of great
intererest for everyone. Medical evidence, ballistics, photographic,
acoustic, much, much more. And anywhere one goes, one can always find a
discrepancy to use to proclaim that somebody lied, covered up, destroyed
evidence, whathaveyou.
JM/HD
John Canal
HistorianDetective says...
>
>On Dec 22, 11:48=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4d0bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> >news:iedi5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >> [....]
>>
>n't
>> >>>point toward coverup, unless you think RFK was part of the coverup.
>> >>>The missing brain illustrates the point Bigdog is making: unexplained
>> >>>events aren't evidence of anything, no matter what suspicion tells
>> >>>you.
>=A0 Jean
>>
>> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> I also pretty much agree with Bigdog's point about missing evidence. T=
>hat
>> >> said, if in a case there was a pattern of such disappearances I might =
>want
>> >> to check to see if there was something going on besides sloppy evidenc=
>e
>> >> control.
>>
>> >> What I find more interesting about the brain is not its disappearance,=
> but
>> >> the appearance of it in the drawings and/or photos (wherever they are)=
> as
>> >> well as the dramatic conflicts in the official record regarding the
>> >> supplementry autopsy...the number of which, going from memory, is
>> >> substantial.
>>
>that
>> >> LHO acted alone.
>>
>> >> Look, there were a number of lies told and instances of deception that=
> I'm
>> >> certain occurred....even the hard-line LNers will agree some of them t=
>ook
>> >> place. I could go on and on but a good example is JFK's forward lean i=
>n
>> >> the Rydberg drawing, CE-388. Humes said they used Z-312 to deermine th=
>e
>> >> forward lean for the drawing, but JFK's lean in CE-388 is about 50 deg=
>.
>> >> and Dale Myer's computer measured that lean in Z-312 to be about 27 de=
>g.
>> >> Wouldn't you agree that's too much of a difference to be an innocent
>ntry
>> >> and [IMO, grossly incorrect] straight-through-the-head bullet path to
>> >> point back to the SN without cheating on JFK's lean.
>>
>ues,
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >.....but I don't recall Humes mentioning Z-312. =A0He told the WC >that =
>Rydberg
>> >"had no photographs from which to work." =A0Humes was >fallible, like ev=
>erybody
>> >else.
>>
>> "....I have identified as Commission Exhibits 389 and 390 which at a late=
>r
>> time will be identified as being two frames from the motion picture camer=
>a
>> operated by one Abraham Zapruder......would assist in evaluating the angl=
>e
>> of the Presdident's head corresponding to that exhibit 388."
>>
>I
>> believe it's 389 that's Z-312.
>>
>e
>> error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) is just too
>> big to have been an innocent mistake.
>>
>> If Humes had only realized the bullet deflected up about 23 deg. as it
>> penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessary...and it
>> wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the 6.5 mm fake
>> bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
>>
>> They had to lie...and their deception was hardly limited to this
>> instance...that said, IMHO, their lies were well intended, i.e. they
>> thought it best not to demonstrate that their findings often seemed to be
>.
>>
>> That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's head until
>> after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two dozen
>> medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
>>
>e
>> official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff them in his
>> WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
>>
>> Do you think a NASA engineeer [Canning] would have accidently measured,
>> again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was 27 deg.?
>>
>> One can't make stuff like that up.
>>
>> In the nation's best interest, they'd have done a Hell of a lot more than
>> lie.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> >I can't really comment on the rest, sorry.
>>
>
>
>RE:
>
>> Jean, for my money studying the medical evidence has been far more
>> interesting than studying the rest of the case
>
>If I may interject something here...
>
>What is fascinating about this case and why I think that one of the
>reasons this event is popular for many is that there is something of great
>intererest for everyone. Medical evidence, ballistics, photographic,
>acoustic, much, much more. And anywhere one goes, one can always find a
>discrepancy to use to proclaim that somebody lied, covered up, destroyed
>evidence, whathaveyou.
Well, I guess we all have opinions. About 21 years ago I started reading
about and researching the case in general.....and, I've found that, while
there are certainly conflicts with many aspects of the evidence, IMHO, the
medical evidence is, by comparison, totally mangled....thus for about the
past 10 years I've pretty much just focused exclusively on that part of
the case.
Take the NAA or the acoustics for instance, IMO, fairly interesting
arguments can be made for both sides...but with the medical evidence,
again IMO, one side has put blinders on so they don't see the falsehoods
that were told.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Jean Davison
you've reposted it twice. Bottom line, we simply disagree on these
issues.
More below.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:iesrh...@drn.newsguy.com...
Yes, I see that now. But I disagree that "Humes said they used
Z-312 to determine the forward lean for the [Rydberg] drawing." Humes
gave Rydberg only a verbal description.
QUOTE:
HUMES: ....I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist
had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no
photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description,
verbal description, of what we had observed.
UNQUOTE
Specter introduced the Z frame in order to compare it to the
drawing. Humes told him he thought the head was tilted in
*"approximately"* the same position. Specter entered the drawing and Z
frame side by side in the record, an odd thing to do if they're trying to
hide something:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0505a.htm
>
> This is important, IMO, because it catches them in a bold faced lie....the
> error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) is just too
> big to have been an innocent mistake.
The WR simply says that the bullet entered the back of his head
and "exited through the upper right portion of his skull," (p. 109) which
is an accurate description. It didn't give a specific angle for the
forward lean, so far as I know.
>
> If Humes had only realized the bullet deflected up about 23 deg. as it
> penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessary...and it
> wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the 6.5 mm fake
> bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
>
> They had to lie...and their deception was hardly limited to this
> instance...that said, IMHO, their lies were well intended, i.e. they
> thought it best not to demonstrate that their findings often seemed to be
> more consistent with a multiple shooter scenario than a lone-assassin one.
>
> That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's head until
> after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two dozen
> medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
I just don't see it that way, John, sorry.
>
>
> Do you really think the autopsists didn't see the clothes.....and that the
> official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff them in his
> WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
Yes, I think they didn't examine the clothes. I don't
believe they lied.
> Do you think a NASA engineeer [Canning] would have accidently measured,
> again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was 27 deg.?
>
> One can't make stuff like that up.
>
> In the nation's best interest, they'd have done a Hell of a lot more than
> lie.
>
I don't do trajectories, either, but I've read that Canning's
work was flawed. Even NASA engineers can be wrong, as our space disasters
show.
All this is only opinion. Really, John, let's agree to
disagree and go get some eggnog.<g>
Jean
John Canal
> I can tell that you really want me to answer this, John, since
>you've reposted it twice.
