>>>6.5 mm spot, Government *PLANT*, LGBOH wound, all RIP<<<
eca...@tx.rr.com
Mr Canal your answer to my request for you to
please explain how you came by the knowledge
that only *ONE* x-ray was *ALTERED* by the
government in an effort to make it look like the
shot came from the rear was,
"It's an old theory that I simply subscribe to."<==Verbatim quote
Now you are seriously trim'n your sails again with
a semi surprising response to what appears to be
a solid explanation that the 6.5 mm spot may very
well have been a 5-5.5mm spot with no sinister intent
after all it seems.. (wow!)
To this convincing revelation you respond with,
" I didn't come up with that "tag", 6.5 mm opacity....
I've just gone along with it."<=====Verbatim quote
::poof:: All those yrs of study and hopes that the
Discovery or History Channel would someday take
a look at your 6.5 mm opacity" appear to be down
the drain.. And you appear to have gone down
without much of a whimper..
I'm not rubbing it in.. Well maybe I am but
isn't this:
* LGBOH wound RIP
* LBOH wound RIP
* GRR wound (gaping right rear) RIP
* 6.5 mm RIP
* Government *plant* RIP
* Ebersole *plant* RIP
* Dozens of LBOH eye witnesses RIP
* Government trying to make it look like a rear shot" RIP
*********************
"Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
- John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
*********************
But then on your way out the door you resort to the
same weak attempt to save face that you have used
thrice on me when I cornered you,
"We disagree about this issue and many others......
and will neveragree...so let's do just like we always
do and agree to disagree."<===Canal emergency exit line
You've had a bad couple weeks JC.. Spin your way
out of that one..
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 2246Apr1807
eca...@tx.rr.com
JC I sense you started a new thread in an effort to
dump my points in the trailer below.. Please don't
do that. AND BTW why don't you cut&paste like others
do? It could save you a lot of embarrassment JC.
CANAL ON: ------------------
"But now that you brought it up, the evidence record
(which you're apparently not familiar with) is
crystal clear, IMHO, that the 6.5 mm opacity was
planted. That said, the importance is that it shows
the lengths the government would go to to make
absolutely certain the medical evidence showed it was
consistent with a shot from the sixth floor of the
TSBD."
- John Canal April 14, 2007 10:21 pm
CANAL OFF -----------------
JC you say "the 6.5 mm opacity was (gULp) *planted*
yet you run for cover when I ask why the government
and Ebersole would *plant* the 6.5 mm spot on only
**ONE** x-ray.
CANAL ON:--------
"Paul Seaton and I (maybe others, but I don't recall
any) several years ago posited that, even though the
fatal was bullet fired from the SN and struck JFK in
the BOH, a piece of right-rear scalp, with bone
adhered to it, moved out of its natural anatomic
position just prior to C. Hill seeing what he
describes as a "gaping right-rear wound"....after he
climbed up on the back of the limo. And, that gaping
wound was still there for many other Parkland
witnesses to see when JFK was brought into the ER."
CANAL OFF----------
JC this is your opinion. Nothing more. If I say the Z
film and autopsy photos don't show a LGBOH wound, I can
offer clear and convincing evidence.. In fact a pattern
of 3 different modes (series) of photographic *proof*
You primarily offer only your opinion. Then you post a quote
from C. Hill without including the fact he later
amplified in more detail what he really meant in National
Geographic and you FAILED to include that clarification
even though you KNEW about it!!
(A *dreadful* credibility destroying tactic on your part)
CANAL ON:------------
"I asked you if, considering that Boswell admitted
replacing pieces of rear skull BEFORE the skull x-rays
and that those x-rays were taken shortly after the body
arrived, you agree the body must have arrived with
some rear skull pieces out of place?
AND YOUR ANSWER WHICH I DECODED FROM ALL THE DANCING
AROUND WAS A, "NO".
CANAL OFF-------------
Mr Canal see if you can "decode" this:
I said no such thing.
JC this is why you keep getting into trouble by
paraphrasing your opinion of what others meant and
what you think the evidence really means.
Translation: CUT&PASTE like myself and others do.
Here's an example:
*********************
"Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
- John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
*********************
You'll note I included your comments in the trailer below.
BTW, did you even read my opening subject post?
(It's above.)
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 1020Apr1907
On Apr 19, 6:46 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 1. The 6.5 mm opacity. You asked me how I came by the knowledge that
> particular x-ray was altered.
>
> Here you distort and twist statements once again. It's [the addition of
> the 6.5 mm opacity to the AP] a theory detailed by Dr. Mantik...I didn't
> come by the initial evidence that shows it undoubtedly was added, he did.
> I subscribe to it and have added to it, that's all. That should anser your
> question that you said I failed to answer.
>
> 2. I asked you if, considering that Boswell admitted replacing pieces of
> rear skull BEFORE the skull x-rays and that those x-rays were taken
> shortly after the body arrived, you agree the body must have arrived with
> some rear skull pieces out of place?
>
> AND YOUR ANSWER WHICH I DECODED FROM ALL THE DANCING AROUND WAS A, "NO".
>
> So are you really saying Boswell lied under oath....or that pieces of rear
> skull were not out of place when the body arrived, but somehow they were
> prompting Boswell to replace them shortly after the body arrived.
>
> This is a very revealing answer by you...it tells me and those sensible
> lurkers that you cannot grasp re_ _ _ t _XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> (censored so this post will make it to the board).
>
> I'm wasting my time agruing with you...and just like I didn't answer the
> NGer positing the "Greer did it" theory, I'll not reply to any more of
> your posts....maybe someone else will....God give them patience.
