Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
BOH Damage
272 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Oct 12, 2012, 5:37:56 PM10/12/12
to
This brief article explains the damage to the back of JFK's head and the
evidence which confirms the conclusions of the three top civilian experts
to examine the Xrays at the National Archives, that the President was hit
by two headshots.
Please read it all. The most important parts are near the very end.
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html
Robert Harris
evidence which confirms the conclusions of the three top civilian experts
to examine the Xrays at the National Archives, that the President was hit
by two headshots.
Please read it all. The most important parts are near the very end.
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html
Robert Harris
John Canal
Oct 12, 2012, 9:12:12 PM10/12/12
to
In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
says...
<TOP POST>
I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
channel-like pathways through his brain.
Any eigth grader would understand that...and I know you're more
intelligent than that.
But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
on one of the films!
So, and this is not rocket science, because there was only one pathway
through the brain that means there was only one bullet that hit him in the
head!
Now, if you want to make the usual claim that Humes et al were so
incompetent that they would have missed seeing (with the brain literally
in their hands) a second pathway through the brain....or that they were in
on a conspiracy and covered-up a second pathway, then disuss this matter
with someone else, and please don't address posts re. this issue to me.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
says...
<TOP POST>
I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
channel-like pathways through his brain.
Any eigth grader would understand that...and I know you're more
intelligent than that.
But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
on one of the films!
So, and this is not rocket science, because there was only one pathway
through the brain that means there was only one bullet that hit him in the
head!
Now, if you want to make the usual claim that Humes et al were so
incompetent that they would have missed seeing (with the brain literally
in their hands) a second pathway through the brain....or that they were in
on a conspiracy and covered-up a second pathway, then disuss this matter
with someone else, and please don't address posts re. this issue to me.
John Canal
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Saintly Oswald
Oct 12, 2012, 9:49:29 PM10/12/12
to
It seems to me, that if the Minstrel's analysis is correct, that it would
prove that there was not a hit from the front, since such a shot,
presumably, would have blown a hole through that scalp which looks to be
intact.
prove that there was not a hit from the front, since such a shot,
presumably, would have blown a hole through that scalp which looks to be
intact.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 10:43:56 AM10/13/12
to
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
John Canal
Oct 13, 2012, 11:31:26 AM10/13/12
to
In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
Oswald says...
I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
The autopsists examined it.
Did you read their report?
Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
pathway through it?
Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
claim?
Anyway, what's your point?
This ought to be good.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Oswald says...
The autopsists examined it.
Did you read their report?
Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
pathway through it?
Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
claim?
Anyway, what's your point?
This ought to be good.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 12:09:51 PM10/13/12
to
On 10/12/2012 9:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> It seems to me, that if the Minstrel's analysis is correct, that it would
> prove that there was not a hit from the front, since such a shot,
> presumably, would have blown a hole through that scalp which looks to be
> intact.
>
There is a hole in the forehead.
> It seems to me, that if the Minstrel's analysis is correct, that it would
> prove that there was not a hit from the front, since such a shot,
> presumably, would have blown a hole through that scalp which looks to be
> intact.
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 12:10:27 PM10/13/12
to
On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
SHOW me even one channel-like pathway was through his brain? You are
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
making up crap again. Show me the wound path of the bullet in the
lateral X-ray.
> Any eigth grader would understand that...and I know you're more
> intelligent than that.
>
> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
> on one of the films!
>
> So, and this is not rocket science, because there was only one pathway
> through the brain that means there was only one bullet that hit him in the
> head!
>
pathway and one bullet can leave two pathways.
> Now, if you want to make the usual claim that Humes et al were so
> incompetent that they would have missed seeing (with the brain literally
> in their hands) a second pathway through the brain....or that they were in
> on a conspiracy and covered-up a second pathway, then disuss this matter
> with someone else, and please don't address posts re. this issue to me.
>
incompetent that they could not find the bullet wound in the neck and
did not see the bullet hole in the forehead, then we might be getting
somewhere finally.
Herbert Blenner
Oct 13, 2012, 12:15:58 PM10/13/12
to
On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> Oswald says...
>
>
>
> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> Oswald says...
>
>
>
> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>
> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>
> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>
> The autopsists examined it.
>
> Did you read their report?
>
> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> pathway through it?
Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>
> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>
> The autopsists examined it.
>
> Did you read their report?
>
> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> pathway through it?
pieces taking different paths in the head?
So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 10:43:37 PM10/13/12
to
On 10/13/2012 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
>> Oswald says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>
>>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>
>>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>
>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>
>> The autopsists examined it.
>>
>> Did you read their report?
>>
>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> pathway through it?
>
> Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> pieces taking different paths in the head?
>
Please quote for me where Humes explained that the bullet fragmented
> On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
>> Oswald says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>
>>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>
>>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>
>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>
>> The autopsists examined it.
>>
>> Did you read their report?
>>
>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> pathway through it?
>
> Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> pieces taking different paths in the head?
>
upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did the
Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.
> So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>
Second, prove that qualified forensic pathologists examined the
sectioned brain.
John Canal
Oct 13, 2012, 10:43:59 PM10/13/12
to
In article <50790a33$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
>> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
>> on one of the films!
>>
>
>No examination. Just guesswork and lies.
Similar to the way you've studied the medical evidence in this case and
formed your wacky theories?
For example, like the one where you've posted that most of the bullet
[your imaginary one] that hit him above the right eye "blew-back"
presumably towards the shooter?
John Canal
[....]
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
>
>On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
[...]
>On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
>> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
>> on one of the films!
>>
>
>No examination. Just guesswork and lies.
formed your wacky theories?
For example, like the one where you've posted that most of the bullet
[your imaginary one] that hit him above the right eye "blew-back"
presumably towards the shooter?
John Canal
[....]
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
Oct 13, 2012, 10:44:45 PM10/13/12
to
In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
Nice try Herbert....or perhaps ill-advised sarcasm?
But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loaf
cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family.
How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
BTW, do you still orientate F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
John Canal
>Herbert
>
>
>>
>> Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
>>
>> I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
>> claim?
>>
>> Anyway, what's your point?
>>
>> This ought to be good.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
>ly
>> Oswald says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> >> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Ha=
>> Oswald says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>rris
>>
>> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>
>> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>
>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>
>> The autopsists examined it.
>>
>> Did you read their report?
>>
>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> pathway through it?
>
>Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>pieces taking different paths in the head?
I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
>>
>> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>
>> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>
>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>
>> The autopsists examined it.
>>
>> Did you read their report?
>>
>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> pathway through it?
>
>Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>pieces taking different paths in the head?
wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loaf
cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family.
How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
BTW, do you still orientate F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
John Canal
>Herbert
>
>
>>
>> Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
>>
>> I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
>> claim?
>>
>> Anyway, what's your point?
>>
>> This ought to be good.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 10:47:43 PM10/13/12
to
On 10/13/2012 11:31 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> Oswald says...
>>
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>
>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>>
>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>
> The autopsists examined it.
>
Prove it.
> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> Oswald says...
>>
>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>
>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>>
>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>
> The autopsists examined it.
>
> Did you read their report?
>
> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> pathway through it?
>
You call a laceration a bullet path.
SHOW me the bullet path on the X-rays.
Bill Clarke
Oct 13, 2012, 10:53:13 PM10/13/12
to
>On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>>
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>
>SHOW me even one channel-like pathway was through his brain? You are
>making up crap again. Show me the wound path of the bullet in the
>lateral X-ray.
Marsh, what ever happened to BOH Gary Aguilar? He is past due on dropping
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>>
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>
>SHOW me even one channel-like pathway was through his brain? You are
>making up crap again. Show me the wound path of the bullet in the
>lateral X-ray.
in with his BS. Perhaps he will see this thread.
Bill Clarke
kk
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 10:54:26 PM10/13/12
to
Well, frankly, my dear sir, I've read so many different things about the
brain that I don't know what to believe. It seems to me, though, that a
first shot may have plowed the field, so to speak, and a second shot may
have hit bone still present without plowing more brain. So, even if I
could take seriously anything coming out of the autopsy, it would not rule
out a second shot, and I think Minstrel Bob's theory practically requires
something like this, if it is going to somehow push the scalp down without
blowing a hole through it. Not that I want to defend Bobby's theory. I
just believe in honesty, truth, justice, and the American Way.
brain that I don't know what to believe. It seems to me, though, that a
first shot may have plowed the field, so to speak, and a second shot may
have hit bone still present without plowing more brain. So, even if I
could take seriously anything coming out of the autopsy, it would not rule
out a second shot, and I think Minstrel Bob's theory practically requires
something like this, if it is going to somehow push the scalp down without
blowing a hole through it. Not that I want to defend Bobby's theory. I
just believe in honesty, truth, justice, and the American Way.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 10:55:54 PM10/13/12
to
I am referring to the back scalp which is supposedly pulled up in the
autopsy photo and shows no damage, a conclusion which Bob obviously
credits. It seems most likely that a shot from the front would blow a big
hole in this part of the scalp. I don't think Bob's theory is impossible,
just unlikely. But I don't have this problem of an intact scalp because I
don't believe one darn thing about the autopsy. I think JFK two *two* head
shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
autopsy photo and shows no damage, a conclusion which Bob obviously
credits. It seems most likely that a shot from the front would blow a big
hole in this part of the scalp. I don't think Bob's theory is impossible,
just unlikely. But I don't have this problem of an intact scalp because I
don't believe one darn thing about the autopsy. I think JFK two *two* head
shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
Robert Harris
Oct 13, 2012, 11:04:18 PM10/13/12
to
In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
left in which a "pathway" could form.
>
> Any eigth grader would understand that
Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
> ...and I know you're more
> intelligent than that.
>
> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
brain still present in the cranium?
A. Most of it.
Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
right-front have entered??
That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
"pathway" supposed to have formed there?
You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my
videos. You have much to learn.
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
> says...
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
left in which a "pathway" could form.
>
> Any eigth grader would understand that
> ...and I know you're more
> intelligent than that.
>
> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
brain still present in the cranium?
A. Most of it.
Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
right-front have entered??
That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
"pathway" supposed to have formed there?
You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my
videos. You have much to learn.
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
Oct 14, 2012, 3:02:13 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 13, 10:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2012 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> >> Oswald says...
>
> >>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>
> >>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>
> >>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
> >>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> >> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>
> >> The autopsists examined it.
>
> >> Did you read their report?
>
> >> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> >> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> >> pathway through it?
>
> > Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> > pieces taking different paths in the head?
>
> Please quote for me where Humes explained that the bullet fragmented
> upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did the
> Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.
Source: WC testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
> On 10/13/2012 12:15 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 11:31 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saintly
> >> Oswald says...
>
> >>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> >>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>
> >>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>
> >>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
> >>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>
> >> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>
> >> The autopsists examined it.
>
> >> Did you read their report?
>
> >> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
> >> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
> >> pathway through it?
>
> > Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
> > pieces taking different paths in the head?
>
> Please quote for me where Humes explained that the bullet fragmented
> upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did the
> Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.
2H, 358
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0183b.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, would you elaborate a bit on the differences
in the paths, specifically why the bullet went in one direction in
part and in part in the second direction, terminating with the
fragment right over the right eye?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. I will make a drawing of the posterior
portion of the skull showing again this beveling which we observed at
the inner table of the skull. Our impression is that as this
projectile impinged upon the skull in this fashion, a small portion of
it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you
will, and that it went off at an angle, and left the track which is
labeled 388, which is labeled on Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to
the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm
Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something
which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us who have
seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity
have long since learned that portions of these missiles may go off in
various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are
not clearly understood.