I didn't mean to...I think something was amiss with NewsGuy.
Anyway, below you wrote:
"All this is only opinion. Really, John, let's agree to
disagree and go get some eggnog".<g>
That's fine with me but first one more little comment, or two....about this
testimony.
"HUMES: ....I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist
had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no
photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description,
verbal description, of what we had observed."
So they didn't have access to the Z-film?
>Specter introduced the Z frame in order to compare it to the
>drawing. Humes told him he thought the head was tilted in
>*"approximately"* the same position.
Jean, JFK's lean in the drawing is about 50 deg. and it's 27 deg. in
Z-312. If that's "approximately" [close], I don't even want to see "way
off".
<g>
>Specter entered the drawing and Z frame side by side in the >record, an odd
>thing to do if they're trying to hide something:
Well, if there's no one present to argue their point when he held up the
drawing and the Z-frame beside it, I don't think it was such an odd thing
to do.
Okay, I can see you're not that comfortable discussing the medical
evidence...so, I agree with you: we should agree to disagree....and the
eggnog sounds good too.
:-)
Bests,
John
HistorianDetective
> In article <bc449e65-ba0e-49d9-994d-7a5ddf2c0...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
RE:
> Well, I guess we all have opinions.
Yes we do. And special interests as well, which is a good thing as nobody,
save one single soul here perhaps, has an interest and voices an opinion
on everything but everything related to this case.
>About 21 years ago I started reading
> about and researching the case in general.....and, I've found that, while
> there are certainly conflicts with many aspects of the evidence, IMHO, the
> medical evidence is, by comparison, totally mangled....thus for about the
> past 10 years I've pretty much just focused exclusively on that part of
> the case.
>
RE:
> Take the NAA or the acoustics for instance, IMO, fairly interesting
> arguments can be made for both sides...but with the medical evidence,
No Buts about it...but, the but also includes the medical evidence
regarding fairly interesting arguments.
> again IMO, one side has put blinders on so they don't see the falsehoods
> that were told.
Funny, I find that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to put on
blinders every now and then.
Happy Festivus 2010!
JM/HD
Bill Kelly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
As for the medical and autopsy evidence, what should happen is that a
court or
a grand jury should order a proper forensic autopsy to create new
evidence that
can be admissible in a court of a law and determine not only how JFK
was killed,
but answer all the outstanding questions related to the medical and
autopsy.
Bill Kelly
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/jfk-grand-jury-basis-for-legal-action.html
John Canal
Bill Kelly says...
>
>On Dec 23, 5:02=A0pm, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 5:46=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <bc449e65-ba0e-49d9-994d-7a5ddf2c0...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > HistorianDetective says...
>>
>> > >On Dec 22, 11:48=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <4d0bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>>
>> > >> >"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> > >> >news:iedi5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> > >> >> [....]
>>
>ed and does=3D
>> > >n't
>> > >> >>>point toward coverup, unless you think RFK was part of the coveru=
>p.
>> > >> >>>The missing brain illustrates the point Bigdog is making: unexpla=
>ined
>> > >> >>>events aren't evidence of anything, no matter what suspicion tell=
>s
>> > >> >>>you.
>> > >> >>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA=
>0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3D
>> > >=3DA0 Jean
>>
>> > >> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> > >> >> I also pretty much agree with Bigdog's point about missing eviden=
>ce. T=3D
>> > >hat
>> > >> >> said, if in a case there was a pattern of such disappearances I m=
>ight =3D
>> > >want
>> > >> >> to check to see if there was something going on besides sloppy ev=
>idenc=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> >> control.
>>
>> > >> >> What I find more interesting about the brain is not its disappear=
>ance,=3D
>> > > but
>> > >> >> the appearance of it in the drawings and/or photos (wherever they=
> are)=3D
>> > > as
>> > >> >> well as the dramatic conflicts in the official record regarding t=
>he
>> > >> >> supplementry autopsy...the number of which, going from memory, is
>> > >> >> substantial.
>>
>an I =3D
>> > >that
>> > >> >> LHO acted alone.
>>
>> > >> >> Look, there were a number of lies told and instances of deception=
> that=3D
>> > > I'm
>> > >> >> certain occurred....even the hard-line LNers will agree some of t=
>hem t=3D
>> > >ook
>> > >> >> place. I could go on and on but a good example is JFK's forward l=
>ean i=3D
>> > >n
>> > >> >> the Rydberg drawing, CE-388. Humes said they used Z-312 to deermi=
>ne th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> >> forward lean for the drawing, but JFK's lean in CE-388 is about 5=
>0 deg=3D
>> > >.
>> > >> >> and Dale Myer's computer measured that lean in Z-312 to be about =
>27 de=3D
>> > >g.
>> > >> >> Wouldn't you agree that's too much of a difference to be an innoc=
>ent
>> > >> >> mistake? More likely, Humes couldn't get his [IMO, correct] near =
>EOP e=3D
>> > >ntry
>> > >> >> and [IMO, grossly incorrect] straight-through-the-head bullet pat=
>h to
>> > >> >> point back to the SN without cheating on JFK's lean.
>>
> medical >iss=3D
>> > >ues,
>>
>> > >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> > >> >.....but I don't recall Humes mentioning Z-312. =3DA0He told the WC=
> >that =3D
>> > >Rydberg
>> > >> >"had no photographs from which to work." =3DA0Humes was >fallible, =
>like ev=3D
>> > >erybody
>> > >> >else.
>>
>> > >> "....I have identified as Commission Exhibits 389 and 390 which at a=
> late=3D
>> > >r
>> > >> time will be identified as being two frames from the motion picture =
>camer=3D
>> > >a
>> > >> operated by one Abraham Zapruder......would assist in evaluating the=
> angl=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> of the Presdident's head corresponding to that exhibit 388."
>>
>.....=3D
>> > >I
>> > >> believe it's 389 that's Z-312.
>>
>...th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) is just=
> too
>> > >> big to have been an innocent mistake.
>>
>it
>> > >> penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessary...an=
>d it
>> > >> wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the 6.5 mm=
> fake
>> > >> bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
>>
>> > >> They had to lie...and their deception was hardly limited to this
>> > >> instance...that said, IMHO, their lies were well intended, i.e. they
>to be
>> > >> more consistent with a multiple shooter scenario than a lone-assassi=
>n one=3D
>> > >.
>>
>> > >> That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's head un=
>til
>> > >> after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two dozen
>> > >> medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
>>
>at th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff them i=
>n his
>> > >> WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
>>
>ed,
>> > >> again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was 27 de=
>g.?