>
> 3. You twisted my words again when you said I implied Chad agreed with me.
> I simply stated you should read it and that he opined the evidece showed
> the rear bone pieces could have "unlatched" in DP leading to a wound as
> described.
>
> I REPEAT, HE SAID "COULD HAVE" AND YOU SAY I"VE "SUDDENLY" CHANGED WHAT HE
> SAID TO "COULD HAVE".........THAT SAID,
>
> WOULD YOU FOR THE SAKE OF HONESTY EITHER SHOW ME WHERE I SAID CHAD OPINED
> THERE WAS A WOUND AS DESCRIBED OR ADMIT YOU EITHER LIED OR MADE A MISTAKE?
>
> 4. Once again, yes I agree ***YOUR*** LBOH should RIP...BECAUSE FOR THE
> UMPTEENTH TIME, COMPARED TO THE TOP/RIGHT/FRONT BLOW-OUT WOUND IT WASN'T
> LARGE AS IN YOUR SILLY ACRONYM, LBOH.!!!!!!!!!!!! I picture it as no
> bigger than the size of a small fist and it could have been as small as,
> let's say a quarter....no one can ever be certain....especially
> considering how much the body was jostled around.
>
> 5. You said the "government was trying to make it look like a rear shot"
> IMO, YOU BEEN LISTENING TO TOO MANY CHUBBY CHECKER SONGS...I never said
> that...I opined they (and meant Ebersole and a handfull of others) added
> the 6.5 mm opacity to make it look like the shot didn't come from the
> rear-ground-level but from six floors up. You do the twist far too much
> for me.
>
> I better quit now before I say something that get this sent to the trash
> heap instead of to the board.
>
> John Canal
John McAdams
John appears to be ignoring what Hill told National Geographic: that
the wound was "above the ear."
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
>John appears to be ignoring what Hill told National Geographic: that
>the wound was "above the ear."
Just for the sake of argument and for now, let's set Hill's WC testimony
and his interview with the NG aside. Now, did Ebersole change his mind as
well. You know the fellow that held the President's head in his hands and
described a gaping BOH wound? Geesh, maybe he got the top of the head
confused with the BOH?
<g>
And, BTW, do you think the 6.5 mm opacity on the AP is a real bullet
fragment?
John C.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"John C, the 6.5 fragment is not really a 6.5 fragment. It is
a 5-5.5 mm fragment above and behind the eye that appears
larger due to magnification. When questioned by the ARRB,
both Humes and Boswell said they believed this fragment
was the one recovered at autopsy. They were correct.
Russell Morgan blew it in 1968 and no one's had the BBs to
admit he was wrong."
pjspeare (April 18 9;02 am) OFF---------
You'll notice I cut&pasted pjspeare's April
18, 9:02 am post. Try it sometime. Can it
be you didn't realize how thoroughly he
dispatched your 6.5 mm theories? You must
have read the entire post because your quite
sheepish rebuttal was, "I didn't come up with
that "tag", 6.5 mm opacity....I've just gone
along with it."
(6.5 mm theory RIP)
JC ON:---------------
"Just for the sake of argument and for now, let's
set Hill's WC testimony and his interview with
the NG aside. Now, did Ebersole change his mind
as well. You know the fellow that held the
President's head in his hands and described a
gaping BOH wound? Geesh, maybe he got the top of
the head confused with the BOH? <g>"
JC OFF--------------
Mr Canal you claimed to have had many more gaping
BOH witnesses. It now appears you are down to
*ONE* Incidentally you never answered why the
government and Ebersole would have ( gULp )
*planted* the 6.5 mm spot on just *ONE* x-ray..
JC how you can continually let your ego or
your dream of having the Discovery and History
Channels one day take a fresh look" at your now
dead 6.5 mm theories is beyond me.. You now appear
to have just *ONE* LBOH wound eyewitness left vs.
three (each one a series) separate and independent
modes of photographic *proof* which overlap and
support each other. None of which show a "gaping
BOH wound."
Ballgame over. LGBOH wound RIP
Ed Cage 0311Apr2007
John Canal
eca...@tx.rr.com says...
To all,
To day Ed Cage cut and pasted pjspeare's April 18 rebuttal to me in which
I'm told that both Humes and Boswell told the ARRB they believed during
the autopsy they recovered the 6.5 mm (PJ says it's 5.5 mm, but we're
talking about the same large roundish opacity on the AP film).
Now, with this new ammunition, Ed seems to be brimming with "Gotcha now,
JC" vim and vigor....and claiming victory ("6.5 mm theory RIP"), again.
ONLY ONE LITTLE PROBLEM: HERE'S HUMES TO THE ARRB, pgs. 213-214
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that
as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these
films. They all were more of the size of these others.
Q. What we're referring to is a fragment that appears to be semicircular.
A. Yeah. I don't know.
************************************
Now, Humes did testify to the WC that he thought he recovered the 6.5 mm
opacity, which he thought was behind the right eye...but, he was lying. He
never recovered any fragment that size....because it wasn't there, like he
recalled to the ARRB, on 11-22-63......that's why the CE-543 fragments
look nothing like the 6.5 mm opacity and that's why there's no mention of
any roundish fragment behind the right eye in the autopsy report.
My point is that this is just another example of Ed Cage arguing about the
medical evidence without knowing it....Does anyone fault me for
discontinuing my discussions with him?