End of quotation.
One track connects the point labeled “OUT” to the point labeled “IN”
while a second track connects the point labeled “FRAGMENT” to the
point labeled “IN.”
>
> > So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>
> First prove that they actually sectioned the brain.
> Second, prove that qualified forensic pathologists examined the
> sectioned brain.
Herbert
> >> Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
>
> >> I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
> >> claim?
>
> >> Anyway, what's your point?
>
> >> This ought to be good.
>
> >> --
> >> John Canal
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Canal
Oct 14, 2012, 3:02:19 PM10/14/12
to
In article <bobharris77-F01A...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...
the pot calling the kettle black.......that's IMO, of course.
:-)
>>
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
>What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
>left in which a "pathway" could form.
That's not what the drawings of the brain show.
And besides any part of a second pathway through the brain that's missing, your
theory is missing a beveled out defect in the skull where your imaginary bullet
exited, not to mention any fragments that were recovered behind JFK.
A good name for your wacky theory would be "Robert's Dog Ate My Homework"
theory.
>> Any eigth grader would understand that
>
>Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>
>
>> ...and I know you're more
>> intelligent than that.
>>
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
>
>You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
>
>Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
>brain still present in the cranium?
>
>A. Most of it.
>Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
>
>A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
Then the drawings are fakes?
>Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
>the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
>Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
>
>And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
>right-front have entered??
But the back of the brain was relatively intact, Robert...look at the drawings!
Why didn't your imaginary bullet leave a pathway through at least the back of
it?
Out of all the lacerations described, there were none where you claim your
bullet passed/exited.
>That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
>part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
>"pathway" supposed to have formed there?
The rear of the brain was relatively intact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No pathways through the brain there...get it?
No exit-like defects in the rear skull there either.
No bllet fragments found behind JFK either.
>You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my
>videos. You have much to learn.
I'd be wasting more time watching them than I am right now answering your
jibberish.
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
>Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
>being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
You just might have been thinking that you'd be providing a perfect example of
>In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
>Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
>being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
the pot calling the kettle black.......that's IMO, of course.
:-)
>>
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
>What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
>left in which a "pathway" could form.
And besides any part of a second pathway through the brain that's missing, your
theory is missing a beveled out defect in the skull where your imaginary bullet
exited, not to mention any fragments that were recovered behind JFK.
A good name for your wacky theory would be "Robert's Dog Ate My Homework"
theory.
>> Any eigth grader would understand that
>
>Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>
>
>> ...and I know you're more
>> intelligent than that.
>>
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
>
>You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
>
>Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
>brain still present in the cranium?
>
>A. Most of it.
>Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
>
>A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
>Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
>the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
>Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
>
>And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
>right-front have entered??
Why didn't your imaginary bullet leave a pathway through at least the back of
it?
Out of all the lacerations described, there were none where you claim your
bullet passed/exited.
>That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
>part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
>"pathway" supposed to have formed there?
No pathways through the brain there...get it?
No exit-like defects in the rear skull there either.
No bllet fragments found behind JFK either.
>You really need to read my article Mr. Canal and watch some of my
>videos. You have much to learn.
jibberish.
John Canal
Jason Burke
Oct 14, 2012, 3:03:57 PM10/14/12
to
already gone! In other words, the 'second' head shot missed. But just
for fun, let's caal it a head shot anyway.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Herbert Blenner
Oct 14, 2012, 6:30:39 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 13, 10:44 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 - Page 150
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0015a.htm
Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
the process?
A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
brain.
Q: As it was being sectioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
brain? How did that work?
A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
A: To show the damage.
Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
bullet?
A: I don’t know.
End of quotation.
Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
Herbert
> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0015a.htm
Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
the process?
A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
brain.
Q: As it was being sectioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
brain? How did that work?
A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
A: To show the damage.
Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
bullet?
A: I don’t know.
End of quotation.
Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 6:33:26 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/13/2012 11:04 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
> Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
> being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>
Another CT complaining about the evil moderators. Don't you just love
> In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>>
>> <TOP POST>
>>
>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
> Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
> being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>
the irony? At least you didn't call him liar.
>>
>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>
>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
> What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
> left in which a "pathway" could form.
>
you believe they're fakes.
>>
>> Any eigth grader would understand that
>
> Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>
>
>> ...and I know you're more
>> intelligent than that.
>>
>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
>
> You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
>
> Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
> brain still present in the cranium?
>
> A. Most of it.
>
> Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
>
> A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
>
> Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
> the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
> Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
>
looked inside there was nothing there" you can misinterpret that as
meaning that the whole brain was blasted out.
> And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
> right-front have entered??
enters.
>
> That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
> part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
> "pathway" supposed to have formed there?
>
such a rush.
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 14, 2012, 6:48:33 PM10/14/12
to
Bob has his issues, to be sure, but he's not some reckless nut by the
standards of this place. He presents carefully reasoned arguments, and
bases them on the same faulty assumptions as the Lone Nutters make. Plus,
he is as ill-mannered and egomaniacal as any Lone Nut "researcher." It's
very amusing that he is ridiculed here. It must be part of the show.
standards of this place. He presents carefully reasoned arguments, and
bases them on the same faulty assumptions as the Lone Nutters make. Plus,
he is as ill-mannered and egomaniacal as any Lone Nut "researcher." It's
very amusing that he is ridiculed here. It must be part of the show.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:07:52 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/13/2012 10:55 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> I am referring to the back scalp which is supposedly pulled up in the
> autopsy photo and shows no damage, a conclusion which Bob obviously
> credits. It seems most likely that a shot from the front would blow a big
> hole in this part of the scalp. I don't think Bob's theory is impossible,
No, it doesn't. And you have not looked at many head wounds.
> I am referring to the back scalp which is supposedly pulled up in the
> autopsy photo and shows no damage, a conclusion which Bob obviously
> credits. It seems most likely that a shot from the front would blow a big
> hole in this part of the scalp. I don't think Bob's theory is impossible,
> just unlikely. But I don't have this problem of an intact scalp because I
> don't believe one darn thing about the autopsy. I think JFK two *two* head
> shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
>
And maybe WWII was faked also.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:09:01 PM10/14/12
to
his posts. Whatever happened to Martin Shackelford? He gave up. Exactly
what McAdams wants.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 8:06:33 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/13/2012 10:44 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
>> ly
>>> Oswald says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Ha=
>> rris
>>>
>>>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>>
>>>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>>
>>>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>>
>>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>>
>>> The autopsists examined it.
>>>
>>> Did you read their report?
>>>
>>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>>> pathway through it?
>>
>> Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>> pieces taking different paths in the head?
>
> I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
> wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
> bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>
Neither/nor? Are you starting to criticize Humes now. Throw him under
> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> On Oct 13, 11:31=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Saint=
>> ly
>>> Oswald says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert Ha=
>> rris
>>>
>>>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>>
>>>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>>
>>>> You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>>
>>> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>>
>>> The autopsists examined it.
>>>
>>> Did you read their report?
>>>
>>> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>>> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>>> pathway through it?
>>
>> Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>> pieces taking different paths in the head?
>
> I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
> wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
> bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>
the bus?
>> So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>
> Nice try Herbert....or perhaps ill-advised sarcasm?
>
> But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loaf
> cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
>
> IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
> didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
> deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family.
>
> How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
> through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
> smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
> evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
>
> IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
> without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 8:06:48 PM10/14/12
to
Hinckley used.
> John Canal
>
> [....]
>
>
John Canal
Oct 14, 2012, 8:14:19 PM10/14/12
to
In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 13, 10:44=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups=
>> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Sa=
>int=3D
> Ha=3D
>
>End of quotation.
Interesting, though, that Humes et al stuck to their "official" story that
they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain.
But, as I wrote before, there's no way they could have observed the
lacerations to the brain the way they did and documented them with so much
detail without bread-loafing cutting it.
>Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
100& certain.
Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
the camera) is correct?
John Canal
>Herbert
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 13, 10:44=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1194ffe1-45ce-4488-b6dd-b38ff8f69...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 13, 11:31=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> In article <e760d086-8795-4c23...@googlegroups.com>, Sa=
>int=3D
>> >ly
>> >> Oswald says...
>>
>> >> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
>> >> >> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@earthlink.com>, Robert=
>> >> Oswald says...
>>
>> >> >On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> Ha=3D
>> >rris
>>
>> >> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>
>> >> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> >> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>
>> >> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>
>> >> The autopsists examined it.
>>
>> >> Did you read their report?
>>
>> >> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> >> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> >> pathway through it?
>>
>> >Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>> >pieces taking different paths in the head?
>>
>> I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
>> wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
>> bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>>
>> >So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>>
>> Nice try Herbert....or perhaps ill-advised sarcasm?
>>
>> But even though the official story is that they didn't section [bread-loa=
>>
>> >> >> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>
>> >> >> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> >> >You found the brain? This *is* news.
>>
>> >> I think you're reading juuuuust a bit too much into this.
>>
>> >> The autopsists examined it.
>>
>> >> Did you read their report?
>>
>> >> Do you think they lied about there being only one pathway through the
>> >> brain...or do you think they were so incompetent they didn't see a 2nd
>> >> pathway through it?
>>
>> >Do you think Humes lied about the bullet fragmenting upon entry and
>> >pieces taking different paths in the head?
>>
>> I think, because he was either a forensic pathologist nor a
>> wound-ballistics expert, that he didn't understand what happened to the
>> bullet after it made contact with JFK's skull near the EOP.
>>
>> >So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>>
>> Nice try Herbert....or perhaps ill-advised sarcasm?
>>
>f
>> cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
>>
>> IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
>> didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
>> deception....perhaps trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the family=
>> cut] it, I wouldn't bet a lot that they didn't.
>>
>> IMO, the autopsy was an historic exercise in deception, so saying they
>> didn't bread-loaf cut the brain might have been just more
>.
>>
>> How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
>> through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
>> smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
>> evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
>>
>> IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
>> without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
>>
>> BTW, do you still orientate F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
>>
>> John Canal
>
>Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 - Page 150
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16=
>>
>> How else would they have known such things like, the path of the only
>> through and through laceration of the brain, the nature of the several
>> smaller/shorter lacerations,....and the fact that laceration exposed, but
>> evidently didn't lacerate, the Thalamus?
>>
>> IOW, the description of those lacerations was too detailed to be realized
>> without bread-loaf sectioning the brain.
>>
>> BTW, do you still orientate F8 with the rear skull facing the camera?
>>
>> John Canal
>
>Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 - Page 150
>
>-96/html/Stringer_0015a.htm
>
>Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
>the process?
>A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
>condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
>had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
>underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
>brain.
>Q: As it was being sectioned?
>A: Yes.
>Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
>brain? How did that work?
>A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
>Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
>A: To show the damage.
>Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
>bullet?
>A: I don=92t know.
>
>Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
>the process?
>A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
>condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
>had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
>underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
>brain.
>Q: As it was being sectioned?
>A: Yes.
>Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
>brain? How did that work?
>A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
>Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
>A: To show the damage.
>Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
>bullet?
>
>End of quotation.
Interesting, though, that Humes et al stuck to their "official" story that
they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain.