>>
>> > >> One can't make stuff like that up.
>>
> than
>> > >> lie.
>>
>> > >> :-)
>>
>> > >> >I can't really comment on the rest, sorry.
>>
>> > >RE:
>>
>> > >> Jean, for my money studying the medical evidence has been far more
>> > >> interesting than studying the rest of the case
>>
>> > >If I may interject something here...
>>
>> > >What is fascinating about this case and why I think that one of the
>reat
>> > >intererest for everyone. Medical evidence, ballistics, photographic,
>a
>> > >discrepancy to use to proclaim that somebody lied, covered up, destroy=
>ed
>> > >evidence, whathaveyou.
>>
>> RE:
>>
>> > Well, I guess we all have opinions.
>>
>,
>> save one single soul here perhaps, has an interest and voices an opinion
>> on everything but everything related to this case.
>>
>> >About 21 years ago I started reading
>le
>> > there are certainly conflicts with many aspects of the evidence, IMHO, =
>the
>> > medical evidence is, by comparison, totally mangled....thus for about t=
>he
>> > past 10 years I've pretty much just focused exclusively on that part of
>> > the case.
>>
>> RE:
>>
>> > Take the NAA or the acoustics for instance, IMO, fairly interesting
>> > arguments can be made for both sides...but with the medical evidence,
>>
>> No Buts about it...but, the but also includes the medical evidence
>> regarding fairly interesting arguments.
>>
>s
>> > that were told.
>>
>> Funny, I find that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to put on
>> blinders every now and then.
>>
>> Happy Festivus 2010!
>>
>> JM/HD- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>As for the medical and autopsy evidence, what should happen is that a
>court or
>a grand jury should order a proper forensic autopsy to create new
>evidence that
>can be admissible in a court of a law and determine not only how JFK
>was killed,
>but answer all the outstanding questions related to the medical and
>autopsy.
Of course that's what's needed....but easier said than done...way, way
easier. As Barb J. knows, I've been trying extremely hard to see that such
a re-examination gets done. I've actually three experts who participated
in the HSCA who support my efforts in this regard.
As I write this I have packages en route to about a dozen forensic
anthropologists hoping they'll also agree a re-examination is needed.
Meanwhile, the hardline LNers (who believe just about every ridiculous
thing that Baden et al. were selling re. the medical evidence) are pretty
much in the cat bird's seat on this.....probably hoping no re-examination
will ever happen. They're smug, IMO, because they appear to argue from the
high ground because so many forensic experts disagreed with the
eyewitnesses and autopsists about JFK's head wounds....of course it didn't
matter to those hardliners that it was discovered that most of their
experts had close associations with one another.
I came relatively, if not excitingly close to getting some exposure of
this matter this past fall when NBC "sat" on my material (demanding
exclusivity) for about five weeks as they tried to decide if it was a good
fit for them for a documentry. In the end, even though they backed off, an
award winning producer of theirs simply stated, if I'm right about my
claims (that the three aforementioned experts support me on) then the
public "absolutely" needs to know this.
We'll see what happens....as I said, I keep trying.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
HistorianDetective
> In article <888279ae-4269-492f-b2db-d89adbb9a...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
RE: > then the public "absolutely" needs to know this.
WHY "absolutely"?
Just curious, but who would pick this panel of experts of yours?
Do you honestly think that yet another panel of experts would be
able to absolutely settle the matter once and for all, let alone be
acceptable to everyone?
Do you honestly think that it is possible?
JM/HD
>
> We'll see what happens....as I said, I keep trying.
>
> --
> John Canal
> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -
HistorianDetective
HistorianDetective
RE:
> As for the medical and autopsy evidence, what should happen is that a court or
> a grand jury should order a proper forensic autopsy to create new evidence
Create new evidence?
>that can be admissible in a court of a law and determine not only how JFK
> was killed,
It has already been determined how he was killed. It was the headshot.
> but answer all the outstanding questions related to the medical and
> autopsy.
How many outstanding questions are there? And who determined these
outstanding questions?
JM/HD
PS...Oh! And who in the heck is gonna have to pay for all this
historical
curiosity of yours anyhow?
> Bill Kellyhttp://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/jfk-grand-jury-basis-for-l...- Hide quoted text -
John Canal
HistorianDetective says...
>
>On Dec 31 2010, 3:00=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <888279ae-4269-492f-b2db-d89adbb9a...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bill Kelly says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Dec 22, 5:46=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <bc449e65-ba0e-49d9-994d-7a5ddf2c0...@s5g2000yqm.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.com>,
>> >> > HistorianDetective says...
>>
>> >> > >On Dec 22, 11:48=3D3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> > >> In article <4d0bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>>
>> >> > >> >"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> >> > >> >news:iedi5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >> > >> >> [....]
>>
>unexplain=3D
>> >ed and does=3D3D
>> >> > >n't
>> >> > >> >>>point toward coverup, unless you think RFK was part of the cov=
>eru=3D
>> >p.
>> >> > >> >>>The missing brain illustrates the point Bigdog is making: unex=
>pla=3D
>> >ined
>> >> > >> >>>events aren't evidence of anything, no matter what suspicion t=
>ell=3D
>> >s
>> >> > >> >>>you.
>> >> > >> >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3D=
>A0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=3D
>> >0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3D
>> >> > >=3D3DA0 Jean
>>
>> >> > >> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> > >> >> I also pretty much agree with Bigdog's point about missing evi=
>den=3D
>> >ce. T=3D3D
>> >> > >hat
>> >> > >> >> said, if in a case there was a pattern of such disappearances =
>I m=3D
>> >ight =3D3D
>> >> > >want
>> >> > >> >> to check to see if there was something going on besides sloppy=
> ev=3D
>> >idenc=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> >> control.
>>
>> >> > >> >> What I find more interesting about the brain is not its disapp=
>ear=3D
>> >ance,=3D3D
>> >> > > but
>> >> > >> >> the appearance of it in the drawings and/or photos (wherever t=
>hey=3D
>> > are)=3D3D
>> >> > > as
>> >> > >> >> well as the dramatic conflicts in the official record regardin=
>g t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > >> >> supplementry autopsy...the number of which, going from memory,=
> is
>> >> > >> >> substantial.
>>
>> >> > >> >> And keep in mind that I doubt there's anyone who believes more=
> th=3D
>> >an I =3D3D
>> >> > >that
>> >> > >> >> LHO acted alone.