>pjspeare ON:----------
>"John C, the 6.5 fragment is not really a 6.5 fragment. It is
>a 5-5.5 mm fragment above and behind the eye that appears
>larger due to magnification. When questioned by the ARRB,
>both Humes and Boswell said they believed this fragment
>was the one recovered at autopsy. They were correct.
>Russell Morgan blew it in 1968 and no one's had the BBs to
>admit he was wrong."
>pjspeare (April 18 9;02 am) OFF---------
>
>You'll notice I cut&pasted pjspeare's April
>18, 9:02 am post. Try it sometime. Can it
>be you didn't realize how thoroughly he
>dispatched your 6.5 mm theories? You must
>have read the entire post because your quite
>sheepish rebuttal was, "I didn't come up with
>that "tag", 6.5 mm opacity....I've just gone
>along with it."
> (6.5 mm theory RIP)
*******************************************************
NOW, HERE ARE HIS WORDS OF WISDOM, RE. MY QUESTION TO DR. McAdams:
>JC ON:---------------
>"Just for the sake of argument and for now, let's
>set Hill's WC testimony and his interview with
>the NG aside. Now, did Ebersole change his mind
>as well. You know the fellow that held the
>President's head in his hands and described a
>gaping BOH wound? Geesh, maybe he got the top of
>the head confused with the BOH? <g>"
>JC OFF--------------
>
>Mr Canal you claimed to have had many more gaping
>BOH witnesses. It now appears you are down to
>*ONE*
Well, not exactly...in fact miles from the truth....AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!! Read
this: j The right-rear BOH wound eyewitnesses still include C. Hill, about
20 something Parkland doctors and other personnel, and Dr. Ebersole.
The reason I wanted to ask Dr. McAdams about Ebersole is that he [Dr.
McAdams] has criticized what C. Hill and just about all the Parkland
witnesses said (not that I agree one iota with his criticisms)...BUT HE,
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE HASN'T "YET" MENTIONED ANYTHING CONDEMING WHAT
EBERSOLE SAID ABOUT SEEING A GAPING BOH WOUND. THAT'S WHY I ASKED ABOUT
EBERSOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this is a case of him simply twisting what I said...again, I hope
nobody here faults me for not responding to him anymore.
*****************************
No here he goes with this B/S:
Cage on:
>Incidentally you never answered why the
>government and Ebersole would have ( gULp )
>*planted* the 6.5 mm spot on just *ONE* x-ray.
Cage off.
I told him that Ebersole noticed an opacity in the cowlick on the lateral
film that matched up conviently/nicely with where he put the 6.5 mm
opacity on the AP film...IOW, there was no need to alter both the AP and
the lateral...just the AP.
It should be mentioned that the optical density of the so-called cowlick
opacity on the lateral film is not nearly consistent with being metal.
When I asked Dr. Wecht some years ago why the HSCA apparently didn't take
OD readings, he said something like, "Ya know, I've always been suspicious
about that roundish fragment."
**********************
>JC how you can continually let your ego or
>your dream of having the Discovery and History
>Channels one day take a fresh look" at your now
>dead 6.5 mm theories is beyond me..
Of course it is.
>You now appear
>to have just *ONE* LBOH wound eyewitness left
???????????????????????????????
>vs. three (each one a series) separate and independent
>modes of photographic *proof* which overlap and
>support each other. None of which show a "gaping
>BOH wound."
Ed's "proof":
1. The BOH photo.
But this is a photo taken later in the autopsy after the brain had been
removed.....thus, it shows a scalp being pulled up over pretty much NO
REAR SKULL DOWN TO NEAR THE EOP....JUST LIKE BOSWELL TESIFIED AND
ILLUSTRATED. Also, I've never said that parts of the rear scalp were
missing..but Ed seems to think this photo proves there no piece of
fragmented rear could possibly have moved out of position (sometime
between the time C. Hill got up onto the limo and when JFK arrived in
TR1). Go figure.
2. The skull x-rays.
But Boswell testified that he replaced pieces of rear skull BEFORE the
x-rays...but Ed apparently thinks that the fact the rear skull pieces were
all in place for the x-rays "PROVES" none of them could possibly have been
out of place in Dallas...or even at Bethesda, before Boswell replaced
them.
Let me add something that should be obvious. If Boswell replaced pieces of
rear skull before the skull x-rays and these x-rays were taken shortly
after the body arrived....then common sense should tell us that pieces of
rear skull were out of place when the body arrived.....ESPECIALLY
CONSIDERING THAT C. HILL AND ABOUT 20 OR SO MEDICALLY TRAINED PERSONNEL AT
PARKLAND, AS WELL AS EBERSOLE AT BETHESDA, SAID THEY SAW A BOH
WOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ************************
3. The Zapruder film.
Cage thinks because the Z-film doesn't show any LBOH (as in large BOH
wound...which he insists on calling it) there was no wound as described by
the many eyewitnesses.
In the first place, I've been trying to get across to him that the BOH
wound was undoubtedly much much smaller than the top/right/front blow-out
wound..but I can't seem to reach him on that.
Anyway, while I believe the rear skull was fragmented at Z-312-313 by the
bullet penetrating near the EOP, and there may have been some brain matter
exuding out a gap or two between one or two of those rear skull fragments
that moved out of position right after he was hit, I THINK THAT THE BOH
WOUND WAS DRAMATICALLY INCRESED IN SIZE DUE TO THE FACT HIS BODY/HEAD WAS
JOSTLED AROUND QUITE A BIT BETWEEN THE TIME HE WAS HIT AND WHAN HE ARRIVED
IN TR1.