But, as I wrote before, there's no way they could have observed the
lacerations to the brain the way they did and documented them with so much
detail without bread-loafing cutting it.
>Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
the camera) is correct?
John Canal
>Herbert
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 10:48:13 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <bobharris77-F01A...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>>
>> In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>> says...
>>>
>>> <TOP POST>
>>>
>>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>>
>> Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
>> being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>
> You just might have been thinking that you'd be providing a perfect example of
> the pot calling the kettle black.......that's IMO, of course.
>
> :-)
>
>>>
>>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>>
>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
>> left in which a "pathway" could form.
>
> That's not what the drawings of the brain show.
>
> And besides any part of a second pathway through the brain that's missing, your
> theory is missing a beveled out defect in the skull where your imaginary bullet
> exited, not to mention any fragments that were recovered behind JFK.
>
Why does he need a hole in the skull if the first bullet already blasted
> In article <bobharris77-F01A...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>>
>> In article <k5a46...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>>> says...
>>>
>>> <TOP POST>
>>>
>>> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>>
>> Mcadams seems to have hijacked my last post because I accused you of
>> being closed minded. Gosh! What could I have been thinking:-)
>
> You just might have been thinking that you'd be providing a perfect example of
> the pot calling the kettle black.......that's IMO, of course.
>
> :-)
>
>>>
>>> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>>>
>>> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>>> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>>
>> What a silly argument:-) After the 313 explosion there wasn't enough
>> left in which a "pathway" could form.
>
> That's not what the drawings of the brain show.
>
> And besides any part of a second pathway through the brain that's missing, your
> theory is missing a beveled out defect in the skull where your imaginary bullet
> exited, not to mention any fragments that were recovered behind JFK.
>
out the skull there?
Which fragments were recovered behind JFK?
> A good name for your wacky theory would be "Robert's Dog Ate My Homework"
> theory.
>
>>> Any eigth grader would understand that
>>
>> Perhaps, but not anyone who got beyond that point.
>>
>>
>>> ...and I know you're more
>>> intelligent than that.
>>>
>>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....
>>
>> You need to do your homework Mr. Canal. This is what Boswell said,
>>
>> Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the
>> brain still present in the cranium?
>>
>> A. Most of it.
>
>> Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there--
>>
>> A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent.
>
> Then the drawings are fakes?
>
>> Which hemisphere do you suppose that was? And which half was missing -
>> the upper or the lower??? Do you suppose he meant the right hemisphere?
>> Do you suppose he meant the upper part of it?
>>
>> And finally, through which part of the brain would a bullet from the
>> right-front have entered??
>
> But the back of the brain was relatively intact, Robert...look at the drawings!
> Why didn't your imaginary bullet leave a pathway through at least the back of
> it?
>
> Out of all the lacerations described, there were none where you claim your
> bullet passed/exited.
>
>> That's right Mr. Canal - the upper half of the right hemishpere - the
>> part that was almost entirely blown out. How in holy hell was a
>> "pathway" supposed to have formed there?
>
> The rear of the brain was relatively intact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> No pathways through the brain there...get it?
Now we are getting somewhere.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 10:48:48 PM10/14/12
to
> projectile impinged upon the skull in this fashion, a small portion of
> it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you
> will, and that it went off at an angle, and left the track which is
> labeled 388, which is labeled on Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to
> the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm
>
> Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something
> which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us who have
> seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity
> have long since learned that portions of these missiles may go off in
> various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are
> not clearly understood.
>
> End of quotation.
Unresponsive. Humes did not say "fragmented" and certainly not on impact.
> it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you
> will, and that it went off at an angle, and left the track which is
> labeled 388, which is labeled on Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to
> the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm
>
> Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something
> which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us who have
> seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity
> have long since learned that portions of these missiles may go off in
> various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are
> not clearly understood.
>
> End of quotation.
Specter said "fragment." I didn't ask to quote Specter.
You could also claim that CE399 "fragmented" because the WC said tiny
fragments came out of the base.
I am not impressed by Sophistry.
>
> One track connects the point labeled ?OUT? to the point labeled ?IN?
> while a second track connects the point labeled ?FRAGMENT? to the
> point labeled ?IN.?
>
Why would you use the phony Rydberg diagram to try to prove anything? Oh
wait, I know. Because you know it's a lie!
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 10:51:32 PM10/14/12
to
head and note a fragment behind the eye on the X-rays which they plan to
remove for the FBI. Then connect the dots. Just as they did with the
back to throat wound. Not by observing, dissecting, and documenting.
Just by guessing. Guess that's why you admire them so much.
Herbert Blenner
Oct 14, 2012, 10:52:02 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 8:14 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringe...
I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
dumb things that some people believe.
>
> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
> the camera) is correct?
Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by
the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
the image upon the head.
Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical
defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
Herbert
> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
dumb things that some people believe.
>
> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
> the camera) is correct?
the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
the image upon the head.
Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical
defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
Herbert
John Canal
Oct 15, 2012, 1:47:26 PM10/15/12
to
In article <98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>>
>> 100& certain.
>
>I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>dumb things that some people believe.
If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above his
EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and then
stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>>
>> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
>> the camera) is correct?
>
>Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by
>the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
>abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
>elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
>recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
>the image upon the head.
Fine as long as you finally understand that the entry was where I have shown it
to be in the copy of F8 that I have repeatedly posted.
Do I need to post that copy again so you can identify the entry...just to make
sure you have it right?
>Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical
>defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
I'm sure the approximate trajectory could be calculated using the shape of the
entry....that's if the shape of the entry hadn't been compromised, as the scalp
wound was in JFK's BOH.
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
[...]
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>>
>> 100& certain.
>
>I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>dumb things that some people believe.
eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above his
EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and then
stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>>
>> Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
>> the camera) is correct?
>
>Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by
>the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
>abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
>elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
>recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
>the image upon the head.
to be in the copy of F8 that I have repeatedly posted.
Do I need to post that copy again so you can identify the entry...just to make
sure you have it right?
>Do you still fail to recognize the relationship between an elliptical
>defect and the trajectory of the bullet?
entry....that's if the shape of the entry hadn't been compromised, as the scalp
wound was in JFK's BOH.
Herbert Blenner
Oct 15, 2012, 1:49:50 PM10/15/12
to
>
> > Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, would you elaborate a bit on the differences
> > in the paths, specifically why the bullet went in one direction in
> > part and in part in the second direction, terminating with the
> > fragment right over the right eye?
> > Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. I will make a drawing of the posterior
> > portion of the skull showing again this beveling which we observed at
> > the inner table of the skull. Our impressio is that as this
> > projectile impinged upon the skull in this fashion, a small portion of
> > it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you
> > will, and that it went off at an angle, and left the track which is
> > labeled 388, which is labeled on Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to
> > the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
> > Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, would you elaborate a bit on the differences
> > in the paths, specifically why the bullet went in one direction in
> > part and in part in the second direction, terminating with the
> > fragment right over the right eye?
> > Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. I will make a drawing of the posterior
> > portion of the skull showing again this beveling which we observed at
> > the inner table of the skull. Our impressio is that as this
> > projectile impinged upon the skull in this fashion, a small portion of
> > it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you
> > will, and that it went off at an angle, and left the track which is
> > labeled 388, which is labeled on Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to
> > the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
>
>
> > Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something
> > which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us who have
> > seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity
> > have long since learned that portions of these missiles may go off in
> > various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are
> > not clearly understood.
>
> > End of quotation.
>
> Unresponsive. Humes did not say "fragmented" and certainly not on impact.
> Specter said "fragment." I didn't ask to quote Specter.
> You could also claim that CE399 "fragmented" because the WC said tiny
> fragments came out of the base.
> I am not impressed by Sophistry.
>
>
>
> > One track connects the point labeled ?OUT? to the point labeled ?IN?
> > while a second track connects the point labeled ?FRAGMENT? to the
> > point labeled ?IN.?
>
> Why would you use the phony Rydberg diagram to try to prove anything? Oh
> wait, I know. Because you know it's a lie!
I used the Rydberg diagram to show that it shows what you denied.
> > Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something
> > which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us who have
> > seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity
> > have long since learned that portions of these missiles may go off in
> > various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are
> > not clearly understood.
>
> > End of quotation.
>
> Unresponsive. Humes did not say "fragmented" and certainly not on impact.
> Specter said "fragment." I didn't ask to quote Specter.
> You could also claim that CE399 "fragmented" because the WC said tiny
> fragments came out of the base.
> I am not impressed by Sophistry.
>
>
>
> > One track connects the point labeled ?OUT? to the point labeled ?IN?
> > while a second track connects the point labeled ?FRAGMENT? to the
> > point labeled ?IN.?
>
> Why would you use the phony Rydberg diagram to try to prove anything? Oh
> wait, I know. Because you know it's a lie!
“Please quote for me where Humes explained that the bullet fragmented
upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did
the
Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.”
the
Now go ahead and deny that you are the author of the above quotation.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>
> >> First prove that they actually sectioned the brain.
> >> Second, prove that qualified forensic pathologists examined the
> >> sectioned brain.
>
> > Look up quick and you may recognize sarcasm above your head.
>
> > Herbert
>
> >>>> Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
>
> >>>> I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
> >>>> claim?
>
> >>>> Anyway, what's your point?
>
> >>>> This ought to be good.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> John Canal
> >>>> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
> >>> So how many wound tracks did sectioning the brain disclose?
>
> >> First prove that they actually sectioned the brain.
> >> Second, prove that qualified forensic pathologists examined the
> >> sectioned brain.
>
> > Look up quick and you may recognize sarcasm above your head.
>
> > Herbert
>
> >>>> Do you have proof one of those scenarios actually occurred?
>
> >>>> I didn't think so.....but when do you guys ever need proof to back up a
> >>>> claim?
>
> >>>> Anyway, what's your point?
>
> >>>> This ought to be good.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> John Canal
Bill Clarke
Oct 15, 2012, 1:53:45 PM10/15/12
to
In article <507b251c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Every post I've ever had rejected by the moderators have deserved rejection
because I broke the rules. Usually because I said something derogatory about
you but let us not plow that ground now.
I'm thinking that any post rejected belonging to you, Aguilar and Martin were
rejected for the same reason. You boys broke the rules.
As for scaring someone away on the internet, how does that work? I mean it
isn't like I can reach out and smack you with a right hook or something. If you
boys are scared on the internet good thing you didn't see combat, General.
Bill Clarke
because I broke the rules. Usually because I said something derogatory about
you but let us not plow that ground now.
I'm thinking that any post rejected belonging to you, Aguilar and Martin were
rejected for the same reason. You boys broke the rules.
As for scaring someone away on the internet, how does that work? I mean it
isn't like I can reach out and smack you with a right hook or something. If you
boys are scared on the internet good thing you didn't see combat, General.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 7:16:10 PM10/15/12
to
> upon entry. Canal's diagrams certainly don't show that. Neither did
> the
> Rydberg diagram done under Humes supervision.�
> the
>
> Now go ahead and deny that you are the author of the above quotation.
>
It doesn't show a fragmented bullet exiting.
> Now go ahead and deny that you are the author of the above quotation.
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 9:22:29 PM10/15/12
to
On 10/15/2012 1:47 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> Herbert Blenner says...
> [...]
>
>
>>>> Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>>>
>>> 100& certain.
>>
>> I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>> expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> dumb things that some people believe.
>
> If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above his
> EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and then
> stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>
As Humes said: blood clot.