>>
>> >> > >> >> Look, there were a number of lies told and instances of decept=
>ion=3D
>> > that=3D3D
>> >> > > I'm
>> >> > >> >> certain occurred....even the hard-line LNers will agree some o=
>f t=3D
>> >hem t=3D3D
>> >> > >ook
>> >> > >> >> place. I could go on and on but a good example is JFK's forwar=
>d l=3D
>> >ean i=3D3D
>> >> > >n
>> >> > >> >> the Rydberg drawing, CE-388. Humes said they used Z-312 to dee=
>rmi=3D
>> >ne th=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> >> forward lean for the drawing, but JFK's lean in CE-388 is abou=
>t 5=3D
>> >0 deg=3D3D
>> >> > >.
>> >> > >> >> and Dale Myer's computer measured that lean in Z-312 to be abo=
>ut =3D
>> >27 de=3D3D
>> >> > >g.
>> >> > >> >> Wouldn't you agree that's too much of a difference to be an in=
>noc=3D
>> >ent
>> >> > >> >> mistake? More likely, Humes couldn't get his [IMO, correct] ne=
>ar =3D
>> >EOP e=3D3D
>> >> > >ntry
>> >> > >> >> and [IMO, grossly incorrect] straight-through-the-head bullet =
>pat=3D
>> >h to
>> >> > >> >> point back to the SN without cheating on JFK's lean.
>>
> out of the=3D
>> > medical >iss=3D3D
>> >> > >ues,
>>
>> >> > >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> > >> >.....but I don't recall Humes mentioning Z-312. =3D3DA0He told t=
>he WC=3D
>> > >that =3D3D
>> >> > >Rydberg
>> >> > >> >"had no photographs from which to work." =3D3DA0Humes was >falli=
>ble, =3D
>> >like ev=3D3D
>> >> > >erybody
>> >> > >> >else.
>>
>> >> > >> "....I have identified as Commission Exhibits 389 and 390 which a=
>t a=3D
>> > late=3D3D
>> >> > >r
>> >> > >> time will be identified as being two frames from the motion pictu=
>re =3D
>> >camer=3D3D
>> >> > >a
>> >> > >> operated by one Abraham Zapruder......would assist in evaluating =
>the=3D
>> > angl=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> of the Presdident's head corresponding to that exhibit 388."
>>
>53]=3D
>> >.....=3D3D
>> >> > >I
>> >> > >> believe it's 389 that's Z-312.
>>
>ie.=3D
>> >...th=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) is j=
>ust=3D
>> > too
>> >> > >> big to have been an innocent mistake.
>>
>as =3D
>> >it
>> >> > >> penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessary..=
>.an=3D
>> >d it
>> >> > >> wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the 6.5=
> mm=3D
>> > fake
>> >> > >> bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
>>
>> >> > >> They had to lie...and their deception was hardly limited to this
>hey
>> >> > >> thought it best not to demonstrate that their findings often seem=
>ed =3D
>> >to be
>> >> > >> more consistent with a multiple shooter scenario than a lone-assa=
>ssi=3D
>> >n one=3D3D
>> >> > >.
>>
>> >> > >> That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's head=
> un=3D
>> >til
>> >> > >> after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two doz=
>en
>> >> > >> medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
>>
> th=3D
>> >at th=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff the=
>m i=3D
>> >n his
>> >> > >> WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
>>
>sur=3D
>> >ed,
>> >> > >> again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was 27=
> de=3D
>> >g.?
>>
>> >> > >> One can't make stuff like that up.
>>
>ore=3D
>> > than
>> >> > >> lie.
>>
>> >> > >> :-)
>>
>> >> > >> >I can't really comment on the rest, sorry.
>>
>> >> > >RE:
>>
>e
>> >> > >> interesting than studying the rest of the case
>>
>> >> > >If I may interject something here...
>>
>> >> > >What is fascinating about this case and why I think that one of the
>f g=3D
>> >reat
>> >> > >intererest for everyone. Medical evidence, ballistics, photographic=
>,
>> >> > >acoustic, much, much more. And anywhere one goes, one can always fi=
>nd =3D
>> >a
>> >> > >discrepancy to use to proclaim that somebody lied, covered up, dest=
>roy=3D
>> >ed
>> >> > >evidence, whathaveyou.
>>
>> >> RE:
>>
>> >> > Well, I guess we all have opinions.
>>
>ody=3D
>> >,
>> >> save one single soul here perhaps, has an interest and voices an opini=
>on
>> >> on everything but everything related to this case.
>>
>> >> >About 21 years ago I started reading
>whi=3D
>> >le
>> >> > there are certainly conflicts with many aspects of the evidence, IMH=
>O, =3D
>> >the
>> >> > medical evidence is, by comparison, totally mangled....thus for abou=
>t t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > past 10 years I've pretty much just focused exclusively on that part=
> of
>> >> > the case.
>>
>> >> RE:
>>
>> >> > Take the NAA or the acoustics for instance, IMO, fairly interesting
>,
>>
>> >> No Buts about it...but, the but also includes the medical evidence
>> >> regarding fairly interesting arguments.
>>
>ood=3D
>> >s
>> >> > that were told.
>>
>> >> Funny, I find that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to put on
>> >> blinders every now and then.
>>
>> >> Happy Festivus 2010!
>>
>> >> JM/HD- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >As for the medical and autopsy evidence, what should happen is that a
>> >court or
>> >a grand jury should order a proper forensic autopsy to create new
>> >evidence that
>> >can be admissible in a court of a law and determine not only how JFK
>> >was killed,
>> >but answer all the outstanding questions related to the medical and
>> >autopsy.
>>
>> Of course that's what's needed....but easier said than done...way, way
>h
>> a re-examination gets done. I've actually three experts who participated
>> in the HSCA who support my efforts in this regard.
>>
>> As I write this I have packages en route to about a dozen forensic
>> anthropologists hoping they'll also agree a re-examination is needed.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the hardline LNers (who believe just about every ridiculous
>> thing that Baden et al. were selling re. the medical evidence) are pretty
>> much in the cat bird's seat on this.....probably hoping no re-examination
>e
>> high ground because so many forensic experts disagreed with the
>t
>> matter to those hardliners that it was discovered that most of their
>> experts had close associations with one another.
>>
>> I came relatively, if not excitingly close to getting some exposure of
>> this matter this past fall when NBC "sat" on my material (demanding
>d
>> fit for them for a documentry. In the end, even though they backed off, a=
>n
>> award winning producer of theirs simply stated, if I'm right about my
>> claims (that the three aforementioned experts support me on)
>
>RE: > then the public "absolutely" needs to know this.