At one point, I believe Cage tried to say I backed off my BOH wound claim
and was positing a wound under the scalp...IOW, not visible. This was
another distortion...I've always said the BOH wound was visible...meaning
the rear scalp had a tear in it...allowing brain tissue to exude out and
be visible, again, through the tear in the rear scalp and gap/s between
one or two "moved" pieces of rear skull. **************************
>Ballgame over. LGBOH wound RIP
My advice to you, sir is to ___________________...nah, I won't go there.
John Canal
Peter Fokes
wrote:
No.
No.
>*****************************
>
>No here he goes with this B/S:
>
>Cage on:
>
>>Incidentally you never answered why the
>>government and Ebersole would have ( gULp )
>>*planted* the 6.5 mm spot on just *ONE* x-ray.
>
>Cage off.
>
>I told him that Ebersole noticed an opacity in the cowlick on the lateral
>film that matched up conviently/nicely with where he put the 6.5 mm
>opacity on the AP film...IOW, there was no need to alter both the AP and
>the lateral...just the AP.
>
>It should be mentioned that the optical density of the so-called cowlick
>opacity on the lateral film is not nearly consistent with being metal.
>When I asked Dr. Wecht some years ago why the HSCA apparently didn't take
>OD readings, he said something like, "Ya know, I've always been suspicious
>about that roundish fragment."
> **********************
>
>>JC how you can continually let your ego or
>>your dream of having the Discovery and History
>>Channels one day take a fresh look" at your now
>>dead 6.5 mm theories is beyond me..
>
>Of course it is.
Way beyond .... in The Outer Limits!
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <1177057044.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Fault you? You know, dear heart, there are those of us who have been
hoping, praying, telling you to not waste your time for weeks now.<g>
You gave it a valiant try --- and it's obvious which of the two of you
actually knows the evidence and is capable of real discussion and
exchange.
And that clearly is YOU.
I don't think he's so much as actually answered even one of your
direct questions.
We all get that picture ... and I know you do too. You've got nuthin'
to prove to anybody where "discussion" with Ed is concerned. And, as
has been the case in the past, I doubt many are even following his
posts.
Go play a round!
Barb :-)
John Canal
says...
Thanks Barb, you've been supporting me right along...especially means a
lot coming someone who knows the ev. as well as you.
>Go play a round!
I think I will. :-)
And Peter, thanks to you as well.
John C.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Mr Canal did you even read any of this?:
pjspeare ON:----------
"John C, the 6.5 fragment is not really a
6.5 fragment. It is a 5-5.5 mm fragment
above and behind the eye that appears
larger due to magnification. When
questioned by the ARRB, both Humes and
Boswell said they believed this fragment
was the one recovered at autopsy. They
were correct. Russell Morgan blew it in 1968
and no one's had the BBs to admit
he was wrong."
pjspeare (April 18 9;02 am) OFF---------
You'll notice I cut&pasted pjspeare's April
18, 9:02 am post. Try it sometime. Can it
be you didn't realize how thoroughly he
dispatched your 6.5 mm theories? You must
have read the entire post because your
quite sheepish rebuttal was, "I didn't come up
with that "tag", 6.5 mm opacity....I've just gone
along with it."
(6.5 mm theory RIP)
JC ON:---------------
"Just for the sake of argument and for
now, let's set Hill's WC testimony and his
interview with the NG aside. Now, did
Ebersole change his mind as well. You know
the fellow that held the President's head
in his hands and described a gaping BOH
wound? Geesh, maybe he got the top of
the head confused with the BOH? <g>"
JC OFF--------------
Mr Canal you claimed to have had many
more gaping BOH witnesses. It now appears
you are down to *ONE* Incidentally you
never answered why the government and
Ebersole would have ( gULp ) *planted* the
6.5 mm spot on just *ONE* x-ray..
JC how you can continually let your ego
or your dream of having the Discovery and
History Channels one day "take a fresh look"
at your now dead 6.5 mm theories is beyond
me.. You now appear to have just *ONE* LBOH wound
eyewitness left vs. three (each one a series) separate
and independent modes of photographic *proof* which
overlap and support each other. None of which show a
"gaping BOH wound."
Ballgame over. LGBOH wound RIP
Your only "support" is from Barb :-) who has
described her "conspiracy theory" as being
"confused as to why Oswald may have
helped set himself up" after her yrs long Dal Tex
shooter theory (RIP) died an abrupt and
complete death. Your LGBOH and LBOH wound
theories are dead as is your 6.5 mm theory.
Yet you carry on as if nothing has happened
describing the now meaningless trajectory of
Oswald's 313 round. Barb exclaims you are
"burning rubber" but you'll note she is the ONLY ONE
who sees what has happened to you in the last 3
weeks quite that way.. I feel sorry for you that
your dream of the Discovery and History Channel's
will never take a "fresh look at your 6.5 mm opacity
theory" but like Barb, you have largely brought this
public downfall upon yourself.
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 2116Apr2007
On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1177057044.293228.160...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> ecag...@tx.rr.com says...
> >> John C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
out when all escape routes have finally been
exhausted..)
JC ON:-------------
"My point is that this is just another example
of Ed Cage arguing about the medical evidence
without knowing it....Does anyone fault me for
discontinuing my discussions with him?"
JC OFF--------------
Translation: Yet another (FIFTH) JC quick
EMERGENCY EXIT when his LGBOH wound theory
fails once again..
Mr Canal you now appear to have just *ONE*
LBOH wound eyewitness left vs. three (each one
a series) separate and independent modes of
photographic *proof* which overlap and support
each other. None of which show a "gaping BOH
wound."