> In article <98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>> .com>,
>>> Herbert Blenner says...
> [...]
>
>
>>>> Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>>>
>>> 100& certain.
>>
>> I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>> expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> dumb things that some people believe.
>
> If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above his
> EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and then
> stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>
Bud
Oct 15, 2012, 10:08:22 PM10/15/12
to
On Oct 14, 8:06 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2012 10:43 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <50790a3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> On 10/13/2012 10:43 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
> >>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
> >>> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
> >>> on one of the films!
>
> >> No examination. Just guesswork and lies.
>
> > Similar to the way you've studied the medical evidence in this case and
> > formed your wacky theories?
>
> > For example, like the one where you've posted that most of the bullet
> > [your imaginary one] that hit him above the right eye "blew-back"
> > presumably towards the shooter?
>
> That is what happens with an explosive bullet. Like the kind that
> Hinckley used.
The kind that don`t explode?
> >> On 10/12/2012 9:12 PM, John Canal wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >>> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
> >>> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
> >>> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
> >>> on one of the films!
>
> >> No examination. Just guesswork and lies.
>
> > Similar to the way you've studied the medical evidence in this case and
> > formed your wacky theories?
>
> > For example, like the one where you've posted that most of the bullet
> > [your imaginary one] that hit him above the right eye "blew-back"
> > presumably towards the shooter?
>
> That is what happens with an explosive bullet. Like the kind that
> Hinckley used.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Canal
>
> > [....]
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:11:09 PM10/15/12
to
In article <ccac8427-67d3-4789...@googlegroups.com>,
is threadbare, to say the least.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think JFK two *two* head
> shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
Yes, and your "evidence" for that which you have presented here so far
> I think JFK two *two* head
> shots from the front, and that the scalp was massacred.
is threadbare, to say the least.
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:11:29 PM10/15/12
to
In article <ecaafd5c-0502-414a...@googlegroups.com>,
because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your
assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are
inherently wrong to begin with.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I
> just believe in honesty, truth, justice, and the American Way.
So do many of us, which you continuously misunderstand. It isn't
> I
> just believe in honesty, truth, justice, and the American Way.
because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your
assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are
inherently wrong to begin with.
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:11:57 PM10/15/12
to
In article
<c6feeacf-149a-4fac...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hmm, now wait, Herbert. You did not answer his question, and I must
admit that I would like to see that answer too. Did you ever orient F8
stretching it would certainly allow it to stretch significantly farther
than otherwise. So I would not think it at all odd for anyone to "still
believe" that, since it is not even slightly outlandish.
<c6feeacf-149a-4fac...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
admit that I would like to see that answer too. Did you ever orient F8
with the rear skull facing the camera?
> Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 - Page 150
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96
> /html/Stringer_0015a.htm
>
> Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
> the process?
> A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
> condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
> had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
> underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
> brain.
> Q: As it was being sectioned?
> A: Yes.
> Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
> brain? How did that work?
> A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
> Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
> A: To show the damage.
> Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
> bullet?
> A: I don?t know.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96
> /html/Stringer_0015a.htm
>
> Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe
> the process?
> A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the
> condition, took some sections of it. We took some pictures of it. I
> had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from
> underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of the
> brain.
> Q: As it was being sectioned?
> A: Yes.
> Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire
> brain? How did that work?
> A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
> Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
> A: To show the damage.
> Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the
> bullet?
>
> End of quotation.
>
> Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
While that was not addressed to me, undermining the scalp prior to
> End of quotation.
>
> Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
stretching it would certainly allow it to stretch significantly farther
than otherwise. So I would not think it at all odd for anyone to "still
believe" that, since it is not even slightly outlandish.
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:12:09 PM10/15/12
to
In article
<98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Are you saying that there aren't ways to make certain substances more
elastic than they were before? If so I would be astonished. Plenty of
those methods do not violate conservation of mass in the slightest.
> > Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
> > the camera) is correct?
>
> Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by
> the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
> abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
> elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
> recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
> the image upon the head.
Ok...
So could you now answer his question? Yes or no, do you believe F8
shows the back of the head facing the camera? Thanks.
<98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
elastic than they were before? If so I would be astonished. Plenty of
those methods do not violate conservation of mass in the slightest.
> > Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH facing
> > the camera) is correct?
>
> Once upon a time, I suggested that the semicircular defect described by
> the FPP belonged to the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I
> abandoned my earlier suggestion. Presently, I have argued that the
> elliptical arc on F8 should be used to orientate the picture while
> recognition of anatomical or background objects should be used to position
> the image upon the head.
So could you now answer his question? Yes or no, do you believe F8
shows the back of the head facing the camera? Thanks.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 16, 2012, 3:14:01 PM10/16/12
to
has been done in any cases.
But otherwise you can theoretically go through a black hole.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 16, 2012, 4:14:35 PM10/16/12
to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> John Canal
>>
>>> [....]
>
>
fatol...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2012, 4:15:32 PM10/16/12
to
On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:11:30 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <ecaafd5c-0502-414a...@googlegroups.com>,
> So do many of us, which you continuously misunderstand. It isn't
>
> because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your
>
> assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are
>
> inherently wrong to begin with.
Yes. That is the truth. You believe my assertions are "inherently wrong to
begin with." You said that perfectly. That really is why you disagree with
me. You "think my assertions are inherently wrong to begin with." That is
not a good reason.
> In article <ecaafd5c-0502-414a...@googlegroups.com>,
> So do many of us, which you continuously misunderstand. It isn't
>
> because we don't want to know the real truth that we dispute your
>
> assertions. It's because it is plain to us that your assertions are
>
> inherently wrong to begin with.
begin with." You said that perfectly. That really is why you disagree with
me. You "think my assertions are inherently wrong to begin with." That is
not a good reason.
John Reagor King
Oct 17, 2012, 9:47:02 PM10/17/12
to
In article <26f0e9ae-e880-4af1...@googlegroups.com>,
Wrong. It would not be a good reason *only* if I had decided in *advance*
that your assertions would be inherently wrong *before* I knew what your
assertions would be. But that is not the case here. I have found many of
your assertions to be inherently wrong only *after* seeing what your
assertions were first, and only *after* reading your extremely threadbare
justifications for your assertions. For example, still to this day you
have never once addressed the problem of trajectory through Connally's
torso that would have to be the case if your incredibly weak scenario of
him being shot from the front had an ice tray's chance in the Inferno of
surviving. Since you continue to ignore it, I'll state the problem yet
again, so that everyone reading this and other threads can plainly see
what you so consistently avoid:
The entrance in Connally's back was farther to the right in his body than
the exit in his chest. This means it was a right to left path through his
torso. For him to be shot by Greer at any time while he is turned
partially away from Greer, since Connally never turns his torso to the
left in the entire film but only to the right, the trajectory would quite
obviously be the exact opposite of what it really was, a left to right
path through his torso.
I also want everyone to see another problem you have consistently failed
to address, which I have also brought up to you several times in more than
one thread. "Skinny" and at least three others would have had to have
gone right past your shooter as he was coming the opposite direction onto
the bridge, or else your shooter would not have made it in time to be
photographed by Cabluck as the press bus was about to go under the bridge.
Yet they never saw a man carrying a rifle onto the bridge.
I'll also remind you that you admitted several days ago that you did not
know which direction was which in Dealey Plaza as recently as only six
months ago. You then falsely accused me of being wrong when I said that
the bridge over Elm runs essentially north-south, and then compounded that
by making it plain that even as of a few days ago you *still* did not
understand the directions in Dealey Plaza, when you said to me that
Cabluck was photographing the north side of the bridge, when in actual
truth that photograph is of the east side of the bridge. Another poster
corrected you before I did. And when I got back in town on Monday, I
posted several corrections to you on this, noting that I have lived less
than three hours' drive from Dealey Plaza since 1967, have been there
many, many, many times over a period of several decades, and most
definitely had the directions in Dealey Plaza correct several decades ago.
I also told you several easy ways to determine which way is truly north in
Dealey Plaza. I have still as of today seen no replies from you to either
the other poster's correction or mine. So I also want everyone to notice
how you keep avoiding these corrections and have absolutely refused thus
far to admit your obvious mistake.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that your assertions are
inherently wrong. Not only do the assertions themselves not stand up
under close scrutiny, but your justifications for your assertions do not
stand up either. And you ruin your own credibility still further when you
refuse to admit your own blatantly obvious mistakes even after more than
one poster has pointed them out to you.
that your assertions would be inherently wrong *before* I knew what your
assertions would be. But that is not the case here. I have found many of
your assertions to be inherently wrong only *after* seeing what your
assertions were first, and only *after* reading your extremely threadbare
justifications for your assertions. For example, still to this day you
have never once addressed the problem of trajectory through Connally's
torso that would have to be the case if your incredibly weak scenario of
him being shot from the front had an ice tray's chance in the Inferno of
surviving. Since you continue to ignore it, I'll state the problem yet
again, so that everyone reading this and other threads can plainly see
what you so consistently avoid:
The entrance in Connally's back was farther to the right in his body than
the exit in his chest. This means it was a right to left path through his
torso. For him to be shot by Greer at any time while he is turned
partially away from Greer, since Connally never turns his torso to the
left in the entire film but only to the right, the trajectory would quite
obviously be the exact opposite of what it really was, a left to right
path through his torso.
I also want everyone to see another problem you have consistently failed
to address, which I have also brought up to you several times in more than
one thread. "Skinny" and at least three others would have had to have
gone right past your shooter as he was coming the opposite direction onto
the bridge, or else your shooter would not have made it in time to be
photographed by Cabluck as the press bus was about to go under the bridge.
Yet they never saw a man carrying a rifle onto the bridge.
I'll also remind you that you admitted several days ago that you did not
know which direction was which in Dealey Plaza as recently as only six
months ago. You then falsely accused me of being wrong when I said that
the bridge over Elm runs essentially north-south, and then compounded that
by making it plain that even as of a few days ago you *still* did not
understand the directions in Dealey Plaza, when you said to me that
Cabluck was photographing the north side of the bridge, when in actual
truth that photograph is of the east side of the bridge. Another poster
corrected you before I did. And when I got back in town on Monday, I
posted several corrections to you on this, noting that I have lived less
than three hours' drive from Dealey Plaza since 1967, have been there
many, many, many times over a period of several decades, and most
definitely had the directions in Dealey Plaza correct several decades ago.
I also told you several easy ways to determine which way is truly north in
Dealey Plaza. I have still as of today seen no replies from you to either
the other poster's correction or mine. So I also want everyone to notice
how you keep avoiding these corrections and have absolutely refused thus
far to admit your obvious mistake.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that your assertions are
inherently wrong. Not only do the assertions themselves not stand up
under close scrutiny, but your justifications for your assertions do not
stand up either. And you ruin your own credibility still further when you
refuse to admit your own blatantly obvious mistakes even after more than
one poster has pointed them out to you.
John Reagor King
Oct 17, 2012, 9:48:45 PM10/17/12
to
In article <k5fvd...@drn.newsguy.com>,
in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
violating conservation of mass in the slightest. I'm also still waiting
for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article
> <98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
> >
> >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Herbert Blenner says...
> [...]
>
> >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> >>
> >> 100& certain.
> >
> >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> >dumb things that some people believe.
>
> If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above
> his
> EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and
> then
> stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
> In article
> <98b10f23-7207-4c0d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
> >
> >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Herbert Blenner says...