>
>WHY "absolutely"?
I didn't say that, the NBC producer did. I would have said something like,
"absolutely, IMO, the majority of the public would want to know".
Do you remember when the press got hold of the story about Gerald Ford
"adjusting" the location of the back wound? For me it wasn't a big deal, but
that story made the front pages of most major newspapers....evidently the
publishers thought the public wanted to know about such things. And this story
is about evidence that shows certain experts lied about the nature of JFK's
wounds...big time.
You may not agree there is such evidence, but I say let a panel of credible
experts decide that....experts with no horses in the race.
>Just curious, but who would pick this panel of experts of yours?
Let a leading newspaper or major medical college pick them...I'd be open on
that.
>Do you honestly think that yet another panel of experts would be
>able to absolutely settle the matter once and for all, let alone be
>acceptable to everyone?
Not for the posters here, that's for sure...no one here, to the best of my
knowledge, as ever changed their mind on a significant issue and admitted they
had been wrong.
That said, the public may well accept the conclusions of a credible panel of
experts.
>Do you honestly think that it is possible?
Yes......if I didn't I wouldn't have spent hundreds of hours so far trying to
see that the medical evidence is re-examined.
John Canal
>JM/HD
>
>
>>
>> We'll see what happens....as I said, I keep trying.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Bill Kelly says...
>
>On Dec 23, 5:02=A0pm, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 5:46=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <bc449e65-ba0e-49d9-994d-7a5ddf2c0...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > HistorianDetective says...
>>
>> > >On Dec 22, 11:48=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <4d0bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>>
>> > >> >"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> > >> >news:iedi5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> > >> >> [....]
>>
>ed and does=3D
>> > >n't
>> > >> >>>point toward coverup, unless you think RFK was part of the coveru=
>p.
>> > >> >>>The missing brain illustrates the point Bigdog is making: unexpla=
>ined
>> > >> >>>events aren't evidence of anything, no matter what suspicion tell=
>s
>> > >> >>>you.
>> > >> >>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA=
>0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3D
>>
>> > >> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> > >> >> I also pretty much agree with Bigdog's point about missing eviden=
>ce. T=3D
>> > >hat
>> > >> >> said, if in a case there was a pattern of such disappearances I m=
>ight =3D
>> > >want
>> > >> >> to check to see if there was something going on besides sloppy ev=
>idenc=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> >> control.
>>
>> > >> >> What I find more interesting about the brain is not its disappear=
>ance,=3D
>> > > but
>> > >> >> the appearance of it in the drawings and/or photos (wherever they=
> are)=3D
>> > > as
>> > >> >> well as the dramatic conflicts in the official record regarding t=
>he
>> > >> >> supplementry autopsy...the number of which, going from memory, is
>> > >> >> substantial.
>>
>an I =3D
>> > >that
>> > >> >> LHO acted alone.
>>
>> > >> >> Look, there were a number of lies told and instances of deception=
> that=3D
>> > > I'm
>> > >> >> certain occurred....even the hard-line LNers will agree some of t=
>hem t=3D
>> > >ook
>> > >> >> place. I could go on and on but a good example is JFK's forward l=
>ean i=3D
>> > >n
>> > >> >> the Rydberg drawing, CE-388. Humes said they used Z-312 to deermi=
>ne th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> >> forward lean for the drawing, but JFK's lean in CE-388 is about 5=
>0 deg=3D
>> > >.
>> > >> >> and Dale Myer's computer measured that lean in Z-312 to be about =
>27 de=3D
>> > >g.
>> > >> >> Wouldn't you agree that's too much of a difference to be an innoc=
>ent
>> > >> >> mistake? More likely, Humes couldn't get his [IMO, correct] near =
>EOP e=3D
>> > >ntry
>> > >> >> and [IMO, grossly incorrect] straight-through-the-head bullet pat=
>h to
>> > >> >> point back to the SN without cheating on JFK's lean.
>>
> medical >iss=3D
>> > >ues,
>>
>> > >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> > >> >.....but I don't recall Humes mentioning Z-312. =3DA0He told the WC=
> >that =3D
>> > >> >"had no photographs from which to work." =3DA0Humes was >fallible, =
>like ev=3D
>> > >> >else.
>>
>> > >> "....I have identified as Commission Exhibits 389 and 390 which at a=
> late=3D
>> > >r
>> > >> time will be identified as being two frames from the motion picture =
>camer=3D
>> > >a
>> > >> operated by one Abraham Zapruder......would assist in evaluating the=
> angl=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> of the Presdident's head corresponding to that exhibit 388."
>>
>.....=3D
>> > >I
>> > >> believe it's 389 that's Z-312.
>>
>...th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) is just=
> too
>> > >> big to have been an innocent mistake.
>>
>it
>> > >> penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessary...an=
>d it
>> > >> wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the 6.5 mm=
> fake
>> > >> bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
>>
>> > >> They had to lie...and their deception was hardly limited to this
>> > >> instance...that said, IMHO, their lies were well intended, i.e. they
>to be
>> > >> more consistent with a multiple shooter scenario than a lone-assassi=
>n one=3D
>> > >.
>>
>> > >> That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's head un=
>til
>> > >> after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two dozen
>> > >> medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
>>
>at th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff them i=
>n his
>> > >> WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
>>
>ed,
>> > >> again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was 27 de=
>g.?
>>
>> > >> One can't make stuff like that up.
>>
> than
>> > >> lie.
>>
>> > >> :-)
>>
>> > >> >I can't really comment on the rest, sorry.
>>
>> > >RE:
>>
>> > >> Jean, for my money studying the medical evidence has been far more
>> > >> interesting than studying the rest of the case
>>
>> > >If I may interject something here...
>>
>> > >What is fascinating about this case and why I think that one of the
>reat
>> > >intererest for everyone. Medical evidence, ballistics, photographic,
>a
>> > >discrepancy to use to proclaim that somebody lied, covered up, destroy=
>ed
>> > >evidence, whathaveyou.
>>
>> RE:
>>
>> > Well, I guess we all have opinions.
>>
>,
>> save one single soul here perhaps, has an interest and voices an opinion
>> on everything but everything related to this case.
>>
>> >About 21 years ago I started reading
>le
>> > there are certainly conflicts with many aspects of the evidence, IMHO, =
>the
>> > medical evidence is, by comparison, totally mangled....thus for about t=
>he
>> > past 10 years I've pretty much just focused exclusively on that part of
>> > the case.