Ballgame over. LGBOH wound RIP
6.5 mm theory RIP
*********************
"Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
- John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
*********************
Ed Cage 2141Apr2007
On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1177057044.293228.160...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> ecag...@tx.rr.com says...
John Canal
never seen anyone embarrass themselves the way you have in these threads
these past weeks.
Cage on:
>Your only "support" is from Barb :-)
Cage off:
Canal on:
"Only"? That's a ton of support mister. She has forgotten more about the
evidence in this case than you'll ever know if you live to be 100.
I've been advised that it's not worth my time to debate you and I agree.
Anyway, why don't you go over to Alt.Conspiracy? Heck, it sounds like
you've got a couple of invitations to do so......at least you'll have
someone there to debate you.
Canal off.
[....]
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>I've never seen such B/S on this NG before, so I'm snipping it...and I've
>never seen anyone embarrass themselves the way you have in these threads
>these past weeks.
Perhaps you simply were not reading some of the posts Ed submitted in
recent years. His responses to you are "prime Ed".
Barb and I (and others) have had to weather this nonsense plenty of
times in the past.
>Cage on:
>
>>Your only "support" is from Barb :-)
>
>Cage off:
>
>Canal on:
>
>"Only"? That's a ton of support mister. She has forgotten more about the
>evidence in this case than you'll ever know if you live to be 100.
>
>I've been advised that it's not worth my time to debate you and I agree.
>
>Anyway, why don't you go over to Alt.Conspiracy? Heck, it sounds like
>you've got a couple of invitations to do so......at least you'll have
>someone there to debate you.
>
>Canal off.
>
>[....]
>
>>MR ;~D
>>Ed Cage 2116Apr2007
PF
David Von Pein
wounds are simplified by Dr. James Humes himself, via his very first
post-1964 interview, which he gave to CBS in June 1967.
Is Humes being "coerced" into saying these things (printed below) on
nationwide TV? Anyone believing that Humes is lying here should be
locked up with R.P. McMurphy....because Humes didn't have a gun to his
head when it came to his obviously-VOLUNTARY appearance and statements
that he made to CBS' Dan Rather in '67, shown below.
These statements by JFK's chief autopsist prove there was NOT a large
BOH wound in President Kennedy's head. Such a large BOH wound just did
not exist! And Humes' statements also prove beyond all doubt there was
only ONE single wound of entry on JFK's head, and it was in the rear
of the head, bevelled inward. .....
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
This doesn't have anything to do with the overall extent of the head
wound!
There WAS only one entry wound in the back of the head ... who
quibbles with that? Not I. Not John Canal.
Humes and friends made the overall extent of the wound clear at
autopsy .... with their drawing and measurements ... and when they
noted in testimony that the entry wound was only partially present at
the outset of the autopsy and from there above bone was missing. They
placed that entry at the EOP. And, as noted to the FPP for the HSCA,
the BOH photo we all know and love does not show all the destruction
to the back of the head because, in that photo, scalp is being help UP
and obscuring the bony defect.
The autopsy reported the bottomline .... where the bullet went in and
the area where it came out. They did not report or detail the overall
destruction that encompassed most of the right side of his head.
Barb :-)
eca...@tx.rr.com
6 star you'd have earned it.. But as you
know as well as I do, those who have a
predetermined agenda to salvage the LGBOH
wound or that extra nutty theory that the
"government *planted* the 6.5 mm spot on
only ONE x-ray tend to go down kicking and
screaming.. Their ego is at stake not to
mention some "dream" that there will be
future cone studies on the Dal-Tex bldg.
(Hello Barb:-) or JC's dream that the
Discovery and History Channels might/may
someday "take a fresh look" at these
primarily ego-orientated theories..
It's not gonna happen Barb & John C.
Do like the rest of us do and I did when I
was wrong on my blind faith in my friend
and co-worker Travis Linn.
Admit it when you are wrong. And here I
must give some credit to Mr Canal for his
belated admission:
*********************
"Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
- John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
*********************
LGBOH wound RIP -- 6.5 mm theory RIP
Mr ;~D
Ed Cage 1622Apr2107
eca...@tx.rr.com
in my view..
Ed
On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1177057044.293228.160...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> ecag...@tx.rr.com says...
John Canal
Pein says...
<TOP POST>
David,
Read carefully what Humes is said. All that he said is that there was only
one entrance wound (which, BTW, I've noticed you've been careful all along
not to commit yourself on where in the BOH that entry was...cowlick or
near-EOP).
This is just what happened when they wrote their autopsy report and
testified to the WC, i.e. they just didn't volunteer any information, nor
were they asked any questions, about whether or not there was a, let's
say, small-fist-size opening in the BOH WITH THE SMALLER ENTRY BEING IN
THE LOWER MARGIN OF THAT SMALL-FIST-SIZE HOLE. IOW, Rather didn't ask him
something like, "Dr. Humes, considering that just about everybody knows
about the reports by the many Parkland doctors saying there was a, let's
say fist-size, hole in the right rear of his head, can you tell us
unambiguously, if there was indeed one like that"?
David, read the WC testimony and the autopsy report...they avoided and
mention of the BOH...except for the entry.
You can take it to the bank that the entry near the EOP was split in half
by a large fracture (see Boswell'd dwg of the piece of bone with the top
half of the entry on his face sheet). Parallel to that (see the cpy of the
lateral x-ray) is another large transverse fracture....I believe at least
this piece of skull, between those fractures, moved...most likely when he
was being jostled about prior to arriving in TR1. Besides, the fractures,
I believe the scalp was torn allowing brain tissue to exude and be visible
through the opening.