> [...]
>
> >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
> >>
> >> 100& certain.
> >
> >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> >dumb things that some people believe.
>
> If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above
> his
> EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and
> then
> stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
violating conservation of mass in the slightest. I'm also still waiting
for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.
Herbert Blenner
Oct 18, 2012, 12:16:37 PM10/18/12
to
On Oct 17, 9:48 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100&
certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
attributed to me.
> I'm also still waiting
> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide quoted text -
>
John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
certain.
Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
Canal’s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe
that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I
with fewer than four letters?
Herbert
> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Herbert Blenner says...
>
> > >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> > >.com>,
> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > [...]
>
> > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>
> > >> 100& certain.
>
> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>
> > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above
> > his
> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and
> > then
> > stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>
> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changing
>
> > >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> > >.com>,
> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > [...]
>
> > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the scalp?
>
> > >> 100& certain.
>
> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>
> > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several other
> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches above
> > his
> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined and
> > then
> > stretched, please write it here:____________________________________________
>
> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100&
certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
attributed to me.
> I'm also still waiting
> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
>
John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
certain.
Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
Canal’s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe
that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I
suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
suggestion."
Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
suggestion."
with fewer than four letters?
Herbert
John Blubaugh
Oct 18, 2012, 4:25:21 PM10/18/12
to
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:12:13 PM UTC-4, John Canal wrote:
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>
> says...
>
>
>
> <TOP POST>
>
>
>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
>
>
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>
>
>
> In article <A_ednd1CSdH_zOXN...@earthlink.com>, Robert Harris
>
> says...
>
>
>
> <TOP POST>
>
>
>
> I'm tempted to read that article as much as I am to watch your videos.
>
>
>
> Please read this slowly Robert for comprehension.
>
>
>
> If there had been two hits to his head there would have been two
>
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
>
>
> Any eigth grader would understand that...and I know you're more
>
> channel-like pathways through his brain.
>
>
>
>
> intelligent than that.
>
>
>
> But there was ONLY ONE SUCH PATHWAY THROUGH THE BRAIN AND AN EXAMINATION
>
> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
>
> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
>
> on one of the films!
>
>
Interesting that you think there was enough left of the brain to be able
>
> OF THE ACTUAL BRAIN DETERMINED THIS.....this finding was not based on
>
> photos, X-rays, the statements or testimony witnesses to the shooting, or
>
> on one of the films!
>
>
to examine it for a channel like the one you describe. No probem, we can
just re-examine the brain. Oh, the brain is missing? Isn't that
convenient....
JB
John Canal
Oct 18, 2012, 5:30:42 PM10/18/12
to
In article <460fb149-474f-45d6...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googleg=
>roups=3D
>bove
>> > his
>> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined =
>and
>> > then
>> > stretched, please write it here:_______________________________________=
volume of the scap, but certainly shouldn't have.
What I'm guilty of is not reading your posts carefully because I'm so used
to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst
scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky
theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching
would increase the scalp's volume.
I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does
not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area
it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
I hope we're clear on that.
>So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
>attributed to me.
No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
that of some others) confusion.
Unmask your wacky theories from your scientific fog why don't you and tell
us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet
that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the
throat (?).
If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with
your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
> >=A0I'm also still waiting
or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree
that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has
the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
Thanks....I'm sure.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 17, 9:48=A0pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>On Oct 17, 9:48=A0pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> =A0John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
>> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> > >On Oct 14, 8:14=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
>> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googleg=
>roups=3D
>> > >.com>,
>> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
>> > [...]
>>
>> > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the sca=
>> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
>> > [...]
>>
>lp?
>>
>> > >> 100& certain.
>>
>> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>>
>> > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several ot=
>>
>> > >> 100& certain.
>>
>> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as an
>> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>>
>her
>> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
>> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inches a=
>> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any other
>bove
>> > his
>> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermined =
>and
>> > then
>> > stretched, please write it here:_______________________________________=
>_____
>>
>> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
>> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
>> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
>> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
>
>I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changing
>the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100&
>certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
Evidently I wrote that I was 100% certain that stretching increases the
>>
>> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days ago
>> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
>> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
>> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
>
>I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changing
>the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100&
>certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
volume of the scap, but certainly shouldn't have.
What I'm guilty of is not reading your posts carefully because I'm so used
to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst
scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky
theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching
would increase the scalp's volume.
I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does
not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area
it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
I hope we're clear on that.
>So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
>attributed to me.
that of some others) confusion.
Unmask your wacky theories from your scientific fog why don't you and tell
us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet
that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the
throat (?).
If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with
your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
> >=A0I'm also still waiting
>> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
>> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide =
>quoted text -
>>
>
>John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
>the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
>certain.
>
>Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
>Canal=92s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe
>>
>
>John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
>the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
>certain.
>
>Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
>that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I
>suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
>the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
>suggestion."
>
>Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
>with fewer than four letters?
No, but here's what I'd like you to do: Tell us once and for all whether
>suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
>the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
>suggestion."
>
>Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
>with fewer than four letters?
or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree
that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has
the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
Thanks....I'm sure.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Reagor King
Oct 19, 2012, 10:30:49 PM10/19/12
to
In article
<460fb149-474f-45d6...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 9:48?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Doesn't that depend mightily on exactly how the word "volume" is used?
If it is used as the equivalent of an increase in mass, I would agree that
that is incorrect. However, no such thing has ever seemed to me to be
what Mr. Canal was actually suggesting. I'm looking right at the exchange
and where I see him answering "100% certain" to your query about whether
he still believes that stretching increases the "volume," it is quite
obvious to me that all he means is that the elastic scalp, stretched
farther, will indeed take up more "volume," but not more "mass." The
number of molecules don't increase, they are simply stretched farther
apart in any elastic material that is stretched, no matter what that
material is, n'est pas?
> So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
> attributed to me.
Since I falsely attributed nothing to you, I will do no such thing. You,
instead, need to admit to him that you misunderstood increase in volume as
him saying increase in mass as well, which was quite obviously not what he
was saying.
> >?I'm also still waiting
"Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH
facing the camera) is correct?"
never specifically expressed such a belief? If so, that's what you need
to say: "I never said the BOH is facing the camera in F8."
> and asked if I were
> certain.
>
> Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
> Canal?s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe
particular semicircular feature is the entry as seen from the inside of
the cranium. It says nothing about how you believe the photograph in
general is oriented, whether taken from the front, back, right side, left
side, etc. of the cranium. Therefore, I would think that indeed, not only
have I proven that I understood your answer perfectly well, I also
understand quite well that it gives no answer whatsoever to the exact
question that was asked. Therefore I shall ask it again:
Do you today believe that F8 was taken with the rear of the head facing
the camera?
There's one word of three letters that will suffice for one answer, and
there is another of two letters that will suffice for the other.
Or you can say, "I'm not sure," or "I don't know."
Please don't be like some other posters in this group, Herbert, and avoid
answering such a plain and perfectly reasonable question.
Thanks.
<460fb149-474f-45d6...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 9:48?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
If it is used as the equivalent of an increase in mass, I would agree that
that is incorrect. However, no such thing has ever seemed to me to be
what Mr. Canal was actually suggesting. I'm looking right at the exchange
and where I see him answering "100% certain" to your query about whether
he still believes that stretching increases the "volume," it is quite
obvious to me that all he means is that the elastic scalp, stretched
farther, will indeed take up more "volume," but not more "mass." The
number of molecules don't increase, they are simply stretched farther
apart in any elastic material that is stretched, no matter what that
material is, n'est pas?
> So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
> attributed to me.
instead, need to admit to him that you misunderstood increase in volume as
him saying increase in mass as well, which was quite obviously not what he
was saying.
> >?I'm also still waiting
> > for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
> > not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
> the camera.
John Canal on 10-14-12:
> > not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
> the camera.
"Are you 100% certain your orientation of F8 (that is with the BOH
facing the camera) is correct?"
> Instead he asserted the claim as a fact
No, he asked if you *still* *believe* it. Or is he incorrect, and you
never specifically expressed such a belief? If so, that's what you need
to say: "I never said the BOH is facing the camera in F8."
> and asked if I were
> certain.
>
> Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
> that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I
> suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
> the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
> suggestion."
>
> Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
> with fewer than four letters?
All your reply indicates is that you abandoned your belief that that
> suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
> the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
> suggestion."
>
> Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
> with fewer than four letters?
particular semicircular feature is the entry as seen from the inside of
the cranium. It says nothing about how you believe the photograph in
general is oriented, whether taken from the front, back, right side, left
side, etc. of the cranium. Therefore, I would think that indeed, not only
have I proven that I understood your answer perfectly well, I also
understand quite well that it gives no answer whatsoever to the exact
question that was asked. Therefore I shall ask it again:
Do you today believe that F8 was taken with the rear of the head facing
the camera?
There's one word of three letters that will suffice for one answer, and
there is another of two letters that will suffice for the other.
Or you can say, "I'm not sure," or "I don't know."
Please don't be like some other posters in this group, Herbert, and avoid
answering such a plain and perfectly reasonable question.
Thanks.
John Reagor King
Oct 19, 2012, 10:31:38 PM10/19/12
to
In article <k5pdq...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Ah yes, just as I thought. Herbert erroneously thought you meant increase
in volume meant increase in *mass* also. Strange though, I knew what you
meant from the beginning without even having to ask. Perhaps you should
have said "area" instead, but it's a mere triviality of wording.
> What I'm guilty of is not reading your posts carefully because I'm so used
> to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst
> scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky
> theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching
> would increase the scalp's volume.
Actually in certain cases a substance can increase in volume without
increasing in mass. Water going from liquid to frozen state is a prime
example. And an elastic material such as rubber (or undermined scalp) in
a sense increases in volume when stretched, although the substance is
thinner when stretched, so I suppose the "volume" isn't actually
increased.
> I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does
> not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area
> it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
>
> I hope we're clear on that.
It was clear to me the first time I saw you explain it more than a year
ago. How Herbert, of all people, could have possibly misunderstood what
you meant at this late date is beyond my understanding.
> >So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
> >attributed to me.
>
> No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
> that of some others) confusion.
Indeed. I repeated one of your questions and I have still not gotten a
plain and unequivocal answer to it, even though I ought to, by now, a
decade after I first posted here, be well-known to the regulars as very
frequently giving plain and unequivocal answers when such questions are
posed to me. If I'm not well-known for that by now, I can't imagine why,
after more than 2000 articles here.
in volume meant increase in *mass* also. Strange though, I knew what you
meant from the beginning without even having to ask. Perhaps you should
have said "area" instead, but it's a mere triviality of wording.
> What I'm guilty of is not reading your posts carefully because I'm so used
> to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst
> scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky
> theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching
> would increase the scalp's volume.
increasing in mass. Water going from liquid to frozen state is a prime
example. And an elastic material such as rubber (or undermined scalp) in
a sense increases in volume when stretched, although the substance is
thinner when stretched, so I suppose the "volume" isn't actually
increased.
> I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does
> not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area
> it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
>
> I hope we're clear on that.
ago. How Herbert, of all people, could have possibly misunderstood what
you meant at this late date is beyond my understanding.
> >So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
> >attributed to me.