>>
>> RE:
>>
>> > Take the NAA or the acoustics for instance, IMO, fairly interesting
>> > arguments can be made for both sides...but with the medical evidence,
>>
>> No Buts about it...but, the but also includes the medical evidence
>> regarding fairly interesting arguments.
>>
>s
>> > that were told.
>>
>> Funny, I find that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to put on
>> blinders every now and then.
>>
>> Happy Festivus 2010!
>>
>> JM/HD- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>As for the medical and autopsy evidence, what should happen is that a
>court or
>a grand jury should order a proper forensic autopsy to create new
>evidence that
>can be admissible in a court of a law and determine not only how JFK
>was killed,
>but answer all the outstanding questions related to the medical and
>autopsy.
I'm sure many would agree with you....but I don't think that'd be necessary or
practical.
Even though the medical evidence was inadequate, there is still enough there to
determine the cause of death, and answer a lot of good questions.......as long
as it is properly examined.
Here's one question, for instance. If there is a photograph that shows the entry
wound in the back of his head (there certainly is such a photo and that wound
was the obvious cause of death)......and there's a question about where that
wound was located, why not have experts re-examine that photograph to determine
where the wound was?
Also, the cluster of tiny opacities seen on the lateral x-ray extending from
near the EOP was all but ignored by the HSCA experts....those should have been
explained.
IMO, there are many other questions such as the trajectory that need to be
explained. here's one. "Why did the NASA engineer, who studied the trajectories
use an 11 deg. forward lean for JFK (when he calculated the head head shot
trajectory)....when JFK's lean was actually about 27 deg. when he was shot?"
Even the hardline LNers might admit it's at least a tiny bit strange that,
allegedly, three autopsists and other eyewitnesses, with the body literally
right in front of them, could misidentify the location of the entry wound by
some four inches....on the fallen President of the United States, no less.
And how bizarre is it that, allegedly, about 25, mostly medically trained,
eyewitnesses were hallucinating about seeing a wound--larger than an entry
wound--in the back of JFK's head?
And what is that strange looking roundish opacity on the AP film....the one that
none of the autopsists recall either being recovered or seen on 11-22-63 and
"just happens" to be the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo fired by
LHO.......and also located the same distance right of midline as both proposed
entry sites?
And why is that Greer supposedly had JFK's clothes put in his locker at the WH
instead of giving them to the autopsists...and was never asked why he did that
during his extensive WC testimony?
Abnd why is that none of the three forensic experts commissioned by the ARRB saw
any entry wound in the cowlick on the x-rays...when the HSCA's, Dr. Baden
testified his team "unanimously" saw one there?
And why all the controversy about when the autopsists called PH, had a picture
taken of the back of his head, and determined a bullet transisted his neck?
I could go on and on....but few here want to hear it...that's why I'm trying to
reach the open minds of the public through the media.
John Canal
>Bill Kelly
>http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/jfk-grand-jury-basis-for-legal-a=
>ction.html
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
HistorianDetective
> In article <4488a636-743f-46c8-812f-9daa6965a...@32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Do you remember when the press got hold of the story about Gerald Ford
> "adjusting" the location of the back wound? For me it wasn't a big deal, but
> that story made the front pages of most major newspapers....
By chance, do you remember the date when that story made the front
pages?
>evidently the publishers thought the public wanted to know about such things. And this story
> is about evidence that shows certain experts lied about the nature of JFK's
> wounds...big time.
>
RE:
> You may not agree there is such evidence, but I say let a panel of credible
> experts decide that....experts with no horses in the race.
I'm sitting on the fence on this one.
>
> >Just curious, but who would pick this panel of experts of yours?
>
> Let a leading newspaper or major medical college pick them...I'd be open on
> that.
>
> >Do you honestly think that yet another panel of experts would be
> >able to absolutely settle the matter once and for all, let alone be
> >acceptable to everyone?
>
RE:
> Not for the posters here, that's for sure...no one here, to the best of my
> knowledge, as ever changed their mind on a significant issue and admitted they
> had been wrong.
If I'm not mistaken, there have been a few who post here, or have posted
here, who claim they once believed in a concpiracy but no longer do. To me
that quailifies as a significant issue.
>
> That said, the public may well accept the conclusions of a credible panel of
> experts.
> >Do you honestly think that it is possible?
>
> Yes......if I didn't I wouldn't have spent hundreds of hours so far trying to
> see that the medical evidence is re-examined.
I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of this panel. Is it to re- examine
the medical evidence directly and form a conclusion as to the naure of the
wounds, or to determine if somebody lied?
Would Baden, et al be allowed to voice their opinion in that regard?
Do ya think that this panel would be allowed to examine the autopsy
photos?
JM/HD
PS>....Good luck with your endeavor, John. I sincerely mean that.
....
John Canal
HistorianDetective says...
>
>On Jan 2, 12:10=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4488a636-743f-46c8-812f-9daa6965a...@32g2000yqz.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> HistorianDetective says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 31 2010, 3:00=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <888279ae-4269-492f-b2db-d89adbb9a...@p1g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bill Kelly says...
>>
>o.com=3D
>>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> On Dec 22, 5:46=3D3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <bc449e65-ba0e-49d9-994d-7a5ddf2c0...@s5g2000yqm.googl=
>egr=3D
>> >oup=3D3D
>> >> >s.com>,
>> >> >> > HistorianDetective says...
>>
>> >> >> > >On Dec 22, 11:48=3D3D3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com=
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>> >> >> > >> In article <4d0bc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says..=
>.
>>
>> >> >> > >> >"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > >> >news:iedi5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >> >> > >> >> [....]
>>
>n is not =3D
>> >unexplain=3D3D
>> >> >ed and does=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >n't
>> >> >> > >> >>>point toward coverup, unless you think RFK was part of the =
>cov=3D
>> >eru=3D3D
>> >> >p.
>> >> >> > >> >>>The missing brain illustrates the point Bigdog is making: u=
>nex=3D
>> >pla=3D3D
>> >> >ined
>> >> >> > >> >>>events aren't evidence of anything, no matter what suspicio=
>n t=3D
>> >ell=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> > >> >>>you.
>> >> >> > >> >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA=
>0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D=3D
>> >A0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA=3D3D
>> >> >0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >=3D3D3DA0 Jean
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> I also pretty much agree with Bigdog's point about missing =
>evi=3D
>> >den=3D3D
>> >> >ce. T=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >hat
>> >> >> > >> >> said, if in a case there was a pattern of such disappearanc=
>es =3D
>> >I m=3D3D
>> >> >ight =3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >want
>> >> >> > >> >> to check to see if there was something going on besides slo=
>ppy=3D
>> > ev=3D3D
>> >> >idenc=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >e
>> >> >> > >> >> control.