Now, this is key. Boswell said he replaced some rear skull pieces before
the skull x-rays....and, considering those x-rays were taken just after
the body arrived, then it's only common sense to conclude that the rearson
so many Parkland MDs reported seeing a right-rear hole is because there
was such a wound when the body was in TR1 and when it arrived at Bethesda.
Now, for give me for rattling on like this, but, IMHO, the autopsists were
mum on the existance of a wound like that because they and, probably their
superiors, were afrid it could be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal
shot. The last thing this nation needed at the time was here about some
sort of evidence confirming there had been an assassination conspiracy.
It wasn't until the ARRB that the autopsy docors opened up. Boswell with
his stunning revelation about replacing rear skull pieces before the skull
x-rays, about there being no bone all the way down to near the EOP behind
the scalp in the BOH photos, and about the piece of skull he drew on his
face sheet fitting onto the entry. Then there was Humes finally saying he
didn't recall seeing the "6.5 mm opacity" on the film on 11-22-63.....hey,
this means he either lied to the ARRB or to the WC when he said he thought
he, not only saw it during the autopsy, but recovered it....take your
choice. For me, however, the evidence is overwhelming...that the 6.5 mm
thing wasn't there on 11-22-63.
Well, you've probably fell asleep so I better quit.
Oh, one more comment. The "conservative wing" from the LN camp, which Dr.
McAdams pretty much epitomizes and includes folks like yourself and
cddraftsman (who I think tend to stay the line), IMO, wouldn't have the
same conclusions about the head wounds had the HSCA had the benefit of
hearing the revelations the autopsy doctors dropped on the world during
their ARRB testimonies.
Now, I'm getting set for some wonderfully thought out responses to this
from A. Marsh....which I won't be in any hurry to reply to.
John Canal
John Canal
says...
>
>On 21 Apr 2007 16:53:17 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>This doesn't have anything to do with the overall extent of the head
>wound!
>
>There WAS only one entry wound in the back of the head ... who
>quibbles with that? Not I. Not John Canal.
>
>Humes and friends made the overall extent of the wound clear at
>autopsy .... with their drawing and measurements ... and when they
>noted in testimony that the entry wound was only partially present at
>the outset of the autopsy and from there above bone was missing. They
>placed that entry at the EOP. And, as noted to the FPP for the HSCA,
>the BOH photo we all know and love does not show all the destruction
>to the back of the head because, in that photo, scalp is being help UP
>and obscuring the bony defect.
>
>The autopsy reported the bottomline .... where the bullet went in and
>the area where it came out. They did not report or detail the overall
>destruction that encompassed most of the right side of his head.
>
>Barb :-)
Exactly and well put Barb. Too bad P. Seaton isn't involved in this...if
he were we'd have them surrounded. <g>
In my reply to David VP earlier, which hasn't made it to the board yet, I
forgot to ask him a question that Cage and cddraftsman, not to my
surprise, brushed off. That question was, "Doesn't it raise any flags for
you at all that, what could have been arguably ***TWO** of the most
important autopsy photos, were, evidently, never taken......and those
would have been a photo of the BOH the moment the body was first received
and one of the BOH (FROM THE REAR) as soon as the scalp was reflected.
Heck, Stringer's camera was smoking there were so many pics taken...but
why not those I mentioned? An oversite? You can buy that, not I.
Proof of the BOH wound? No, I agree...but an event consistent with that
happening....the one Barb, myself, and P. Seaton have been arguing (for
years) happened.
John C.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"Proof of the BOH wound? No, I agree..."
~~~Sail Trim'n 101~~~
The Evolution of the
LGBOH wound
To the gapping Right Rear head wound,
To the LBOH wound and finally...
We have the "BOH" wound (above) which
technically could be the bullet hole.
This on the heals of your C. Hill "gaping
Right Rear" quote when you KNEW he had
amplified and clarified his position on the
matter in National Geographic and failed to
reveal that fact!!
(You and Barb are sinking deeper JC..)
Ed Cage 2046Apr2107
On Apr 21, 7:37 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <rr7l23hvgtqmmhuqqeucn9itpj89cf8...@4ax.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 21 Apr 2007 16:53:17 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
Anthony Marsh
> On 21 Apr 2007 16:53:17 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> This doesn't have anything to do with the overall extent of the head
> wound!
>
> There WAS only one entry wound in the back of the head ... who
> quibbles with that? Not I. Not John Canal.
>
I quibble with it. There was no entry wound anywhere on the back of the
head.
David Von Pein
=========================
>>> "Read carefully what Humes said {during the 1967 CBS Special}. All that he said is that there was only one entrance wound (which, BTW, I've noticed you've been careful all along not to commit yourself on where in the BOH that entry was...cowlick or near-EOP)." <<<
You're right, I haven't committed to an exact location. Mainly because
I truly don't think it matters a darn bit.
The key fact is that all the doctors agree that there was ONLY ONE
entry wound at the back of the head (regardless of the exact square
inch on the head). This fact proves that the one and only head shot
had to have come from the REAR, not from the front (knoll).
>>> "David, read the WC testimony and the autopsy report...they avoided any mention of the BOH...except for the entry." <<<
Yes, and there's a very good reason for that, IMO. And that reason is:
Because there was no real REASON to mention the "BOH" except with
respect to the one small entry wound in the BOH.
IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
the body?