>
> No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
> that of some others) confusion.
plain and unequivocal answer to it, even though I ought to, by now, a
decade after I first posted here, be well-known to the regulars as very
frequently giving plain and unequivocal answers when such questions are
posed to me. If I'm not well-known for that by now, I can't imagine why,
after more than 2000 articles here.
John Canal
Oct 20, 2012, 5:59:04 PM10/20/12
to
In article <caeruleo-DE6626...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Reagor
King says...
Thanks for chiming in.
I've been posting here for almost 13 years and after Barb J. stopped posting I
felt like the lone voice in the wilderness re. the BOH wound issues...but now
it's nice to have you as company out here in that wildernes, JK.
As you know if Herbert will stop avoiding and answer the question I asked him
the other day we'll know exactly where he stands on this matter...and his
scientific mumbo-jumbo aimed at masking his wacky theories will be useless.
Again, Herbert, here's that question (actually a simple request):
"Tell us once and for all whether or not,
again in language an eighth (misspelling corrected) grader can understand, if
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
King says...
I've been posting here for almost 13 years and after Barb J. stopped posting I
felt like the lone voice in the wilderness re. the BOH wound issues...but now
it's nice to have you as company out here in that wildernes, JK.
As you know if Herbert will stop avoiding and answer the question I asked him
the other day we'll know exactly where he stands on this matter...and his
scientific mumbo-jumbo aimed at masking his wacky theories will be useless.
Again, Herbert, here's that question (actually a simple request):
"Tell us once and for all whether or not,
you agree that the defect
shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has the red and green
line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH."
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has the red and green
line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH."
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner
Oct 20, 2012, 8:50:50 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 18, 5:30 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Fine. Now let’s return to an earlier issue of how stretching the scalp
in one direction changes the position of a given portion of the
scalp.
To refresh your memory, I repeat that stretching linearly transforms
all portions of the scalp along a common direction. For example if
they pulled a 10-inch piece of scalp to close a 2-inch gap then this
represents a 20% elongation. Hence an object originally located 1 inch
from the attached end of the scalp would to a position 1.2 inch from
the fixed end. Another object four inches from the fixed end of the
scalp would move by 0.8 inch to 4.8 inch. In other words the movement
of an object on the stretched scalp is proportional to its distance
from the unmoved end. So this consideration shows that closing the 2-
inch gap of the scalp raised the EOP defect by a proper fraction of an
inch.
>
> >So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
> >attributed to me.
>
> No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
> that of some others) confusion.
>
> Unmask your wacky theories from your scientific fog why don't you and tell
> us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet
> that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the
> throat (?).
>
> If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with
> your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
You know that I never claimed that a bullet penetrated the floor of
the head and exited the throat. The reason being that you made up the
theory and covered yourself by adding “If that was not your wacky
theory, I apologize.”
Your tactic is as transparent as your unpreparedness to intelligently
discuss my assertions. For example, I asserted that the 4 mm by 7 mm
longitudinal back wound reported by Humes is not the same as the 7-mm
X 10 mm transverse back wound discussed by the FPP. Your response was
that you don’t give a rat’s ass about the back wound.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >=A0I'm also still waiting
> >> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
> >> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide =
> >quoted text -
>
> >John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
> >the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
> >certain.
>
> >Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
> >Canal=92s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe
> >that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I
> >suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
> >the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
> >suggestion."
>
> >Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
> >with fewer than four letters?
>
> No, but here's what I'd like you to do: Tell us once and for all whether
> or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree
> that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has
> the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH.
> 
>
> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> Thanks....I'm sure.
I have told you that the circular shape of the object that you call
the entrance wound is inconsistent with the line of sight arising from
your placement of F8 on the head.
I suggest that you Google my original comments.
Herbert
> In article <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
in one direction changes the position of a given portion of the
scalp.
To refresh your memory, I repeat that stretching linearly transforms
all portions of the scalp along a common direction. For example if
they pulled a 10-inch piece of scalp to close a 2-inch gap then this
represents a 20% elongation. Hence an object originally located 1 inch
from the attached end of the scalp would to a position 1.2 inch from
the fixed end. Another object four inches from the fixed end of the
scalp would move by 0.8 inch to 4.8 inch. In other words the movement
of an object on the stretched scalp is proportional to its distance
from the unmoved end. So this consideration shows that closing the 2-
inch gap of the scalp raised the EOP defect by a proper fraction of an
inch.
>
> >So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
> >attributed to me.
>
> No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
> that of some others) confusion.
>
> Unmask your wacky theories from your scientific fog why don't you and tell
> us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet
> that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the
> throat (?).
>
> If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with
> your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
the head and exited the throat. The reason being that you made up the
theory and covered yourself by adding “If that was not your wacky
theory, I apologize.”
Your tactic is as transparent as your unpreparedness to intelligently
discuss my assertions. For example, I asserted that the 4 mm by 7 mm
longitudinal back wound reported by Humes is not the same as the 7-mm
X 10 mm transverse back wound discussed by the FPP. Your response was
that you don’t give a rat’s ass about the back wound.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >=A0I'm also still waiting
> >> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether or
> >> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hide =
> >quoted text -
>
> >John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was facing
> >the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
> >certain.
>
> >Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
> >Canal=92s loaded question and answered your question of whether I believe
> >that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time, I
> >suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
> >the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlier
> >suggestion."
>
> >Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one word
> >with fewer than four letters?
>
> No, but here's what I'd like you to do: Tell us once and for all whether
> or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree
> that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has
> the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH.
> 
>
> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> Thanks....I'm sure.
the entrance wound is inconsistent with the line of sight arising from
your placement of F8 on the head.
I suggest that you Google my original comments.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Oct 20, 2012, 8:53:46 PM10/20/12
to
> <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Do you today believe that F8 was taken with the rear of the head facing
> the camera?
No.
Herbert
> Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:48?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > > ?John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Herbert Blenner says...
>
> > > > >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > >> In article
> > > > >> <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> > > > >.com>,
> > > > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > > > [...]
>
snip by HB.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:48?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > > ?John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Herbert Blenner says...
>
> > > > >On Oct 14, 8:14=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > >> In article
> > > > >> <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups=
> > > > >.com>,
> > > > >> Herbert Blenner says...
> > > > [...]
>
> Do you today believe that F8 was taken with the rear of the head facing
> the camera?
Herbert
John Canal
Oct 20, 2012, 10:15:20 PM10/20/12
to
In article <6d74bf89-6da0-4d78...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 18, 5:30=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>e:
>> >> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >roups=3D3D
>sca=3D
>> >lp?
>>
>> >> > >> 100& certain.
>>
>> >> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as=
> ot=3D
>> >her
>> >> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any oth=
>er
>> >> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inche=
>s a=3D
>> >bove
>> >> > his
>> >> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermin=
>ed =3D
>> >and
>> >> > then
>> >> > stretched, please write it here:____________________________________=
>___=3D
>> >_____
>>
>> >> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days a=
above his hairline) than how in blazes did the entry in the scalp get to
be roughly four inches above his hairline...if the scalp wasn't stretched?
Magic?
>> >So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
>> >attributed to me.
>>
>> No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
>> that of some others) confusion.
>>
>> Unmask your wacky theories from your scientific fog why don't you and tel=
>theory, I apologize.=94
Please quote me where I said I didn't give a "rats's ass about the back
wound".
>>
>> > >=3DA0I'm also still waiting
>> >> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether o=
>r
>> >> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hi=
>de =3D
>> >quoted text -
>>
>> >John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was faci=
>eve
>> >that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time,=
>r
>> >suggestion."
>>
>> >Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one wor=
that circular looking defect with the red and green arrows pointing to it
is (that happens to be near the EOP and centered in the photo titled,
"Missile wound in posterior skull..."), if it's not the entry.
>I suggest that you Google my original comments.
BTW, what is your theory regarding the head wounds, i.e. how many hits and
where did those hits enter?
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Oct 18, 5:30=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 17, 9:48=3DA0pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 17, 9:48=3DA0pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <k5fvdn01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> >> =3DA0John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>> >> > >On Oct 14, 8:14=3D3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrot=
>>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <98b10f23-7207-4c0d-8cbb-c788798c0...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>e:
>> >> > >> In article <c6feeacf-149a-4fac-a7e3-4f704b82a...@j18g2000yqf.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >roups=3D3D
>> >> > >.com>,
>> >> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
>> >> > [...]
>>
>> >> > >> >Do you still believe that stretching increase the volume of the =
>> >> > >> Herbert Blenner says...
>> >> > [...]
>>
>sca=3D
>> >lp?
>>
>> >> > >> 100& certain.
>>
>> >> > >I suppose that an undertaker or some other person who you accept as=
> an
>> >> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> >> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> >> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>>
>> >> > If the entry in the skull, as observed by the autopsists and several=
>> >> > >expert told you that the scalp contains empty space that stretched
>> >> > >without violating conservation of mass. Frankly, I am amused by the
>> >> > >dumb things that some people believe.
>>
> ot=3D
>> >her
>> >> > eyewitnesses and as seen in F8 was near the EOP, if you have any oth=
>er
>> >> > explanation for the entry in his scalp being very roughly four inche=
>s a=3D
>> >bove
>> >> > his
>> >> > EOP as seen in the BOH photos, besides the rear scalp being undermin=
>ed =3D
>> >and
>> >> > then
>> >> > stretched, please write it here:____________________________________=
>___=3D
>> >_____
>>
>> >> I'm still waiting for Mr. Blenner to reply to my article of two days a=
>go
>> >> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
>> >> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
>> >> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
>>
>> >I assert that stretching does not violate conservation of mass by changi=
>> >> in which I suggested that there are indeed methods that can be used to
>> >> make various substances more elastic than they were before, without
>> >> violating conservation of mass in the slightest.
>>
>ng
>> >the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100&
>> >certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
>>
>> Evidently I wrote that I was 100% certain that stretching increases the
>> volume of the scap, but certainly shouldn't have.
>>
>> What I'm guilty of is not reading your posts carefully because I'm so use=
>> >the volume of the strained material. By contrast, John Canal is "100&
>> >certain" that stretching increases volume of the scalp.
>>
>> Evidently I wrote that I was 100% certain that stretching increases the
>> volume of the scap, but certainly shouldn't have.
>>
>d
>> to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst
>> scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky
>> theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching
>> would increase the scalp's volume.
>>
>> I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does
>> not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area
>> it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
>>
>> I hope we're clear on that.
>
>Fine. Now let=92s return to an earlier issue of how stretching the scalp
>> to seeing you mask the explanations for your wacky theories amongst
>> scientific jargon in the hope others will not call you on those wacky
>> theories.....so yes I guess I made the dumb statement that stretching
>> would increase the scalp's volume.
>>
>> I hereby, in plain English, state that stretching [with undermining]does
>> not increase the scalp's "volume" but rather increases the amount of area
>> it can cover...IOW, that process simply stretches out the scalp.
>>
>> I hope we're clear on that.
>
>in one direction changes the position of a given portion of the
>scalp.
>
>To refresh your memory, I repeat that stretching linearly transforms
>all portions of the scalp along a common direction. For example if
>they pulled a 10-inch piece of scalp to close a 2-inch gap then this
>represents a 20% elongation. Hence an object originally located 1 inch
>from the attached end of the scalp would to a position 1.2 inch from
>the fixed end. Another object four inches from the fixed end of the
>scalp would move by 0.8 inch to 4.8 inch. In other words the movement
>of an object on the stretched scalp is proportional to its distance
>from the unmoved end. So this consideration shows that closing the 2-
>inch gap of the scalp raised the EOP defect by a proper fraction of an
>inch.