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> What I find more interesting about the brain is not its dis=
>app=3D
>> >ear=3D3D
>> >> >ance,=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > > but
>> >> >> > >> >> the appearance of it in the drawings and/or photos (whereve=
>r t=3D
>> >hey=3D3D
>> >> > are)=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > > as
>> >> >> > >> >> well as the dramatic conflicts in the official record regar=
>din=3D
>> >g t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> > >> >> supplementry autopsy...the number of which, going from memo=
>ry,=3D
>> > is
>> >> >> > >> >> substantial.
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> And keep in mind that I doubt there's anyone who believes m=
>ore=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >an I =3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >that
>> >> >> > >> >> LHO acted alone.
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> Look, there were a number of lies told and instances of dec=
>ept=3D
>> >ion=3D3D
>> >> > that=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > > I'm
>> >> >> > >> >> certain occurred....even the hard-line LNers will agree som=
>e o=3D
>> >f t=3D3D
>> >> >hem t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >ook
>> >> >> > >> >> place. I could go on and on but a good example is JFK's for=
>war=3D
>> >d l=3D3D
>> >> >ean i=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >n
>> >> >> > >> >> the Rydberg drawing, CE-388. Humes said they used Z-312 to =
>dee=3D
>> >rmi=3D3D
>> >> >ne th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >e
>> >> >> > >> >> forward lean for the drawing, but JFK's lean in CE-388 is a=
>bou=3D
>> >t 5=3D3D
>> >> >0 deg=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >.
>> >> >> > >> >> and Dale Myer's computer measured that lean in Z-312 to be =
>abo=3D
>> >ut =3D3D
>> >> >27 de=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >g.
>> >> >> > >> >> Wouldn't you agree that's too much of a difference to be an=
> in=3D
>> >noc=3D3D
>> >> >ent
>> >> >> > >> >> mistake? More likely, Humes couldn't get his [IMO, correct]=
> ne=3D
>> >ar =3D3D
>> >> >EOP e=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >ntry
>> >> >> > >> >> and [IMO, grossly incorrect] straight-through-the-head bull=
>et =3D
>> >pat=3D3D
>> >> >h to
>> >> >> > >> >> point back to the SN without cheating on JFK's lean.
>>
>try to stay=3D
>> > out of the=3D3D
>> >> > medical >iss=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >ues,
>>
>> >> >> > >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> >> > >> >.....but I don't recall Humes mentioning Z-312. =3D3D3DA0He t=
>old t=3D
>> >he WC=3D3D
>> >> > >that =3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >Rydberg
>> >> >> > >> >"had no photographs from which to work." =3D3D3DA0Humes was >=
>falli=3D
>> >ble, =3D3D
>> >> >like ev=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >erybody
>> >> >> > >> >else.
>>
>> >> >> > >> "....I have identified as Commission Exhibits 389 and 390 whic=
>h a=3D
>> >t a=3D3D
>> >> > late=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >r
>> >> >> > >> time will be identified as being two frames from the motion pi=
>ctu=3D
>> >re =3D3D
>> >> >camer=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >a
>> >> >> > >> operated by one Abraham Zapruder......would assist in evaluati=
>ng =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > angl=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >e
>> >> >> > >> of the Presdident's head corresponding to that exhibit 388."
>>
>CH3=3D
>> >53]=3D3D
>> >> >.....=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >I
>> >> >> > >> believe it's 389 that's Z-312.
>>
>d l=3D
>> >ie.=3D3D
>> >> >...th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >e
>> >> >> > >> error (50 deg. fwd lean in CE-388 and only 27 in the Z-film) i=
>s j=3D
>> >ust=3D3D
>> >> > too
>> >> >> > >> big to have been an innocent mistake.
>>
>g. =3D
>> >as =3D3D
>> >> >it
>> >> >> > >> penetrated the rear skull that lie wouldn't have been necessar=
>y..=3D
>> >.an=3D3D
>> >> >d it
>> >> >> > >> wouldn't have been necessary later for some others to add the =
>6.5=3D
>> > mm=3D3D
>> >> > fake
>> >> >> > >> bullet fragment in the cowlick either.
>>
>is
>> >> >> > >> instance...that said, IMHO, their lies were well intended, i.e=
>. t=3D
>> >hey
>> >> >> > >> thought it best not to demonstrate that their findings often s=
>eem=3D
>> >ed =3D3D
>> >> >to be
>> >> >> > >> more consistent with a multiple shooter scenario than a lone-a=
>ssa=3D
>> >ssi=3D3D
>> >> >n one=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >.
>>
>> >> >> > >> That's why there were no pictures taken of the back of JFK's h=
>ead=3D
>> > un=3D3D
>> >> >til
>> >> >> > >> after the morticians repaired the damage there that about two =
>doz=3D
>> >en
>> >> >> > >> medically trained individuals has seen with their own eyes.
>>
>and=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >at th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >e
>> >> >> > >> official story about how at Andrews Greer had SSA Rybka stuff =
>the=3D
>> >m i=3D3D
>> >> >n his
>> >> >> > >> WH locker...supposedly making them unavailable?
>>
>mea=3D
>> >sur=3D3D
>> >> >ed,
>> >> >> > >> again using the Z-frames, JFK's lean to be 11 deg. when it was=
> 27=3D
>> > de=3D3D
>> >> >g.?
>>
>> >> >> > >> One can't make stuff like that up.
>>
>t m=3D
>> >ore=3D3D
>> >> > than
>> >> >> > >> lie.
>>
>> >> >> > >> :-)
>>
>> >> >> > >> >I can't really comment on the rest, sorry.
>>
>> >> >> > >RE:
>>
>mor=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > >> interesting than studying the rest of the case
>>
>> >> >> > >If I may interject something here...
>>
>the
>> >> >> > >reasons this event is popular for many is that there is somethin=
>g o=3D
>> >f g=3D3D
>> >> >reat
>> >> >> > >intererest for everyone. Medical evidence, ballistics, photograp=
>hic=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > >acoustic, much, much more. And anywhere one goes, one can always=
> fi=3D
>> >nd =3D3D
>> >> >a
>> >> >> > >discrepancy to use to proclaim that somebody lied, covered up, d=
>est=3D
>> >roy=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> > >evidence, whathaveyou.
>>
>> >> >> RE:
>>
>> >> >> > Well, I guess we all have opinions.