The whole argument over any potential "Large BOH" wound is really
pretty much a moot point altogether, due to the undeniable FACT that
President Kennedy sustained just the ONE gunshot wound to his head,
and that shot definitely came from the rear (consistent with having
come from the TSBD and Oswald's rifle, given the bullet fragment taken
from JFK's head that was determined via NAA to have come from Rifle
C2766).
The large exit wound on JFK's head covered a decent-sized area of the
right side of the head, but it was "chiefly parietal", per the autopsy
report and the words of the autopsy doctors.
But the autopsy report also does use the words "occipital" and
"temporal" as well, but the word "somewhat" is also used right in
front of those locations.....
FROM JFK'S AUTOPSY REPORT -- "There is a large irregular defect of the
scalp and skull on the right, involving chiefly the parietal bone but
extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
Now, my next question would be this -- Since the autopsy report and
doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND
ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively
consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of
exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the
President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the
slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any
"BOH" wound (large or small)?
You said that the doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound
they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK
had been shot from the front.
But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even
WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere
to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger
BOH hole.
Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet
striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH), could
obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the
extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet
which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after
entering the skull.
Jackie Kennedy's handling of the President's head during the ride to
Parkland could also have been a partial explanation for any such large
BOH wound. Jackie later confirmed that she was "trying to hold his
head on".
These doctors weren't stupid. One BEVELLED-INWARD entry hole in the
BOH (which we definitely have in this case) and no other signs of ANY
other entry hole anyplace else on the head HAS to mean just what it
does mean -- John Kennedy was shot just once in the head from behind.
Period. No obfuscation required, regardless of where the larger
exiting hole(s) are located.
Now, Vincent Bugliosi, in his upcoming book, could have a different
view than I have regarding all of this "BOH" talk. But one thing's for
certain--Vince will certainly be talking about the one bevelled-in
entry hole at the back of JFK's head, and the total lack of any other
entry wounds on the President's head.
That fact is key and should be placed atop all other "head wound"
facts, and Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly (as I have done in my forum
posts) be greatly emphasizing that fact re. the SINGLE entry hole in
JFK's cranium....which, as I said, pretty much makes all of the "Large
BOH" wound talk a meaningless and moot endeavor altogether.
In fact, Mr. Bugliosi has already talked about that very thing, during
the 1986 TV Docu-Trial.....
"The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.
"If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?
"Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; 1986
~~~~~~
There's also this interesting portion of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition
(re. the cerebellum)....
DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the
cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But
they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of
compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut
the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting
the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the
cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
really very simple to take out."
QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
~~~~~~
To summarize:
In my opinion, there was no "large BOH" wound in President Kennedy's
head. The sum total of hard, verifiable evidence just does not support
such a massive "BOH" wound.
1.) The autopsy report doesn't support such a large BOH wound.
2.) The autopsy doctors' statements do not support such a BOH wound
(and Boswell's statements to the ARRB seem quite confused and muddled,
IMO; lots of confusion there, as he tries to remember exactly what
happened, in perfect sequence, 33 years after the events took place).
3.) The autopsy photos do not support such a large BOH wound.
4.) And the Zapruder Film does not support a large BOH wound.
The Parkland witnesses do tend to support such a large BOH wound,
granted. And those witnesses have bothered me greatly over the years.
I cannot deny that fact.
But I also think there could be a reasonable explanation for those
witnesses claiming to see what they said they saw at Parkland Hospital
(while never turning the body over, of course).
More about that subject in this review of Jim Moore's book (Moore,
btw, has a very silly explanation to explain away all of the Parkland
witnesses).....
Now, I suppose it's possible that I'm dead-wrong, and I suppose it's
possible that a large BOH wound did exist on JFK's head on 11/22/63.
But even WITH such a wound present on JFK's head, conspiracy theorists
who think such a wound at the FAR RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was
caused by a FRONTAL gunshot still have a huge hurdle to overcome --
that hurdle being: Where is the ENTRY wound for any such frontal shot?
Do CTers think the parietal exit wound that resulted from Oswald's
from-the-rear head shot miraculously masked the entry hole for a
frontal shot?
Did the plotters truly get THAT lucky, yet again? Much in the same way
those same Patsy-Framers got incredibly lucky (per many CTers'
beliefs) when two or THREE different bullets caused wounds that just
happened to line themselves up on two victims in a manner that could
even begin to suggest the "SBT"??
Boy, did those conspirators have Lady Luck shining on them that
Friday, if conspiracists want to believe all of that crazy stuff.
Plus: WHERE could a frontal gunman have possibly been located to have
caused only the FAR RIGHT-REAR portion of Kennedy's head to be blown
out by the bullet? Why isn't ANY of the LEFT hemisphere of JFK's head
affected by a shot coming from (per most CTers) the "Badge Man"/Grassy
Knoll area of Dealey Plaza?
That bullet sure did some crazy zig-zagging inside Kennedy's head, it
would seem, if CTers want a wound caused by "Badge Man" to be present
in THIS part of Mr. Kennedy's head.....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3334.jpg
David Von Pein
April 2007
Anthony Marsh
> CTers tend to over-analyze the simplest of things. And the JFK head
> wounds are simplified by Dr. James Humes himself, via his very first
> post-1964 interview, which he gave to CBS in June 1967.
>
> Is Humes being "coerced" into saying these things (printed below) on
> nationwide TV? Anyone believing that Humes is lying here should be
> locked up with R.P. McMurphy....because Humes didn't have a gun to his
> head when it came to his obviously-VOLUNTARY appearance and statements
> that he made to CBS' Dan Rather in '67, shown below.
>
Yes, he did. He was under threat of court martial.