Fine, so if the entry in the skull was near the EOP (roughly 2-2.5 inches
>scalp.
>
>To refresh your memory, I repeat that stretching linearly transforms
>all portions of the scalp along a common direction. For example if
>they pulled a 10-inch piece of scalp to close a 2-inch gap then this
>represents a 20% elongation. Hence an object originally located 1 inch
>from the attached end of the scalp would to a position 1.2 inch from
>the fixed end. Another object four inches from the fixed end of the
>scalp would move by 0.8 inch to 4.8 inch. In other words the movement
>of an object on the stretched scalp is proportional to its distance
>from the unmoved end. So this consideration shows that closing the 2-
>inch gap of the scalp raised the EOP defect by a proper fraction of an
>inch.
above his hairline) than how in blazes did the entry in the scalp get to
be roughly four inches above his hairline...if the scalp wasn't stretched?
Magic?
>> >So I suggest that you jump on Canal for claiming what you mistakenly
>> >attributed to me.
>>
>> No, you and your ability to obfuscate are the cause of my (and probably
>> that of some others) confusion.
>>
>l
>> us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet
>> that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the
>> throat (?).
>>
>> If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with
>> your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
>
>You know that I never claimed that a bullet penetrated the floor of
>the head and exited the throat. The reason being that you made up the
>theory and covered yourself by adding =93If that was not your wacky
>> us in language an eigth grader could understand how you think a bullet
>> that hit him in the BOH penetrated the floor of his head and exited the
>> throat (?).
>>
>> If that was never your theory, I apologize...I just haven't kept up with
>> your wacky theories....and I don't intend on doing that anytime soon.
>
>You know that I never claimed that a bullet penetrated the floor of
>the head and exited the throat. The reason being that you made up the
>theory, I apologize.=94
>
>Your tactic is as transparent as your unpreparedness to intelligently
>discuss my assertions. For example, I asserted that the 4 mm by 7 mm
>longitudinal back wound reported by Humes is not the same as the 7-mm
>X 10 mm transverse back wound discussed by the FPP. Your response was
>that you don=92t give a rat=92s ass about the back wound.
>Your tactic is as transparent as your unpreparedness to intelligently
>discuss my assertions. For example, I asserted that the 4 mm by 7 mm
>longitudinal back wound reported by Humes is not the same as the 7-mm
>X 10 mm transverse back wound discussed by the FPP. Your response was
Please quote me where I said I didn't give a "rats's ass about the back
wound".
>>
>> > >=3DA0I'm also still waiting
>> >> for him to give a plain yes or no answer to your question of whether o=
>r
>> >> not he believes today that F8 was taken from the rear of the head.- Hi=
>de =3D
>> >quoted text -
>>
>> >John Canal did not ask me whether or not I believe that the BOH was faci=
>ng
>> >the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
>> >certain.
>>
>> >Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
>> >Canal=3D92s loaded question and answered your question of whether I beli=
>> >the camera. Instead he asserted the claim as a fact and asked if I were
>> >certain.
>>
>> >Apparently you still fail to recognize that I avoided the trap of
>eve
>> >that F8 was taken from the rear of the head. I wrote, "Once upon a time,=
> I
>> >suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
>> >the EOP entry wound. After obtaining a copy of F8, I abandoned my earlie=
>> >suggested that the semicircular defect described by the FPP belonged to
>r
>> >suggestion."
>>
>> >Can you understand this reply or do I need to limit my answer to one wor=
>d
>> >with fewer than four letters?
>>
>> No, but here's what I'd like you to do: Tell us once and for all whether
>> or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree
>> that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has
>> the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH.
>> 
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>> Thanks....I'm sure.
>
>I have told you that the circular shape of the object that you call
>the entrance wound is inconsistent with the line of sight arising from
>your placement of F8 on the head.
SO tell me then please (re. the above linked F8 copy and blow up) what
>> >with fewer than four letters?
>>
>> No, but here's what I'd like you to do: Tell us once and for all whether
>> or not, again in language an eigth grader can understand, if you agree
>> that the defect shown in the copy of F8 and in the blow-up image that has
>> the red and green line/arrow pointing to it is the entry in his BOH.
>> 
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>> Thanks....I'm sure.
>
>I have told you that the circular shape of the object that you call
>the entrance wound is inconsistent with the line of sight arising from
>your placement of F8 on the head.
that circular looking defect with the red and green arrows pointing to it
is (that happens to be near the EOP and centered in the photo titled,
"Missile wound in posterior skull..."), if it's not the entry.
>I suggest that you Google my original comments.
where did those hits enter?
John Canal
Oct 20, 2012, 10:59:03 PM10/20/12
to
I wrote this:
>Fine, so if the entry in the skull was near the EOP (roughly 2-2.5 inches
>above his hairline) than how in blazes did the entry in the scalp get to
>be roughly four inches above his hairline...if the scalp wasn't stretched?
>Fine, so if the entry in the skull was near the EOP (roughly 2-2.5 inches
>above his hairline) than how in blazes did the entry in the scalp get to
>hairline)...if the scalp wasn't stretched?
John Reagor King
Oct 23, 2012, 8:23:42 PM10/23/12
to
John Reagor King
Oct 23, 2012, 8:23:57 PM10/23/12
to
In article
<6d74bf89-6da0-4d78...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
When it is the only inwardly-beveled feature in any part of the inside
of the cranium that is shown in that photo? When additionally because
of this it does not even remotely resemble any feature that would
normally appear on the inside of a human cranium?
I rather doubt that could be anything *but* the entry as seen from the
inside of the cranium.
<6d74bf89-6da0-4d78...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 5:30�pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Herbert Blenner says...
> >
> On Oct 18, 5:30�pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <460fb149-474f-45d6-a167-072fe12fa...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Herbert Blenner says...
> >
of the cranium that is shown in that photo? When additionally because
of this it does not even remotely resemble any feature that would
normally appear on the inside of a human cranium?
I rather doubt that could be anything *but* the entry as seen from the
inside of the cranium.
John Canal
Oct 24, 2012, 11:42:02 AM10/24/12
to
In article <caeruleo-8BB9DD...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Reagor
King says...
>
You know what, John....I got bored and pretty much quit debating the case
in general against a lone assassin about 13 years ago, because the other
[CT] side never was able to present a single piece of hard evidence for
multiple shooters or for the notion others helped LHO assassinate
JFK......and now I'm getting similarly bored listening to the weak,
pathetic and incredibly varied arguments against a low entry and a
right-rear BOH wound.
For example, when you ask Blenner to tell us, ideally yes or no, whether
he thinks the circular defect in the blow-up image in my graphic [copy of
F8], with the red and green arrows pointing to it, is the entry in his
BOH, or even "a" entry somewhere (or even a bullet wound), does he answer
yes or no....of course not, he says:
...drum roll please.....
"I have told you that the circular shape of the object that you call the
entrance wound is inconsistent with the line of sight arising from your
placement of F8 on the head."
So, did he agree it was the entry or "a" entry......I don't know...can you
make out his cryptic jargon? I can't.
If he meant it wasn't a bullet wound did he offer any suggestions as to
what it might be?
Maybe I'm not reading between the lines? Can you. Actually I don't care
what he's trying to say, because I shouldn't have to read between the
lines for an simple answer to a simple question like I asked.
And then you have McAdams and Marsh....they say it's not a bullet
wound....at least, though, Marsh offers [the pathetic alternative]that
it's a blood clot or something [I actually forget].
Of course, not offering any alternative at all for the conclusion it's a
bullet wound, or saying something wacky like it's a blood clot, are give
away explanations that pretty much show they know, deep down inside, what
it really is...a bullet wound.
And then you have Fiorentino...he's says the defect that the arrows point
to is "probably" the entry...but says it's in the cowlick.....in contrast
to McAdams who says it's not the entry but it's deep inside the cranial
cavity.
Go figure.
Then you have Mitch Todd who I think says it's definitely the entry but
that it's in the cowlick........same as Joe Durnavich, who I always
thought was the most knowledgeable [re. the medical evidence] member of
the "no BOH wound, cowlick entry" club....but he gave up arguing for that
scenario after Sturdivan and Zimmerman examined the originals.
Sorry for the rant....but until one of the members of that aforementioned
club comes up with a point or something substantial against a right-rear
BOH wound or a near EOP entry, friend, they're all yours...I just can't
get interested any morein their B/S arguments.
At least they should form some sort of a concensus among themselves,
shouldn't they?
I think that's "one" of the reasons why Barb J. quit posting here too.
Oh, and one more thing....has any of the nay-sayers (who scoff at the
notion the scalp was undermined and stretched) come up with an explanation
for how ****IF**** the defect with the red and green arrows pointing to it
in my graphic ***IS*** the entry (per Todd Dunavich and "maybe"
Fiorentino) and it's near the EOP (which is roughly 2-2.5 inches above
one's hairline) how it magically migrated up as seen (in the scalp)
roughly four inches above the EOP in the BOH photos?
And of course they know that if the scalp was undermined and stretched
that also means those photos were taken late after the morticians (with
HB&F assisting) began their work...which in turn means the idea that those
photos are some sort of proof there was no right-rear BOH wound is
laughable...again, because those photos were obviously not taken taken
when the body was first received (and hardly reflect the condition of his
BOH when is body left PH).
But why would we ever think that the scalp was undermined, stretched and
sutured?
How about, and I know this seems weak to the nay-sayers, because the
autopsists and morticians said so?
Of course they also know that the fact the lateral X-ray shows no large
BOH opening cannot be offered as proof there was no right-rear BOH
wound...because, thankfully, the honest Dr. Boswell admitted replacing sme
pieces of skull before X-rays or photos were taken.
BTW, can anyone tell me why the hell Boswell would minipulate skull pieces
before x-rays or pictures spposedly documenting the autopsy were taken?
Of course not.
For me, it's obvious why.
How about for the same reason pictures of the BOH weren't taken when the
body was first received?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they only probed the
back wound with their finger?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they didn't know
about the throat wound until the next AM?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they didn't find the
back wound until late in the autopsy?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they didn't see the
clothes that night?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think all the photos were
taken early in the procedure?
But let's not go there.
God willing it'll all be in a book.
Like I said, John...as far as arguing here, the battle, such as they'd
like to think it is, is all yours.
Have fun.
:-)
John C.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
King says...
>
>In article
><6d74bf89-6da0-4d78...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
><6d74bf89-6da0-4d78...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
in general against a lone assassin about 13 years ago, because the other
[CT] side never was able to present a single piece of hard evidence for
multiple shooters or for the notion others helped LHO assassinate
JFK......and now I'm getting similarly bored listening to the weak,
pathetic and incredibly varied arguments against a low entry and a
right-rear BOH wound.
For example, when you ask Blenner to tell us, ideally yes or no, whether
he thinks the circular defect in the blow-up image in my graphic [copy of
F8], with the red and green arrows pointing to it, is the entry in his
BOH, or even "a" entry somewhere (or even a bullet wound), does he answer
yes or no....of course not, he says:
...drum roll please.....
"I have told you that the circular shape of the object that you call the
entrance wound is inconsistent with the line of sight arising from your
placement of F8 on the head."
make out his cryptic jargon? I can't.