>>
>nob=3D
>> >ody=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> save one single soul here perhaps, has an interest and voices an op=
>ini=3D
>> >on
>> >> >> on everything but everything related to this case.
>>
>> >> >> >About 21 years ago I started reading
>t, =3D
>> >whi=3D3D
>> >> >le
>> >> >> > there are certainly conflicts with many aspects of the evidence, =
>IMH=3D
>> >O, =3D3D
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > medical evidence is, by comparison, totally mangled....thus for a=
>bou=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> > past 10 years I've pretty much just focused exclusively on that p=
>art=3D
>> > of
>> >> >> > the case.
>>
>> >> >> RE:
>>
>> >> >> > Take the NAA or the acoustics for instance, IMO, fairly interesti=
>ng
>> >> >> > arguments can be made for both sides...but with the medical evide=
>nce=3D
>> >,
>>
>> >> >> No Buts about it...but, the but also includes the medical evidence
>> >> >> regarding fairly interesting arguments.
>>
>seh=3D
>> >ood=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> > that were told.
>>
>> >> >> Funny, I find that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to put=
> on
>> >> >> blinders every now and then.
>>
>> >> >> Happy Festivus 2010!
>>
>> >> >> JM/HD- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >As for the medical and autopsy evidence, what should happen is that a
>> >> >court or
>> >> >a grand jury should order a proper forensic autopsy to create new
>> >> >evidence that
>> >> >can be admissible in a court of a law and determine not only how JFK
>> >> >was killed,
>> >> >but answer all the outstanding questions related to the medical and
>> >> >autopsy.
>>
>> >> Of course that's what's needed....but easier said than done...way, way
>suc=3D
>> >h
>> >> a re-examination gets done. I've actually three experts who participat=
>ed
>> >> in the HSCA who support my efforts in this regard.
>>
>> >> As I write this I have packages en route to about a dozen forensic
>> >> anthropologists hoping they'll also agree a re-examination is needed.
>>
>> >> Meanwhile, the hardline LNers (who believe just about every ridiculous
>tty
>> >> much in the cat bird's seat on this.....probably hoping no re-examinat=
>ion
>> >> will ever happen. They're smug, IMO, because they appear to argue from=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> high ground because so many forensic experts disagreed with the
>dn'=3D
>> >t
>> >> matter to those hardliners that it was discovered that most of their
>> >> experts had close associations with one another.
>>
>> >> I came relatively, if not excitingly close to getting some exposure of
>> >> this matter this past fall when NBC "sat" on my material (demanding
>goo=3D
>> >d
>> >> fit for them for a documentry. In the end, even though they backed off=
>, a=3D
>> >n
>> >> award winning producer of theirs simply stated, if I'm right about my
>> >> claims (that the three aforementioned experts support me on)
>>
>> >RE: > then the public "absolutely" needs to know this.
>>
>> >WHY "absolutely"?
>>
>,
>> "absolutely, IMO, the majority of the public would want to know".
>>
>RE:
>> Do you remember when the press got hold of the story about Gerald Ford
>but
>> that story made the front pages of most major newspapers....
>
>By chance, do you remember the date when that story made the front
>pages?
Off the top of my head, no. It seems to me the AP reported the story and
it was picked up by the media on a rather large scale. I've got a clipping
somewhere on it...or I used to have one. Like I said, for me it wasn't a
big deal.
>>evidently the publishers thought the public wanted to know about such thin=
>gs. And this story
>> is about evidence that shows certain experts lied about the nature of JFK=
>'s
>> wounds...big time.
>>
>
>RE:
>> You may not agree there is such evidence, but I say let a panel of credib=
>le
>> experts decide that....experts with no horses in the race.
>
>I'm sitting on the fence on this one.
>
>>
>> >Just curious, but who would pick this panel of experts of yours?
>>
>> Let a leading newspaper or major medical college pick them...I'd be open =
>on
>> that.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >Do you honestly think that yet another panel of experts would be
>> >able to absolutely settle the matter once and for all, let alone be
>> >acceptable to everyone?
>>
>
>RE:
>> Not for the posters here, that's for sure...no one here, to the best of m=
>y
>> knowledge, as ever changed their mind on a significant issue and admitted=
> they
>> had been wrong.
>
>If I'm not mistaken, there have been a few who post here, or have posted
>here, who claim they once believed in a concpiracy but no longer do. To me
>that quailifies as a significant issue.
Well, when I first became interested in this case, I was a CT too. But the
more and more I read the more I started to believe LHO acted alone.
But that's not what I meant...although I wasn't clear.
I meant a situation where one poster claims that a witness testified one
way and another poster says that was a false claim...IOW, the second
poster accuses the first of making things up.
Then the first poster produces a citation confirming his claim the witness
did indeed say precisely what he claimed he did.
That happens often around here, too often IMO, but, on the other hand, I
really can't recall where a second poster came back after reading such a
citation and admited the first poster was correct....and where an apology
would have been appropriate there was nothing.
Usually, instead, the second poster rides off into the sunset and jumps on
another thread.
>
>>
>> That said, the public may well accept the conclusions of a credible panel=
> of
>> experts.
>
>
>> >Do you honestly think that it is possible?
>>
>> Yes......if I didn't I wouldn't have spent hundreds of hours so far tryin=
>g to
>> see that the medical evidence is re-examined.
>
>I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of this panel. Is it to re- examine
>the medical evidence directly and form a conclusion as to the naure of the
>wounds, or to determine if somebody lied?
Both. Priority one would be to set the record straight regarding the
nature of the wounds. Priority two would be to determine if experts lied
and if they did, let the record show that too.
>Would Baden, et al be allowed to voice their opinion in that regard?
Oh yes, he sould be able to defend himself. That said, IMO, the the B/S he
was spewing out would be impossible to defend. If he said he was mistaken
he'd be admitting he should have been a bricklayer and not a forensic
pathologist...or not paying attention to the procedings.
>Do ya think that this panel would be allowed to examine the autopsy
>photos?
They should be granted access to them and the X-rays. Heck, Dr. Mantik has
examined he originals no less than six times, so why not a well intended
panel of credible experts...and that's not to demean Dr. Mantik...while we
disagree on a whole lot, we are friends and I respect his opinions re.
this case.
>JM/HD
>
>PS>....Good luck with your endeavor, John. I sincerely mean that.
>....
Thanks...IMO, this amounts to a huge skeleton in the government's
closet...one hell of an embarrassment, so it's not likely there will be
much cooperation from them...which makes it tougher.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
here, who have pretended they once believed in a conspiracy but no longer
do. To me that qualifies as a significant issue.