If he meant it wasn't a bullet wound did he offer any suggestions as to
what it might be?
Maybe I'm not reading between the lines? Can you. Actually I don't care
what he's trying to say, because I shouldn't have to read between the
lines for an simple answer to a simple question like I asked.
And then you have McAdams and Marsh....they say it's not a bullet
wound....at least, though, Marsh offers [the pathetic alternative]that
it's a blood clot or something [I actually forget].
Of course, not offering any alternative at all for the conclusion it's a
bullet wound, or saying something wacky like it's a blood clot, are give
away explanations that pretty much show they know, deep down inside, what
it really is...a bullet wound.
And then you have Fiorentino...he's says the defect that the arrows point
to is "probably" the entry...but says it's in the cowlick.....in contrast
to McAdams who says it's not the entry but it's deep inside the cranial
cavity.
Go figure.
Then you have Mitch Todd who I think says it's definitely the entry but
that it's in the cowlick........same as Joe Durnavich, who I always
thought was the most knowledgeable [re. the medical evidence] member of
the "no BOH wound, cowlick entry" club....but he gave up arguing for that
scenario after Sturdivan and Zimmerman examined the originals.
Sorry for the rant....but until one of the members of that aforementioned
club comes up with a point or something substantial against a right-rear
BOH wound or a near EOP entry, friend, they're all yours...I just can't
get interested any morein their B/S arguments.
At least they should form some sort of a concensus among themselves,
shouldn't they?
I think that's "one" of the reasons why Barb J. quit posting here too.
Oh, and one more thing....has any of the nay-sayers (who scoff at the
notion the scalp was undermined and stretched) come up with an explanation
for how ****IF**** the defect with the red and green arrows pointing to it
in my graphic ***IS*** the entry (per Todd Dunavich and "maybe"
Fiorentino) and it's near the EOP (which is roughly 2-2.5 inches above
one's hairline) how it magically migrated up as seen (in the scalp)
roughly four inches above the EOP in the BOH photos?
And of course they know that if the scalp was undermined and stretched
that also means those photos were taken late after the morticians (with
HB&F assisting) began their work...which in turn means the idea that those
photos are some sort of proof there was no right-rear BOH wound is
laughable...again, because those photos were obviously not taken taken
when the body was first received (and hardly reflect the condition of his
BOH when is body left PH).
But why would we ever think that the scalp was undermined, stretched and
sutured?
How about, and I know this seems weak to the nay-sayers, because the
autopsists and morticians said so?
Of course they also know that the fact the lateral X-ray shows no large
BOH opening cannot be offered as proof there was no right-rear BOH
wound...because, thankfully, the honest Dr. Boswell admitted replacing sme
pieces of skull before X-rays or photos were taken.
BTW, can anyone tell me why the hell Boswell would minipulate skull pieces
before x-rays or pictures spposedly documenting the autopsy were taken?
Of course not.
For me, it's obvious why.
How about for the same reason pictures of the BOH weren't taken when the
body was first received?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they only probed the
back wound with their finger?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they didn't know
about the throat wound until the next AM?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they didn't find the
back wound until late in the autopsy?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think they didn't see the
clothes that night?
How about for the same reason HB&F let the FBI think all the photos were
taken early in the procedure?
But let's not go there.
God willing it'll all be in a book.
Like I said, John...as far as arguing here, the battle, such as they'd
like to think it is, is all yours.
Have fun.
:-)
John C.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Oct 24, 2012, 11:45:03 AM10/24/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Oct 24, 2012, 5:29:23 PM10/24/12
to
moron?
John Canal
Oct 24, 2012, 10:22:20 PM10/24/12
to
In article <508835a7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
I'll still respond to any legitimate comments or questions, but just won't
go further trying to educate you people re. the medical evidence.
For a change Marsh, you made a somewhat reasonable comment....so let me
enlighten you [check that, no one can enlighten you on anything--so this
is for any lurkers] as to why Humes didn't identify it as the entry in the
BOH photos.
In the first place he authenticated the photos in 66 & 67 including those
that were titled "missile wound in posterior scalp..." [as well as the
back wound photos that also showed a cowlick entry in the scalp].
He also pretty much caved in to the HSCA when they pointed out the fact
the entry in the scalp as seen in the BOH photos was high above the EOP.
By the time the ARRB came around, however, he was not going to acquiesce
to the elliptical scalp defect that was obviously way above the EOP being
the entry.....so he simply said it wasn't an entry.
For your information by that time neither Boswell nor Finck, probably for
the same reason, would agree that scalp defect was the entry.
The only explanation I can conceive for them denying it was the entry all
those years later is that they must not have noticed in 66 & 67 how their
undermining and stretching of the scalp grossly affected the location of
the wound in the scalp.
Had they seen the photos soon after they'd stretched the scalp, I think
they would have noted that [the scalp stretching] in their after action
reports (66 & 67) and pointed it out to the HSCA in order to explain why
the scalp wound appears so high above the EOP where the skull wound was.
They probably would have told Fisher about it too, but they weren't asked
by him....Fisher was, in his mind, above asking any military pathologist
anything...after all, he was, also in his mind, at the time, the God of
Forensic Pathology.
Look Marsh, I know you have to defend your indefensible, wacky
"no-hits-to-the-BOH" claim, so this is for any lurkers who might read this
thread....for you it'll surely go in one ear and out the other.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
go further trying to educate you people re. the medical evidence.
For a change Marsh, you made a somewhat reasonable comment....so let me
enlighten you [check that, no one can enlighten you on anything--so this
is for any lurkers] as to why Humes didn't identify it as the entry in the
BOH photos.
In the first place he authenticated the photos in 66 & 67 including those
that were titled "missile wound in posterior scalp..." [as well as the
back wound photos that also showed a cowlick entry in the scalp].
He also pretty much caved in to the HSCA when they pointed out the fact
the entry in the scalp as seen in the BOH photos was high above the EOP.
By the time the ARRB came around, however, he was not going to acquiesce
to the elliptical scalp defect that was obviously way above the EOP being
the entry.....so he simply said it wasn't an entry.
For your information by that time neither Boswell nor Finck, probably for
the same reason, would agree that scalp defect was the entry.
The only explanation I can conceive for them denying it was the entry all
those years later is that they must not have noticed in 66 & 67 how their
undermining and stretching of the scalp grossly affected the location of
the wound in the scalp.
Had they seen the photos soon after they'd stretched the scalp, I think
they would have noted that [the scalp stretching] in their after action
reports (66 & 67) and pointed it out to the HSCA in order to explain why
the scalp wound appears so high above the EOP where the skull wound was.
They probably would have told Fisher about it too, but they weren't asked
by him....Fisher was, in his mind, above asking any military pathologist
anything...after all, he was, also in his mind, at the time, the God of
Forensic Pathology.
Look Marsh, I know you have to defend your indefensible, wacky
"no-hits-to-the-BOH" claim, so this is for any lurkers who might read this
thread....for you it'll surely go in one ear and out the other.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Reagor King
Oct 28, 2012, 6:21:29 PM10/28/12
to
In article <k67ml...@drn.newsguy.com>,
No, and that's exactly the problem with any claim that it "isn't" the
entry, since what it quite obviously is NOT is any NATURAL feature of
the cranium.
> Maybe I'm not reading between the lines? Can you.
Yes. It is their usual inability to refute the obvious with anything
even remotely plausible.
> Then you have Mitch Todd who I think says it's definitely the entry but
> that it's in the cowlick........same as Joe Durnavich, who I always
> thought was the most knowledgeable [re. the medical evidence] member of
> the "no BOH wound, cowlick entry" club....but he gave up arguing for that
> scenario after Sturdivan and Zimmerman examined the originals.
It is much too far below the margin of remaining bone to be especially
close to the cowlick, since the cowlick is almost at the *top* of that
margin. I cannot imagine how much more obvious this could be.
entry, since what it quite obviously is NOT is any NATURAL feature of
the cranium.
> Maybe I'm not reading between the lines? Can you.
even remotely plausible.
> Then you have Mitch Todd who I think says it's definitely the entry but
> that it's in the cowlick........same as Joe Durnavich, who I always
> thought was the most knowledgeable [re. the medical evidence] member of
> the "no BOH wound, cowlick entry" club....but he gave up arguing for that
> scenario after Sturdivan and Zimmerman examined the originals.
close to the cowlick, since the cowlick is almost at the *top* of that
margin. I cannot imagine how much more obvious this could be.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 28, 2012, 10:42:38 PM10/28/12
to
refutations, as in the case of claiming that a dark blur in frame 318 is
actually a bright reflection off of Roy Kellerman's head. Fortunately for
you, only kooks read this newsgroup.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 29, 2012, 11:05:24 PM10/29/12
to
How can you see the gun THROUGH Kellerman's head? Was it one of those
special X-ray guns?
John Reagor King
Oct 30, 2012, 2:52:35 PM10/30/12
to
In article <d64a7f5e-c713-4bac...@googlegroups.com>,
bottle in the same film, then later changed that to him putting a gun in
his pocket, then later changed that again to him *withdrawing* a gun
from his pocket. You're also still refusing and refusing and refusing
to even *attempt* to explain the glaring discrepancy of your scenario of
Connally being shot by either your bridge shooter or by Greer, since the
trajectory through Connally's torso is entirely wrong for both of those.
And you still refuse and refuse and refuse to explain how "Skinny" and
his friends ran right past your bridge shooter as he was talking onto
the bridge in the opposite direction without plainly seeing him carrying
the rifle. You also still refuse and refuse and refuse to admit that it
was you, not me, who had the directions in Dealey Plaza entirely wrong.
You wanna talk about kooks? They are quite obviously the only people
who would take most of your claims seriously. Even the majority of your
own fellow CTs don't support you, as is plain from their responses here.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, you don't let the implausible get in the way of your desperate
> refutations, as in the case of claiming that a dark blur in frame 318 is
> actually a bright reflection off of Roy Kellerman's head. Fortunately for
> you, only kooks read this newsgroup.
This from the person claimed to have "seen" John Connally holding a soda
> Of course, you don't let the implausible get in the way of your desperate
> refutations, as in the case of claiming that a dark blur in frame 318 is
> actually a bright reflection off of Roy Kellerman's head. Fortunately for
> you, only kooks read this newsgroup.
bottle in the same film, then later changed that to him putting a gun in
his pocket, then later changed that again to him *withdrawing* a gun
from his pocket. You're also still refusing and refusing and refusing
to even *attempt* to explain the glaring discrepancy of your scenario of
Connally being shot by either your bridge shooter or by Greer, since the
trajectory through Connally's torso is entirely wrong for both of those.
And you still refuse and refuse and refuse to explain how "Skinny" and
his friends ran right past your bridge shooter as he was talking onto
the bridge in the opposite direction without plainly seeing him carrying
the rifle. You also still refuse and refuse and refuse to admit that it
was you, not me, who had the directions in Dealey Plaza entirely wrong.
You wanna talk about kooks? They are quite obviously the only people
who would take most of your claims seriously. Even the majority of your
own fellow CTs don't support you, as is plain from their responses here.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 30, 2012, 4:43:39 PM10/30/12
to
Of course, I knew, John Reagor King, that you would be unable to rise to the challenge of differentiating light from darkness, but I needed the laugh. Thank you, sir.
0 new messages