> These statements by JFK's chief autopsist prove there was NOT a large
> BOH wound in President Kennedy's head. Such a large BOH wound just did
> not exist! And Humes' statements also prove beyond all doubt there was
> only ONE single wound of entry on JFK's head, and it was in the rear
> of the head, bevelled inward. .....
>
> DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
> sir."
>
> RATHER -- "And that was where?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
> the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
>
There is no wound there. Only a dab of tissue on top of the hair.
> RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
> front and right side of the President's head."
>
> RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
> describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
> incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
> the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
> characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
> skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
> behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
>
He was lying.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>MORE "BOH" TALK:
Hi there,
You do go on and on below.<g>
Anybody here quibbling about there only being one entry hole in the
BOH? No, certainly not John Canal.
But many, like seemingly you and most LNs equate damage to the back of
the head with a frontal entry .... of course that doesn not
necessarily follow, but perhaps the WC or some others had that fear
too.
As for the autopsists, they finessed much in the autopsy report ...
like the whole back/throat transit that they never actually saw but
made it sound like they had in the autopsy report. On the head wound,
they gave the bottomline ... anentry in the back near the EOP and out
the right front top/side.
But in their autopsy materials, and in their testimonies to the HSCA,
they detailed the overall extent of the wound ..... including that
when they got the scalp all reflected and more pieces fell to the
table, as well as pieces that were just outright missing, what they
had was one huge whole .... an incomplete entry hole with bone forward
of that missing, not in place on the head. Their measurement AT
AUTOPSY reflects that, their testimonies to the HSCA and ARRB reflect
that.
As for the autopsy report talking about "chiefly parietal" but
"somewhat into "occipital" and "temporal" .... indeed they did. From
the way you wrote below one might think you do not understand that
much of the back of the head is made up of parietal bone ... and
temporal bone, as well as occipital bone.
A wound in the right rear of the head, as seen by so many at Parkland,
as well as described and measured by the autopsists, would include
parietal, occipital and temporal bone for that is where those three
types of bone meet up .... the rear of the head behind the ear.
Virtually the entire right side of his cranium was destroyed ...with
10 x 17cm of bone not being in place once they got the scalp reflected
(which allowed more loose opieces to fall to the table).
After they were able to fit a piece of bone back in that completed the
entry notch, and fit as many other pieces back in as possible, then
they had the bottomline that they reported. It is unfortunate that
they did not include that in the autopsy report .... as regards either
the head wound or the back/throat wound. If they had, we wouldn't have
so many circles to go around and around in. But the extent of the
headwound is thoroughly documented in many documents and testimonies.
Read them.
And here's a color coded graphic of the skull for those who may not
realize parietal bone makes up much of the back of the head, and that
tewporal bome does not equal "temple." Pepto Pink is all parietal
bone; Lime green is occipital; Orange is temporal.
Note where parietal, occipital and temporal bone meets up behind the
ear.
http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Module/skull.html
Barb :-)
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>MORE "BOH" TALK:
>
>=========================
>
>>>>"Read carefully what Humes said {during the 1967 CBS Special}. All that he said
>>>>is that there was only one entrance wound (which, BTW, I've noticed you've been
>>>>careful all along not to commit yourself on where in the BOH that entry
>>>>was...cowlick or near-EOP)." <<<
>
>You're right, I haven't committed to an exact location. Mainly because
>I truly don't think it matters a darn bit.
That's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion. For me resolution of
the conflict over the location of the entry wound is important for at
least the following reasons.
1. The "movement" of the entry wound first reported by the Clark Panel and
confirmed by the HSCA has been one of the many suspicious occurances in
this case that have helped convince too many that JFK was the victim of an
assassination conspiracy. IOW, if the LNers are going to ever convince the
general public there was no conspiracy, issues like the entry wound
"movement" must be explained.
2. Because I'm proud of my 21 year military career, I probably take it
more personal than I should when our own government reports that the
reason the autopsy doctors grossly mislocated the entry wound was because
they were not qualified to do an autopsy.
3. The historical record should be as unambiguous as possible...and the
record relating to the location of the fatal entry wound is anything but.
>The key fact is that all the doctors agree that there was ONLY ONE
>entry wound at the back of the head (regardless of the exact square
>inch on the head). This fact proves that the one and only head shot
>had to have come from the REAR, not from the front (knoll).
Yes, that is the key fact...we agree there.
>
>>>>"David, read the WC testimony and the autopsy report...they avoided any mention
>>>>of the BOH...except for the entry." <<<
>
>Yes, and there's a very good reason for that, IMO. And that reason is:
>Because there was no real REASON to mention the "BOH" except with
>respect to the one small entry wound in the BOH.
>
>IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
>JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
>either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
>hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
>the body?
Because a BOH wound that could have been interpreted as being an exit
wound (and an assassination conspiracy) was reported by at least the
Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Hospital even before the
autopsy started. IOW, the autopsy doctors, IMO and in the opinion of many
others, should have addressed this rear exit wound possibility....and they
didn't.
>The whole argument over any potential "Large BOH" wound
It wasn't "large" as compared to the top/right/front blow-out wound.
Rather it was most likely no bigger than a small fist and perhaps as small
as a quarter....no one can ever be certain.
>is really
>pretty much a moot point altogether, due to the undeniable FACT that
>President Kennedy sustained just the ONE gunshot wound to his head,
>and that shot definitely came from the rear (consistent with having
>come from the TSBD and Oswald's rifle, given the bullet fragment taken
>from JFK's head that was determined via NAA to have come from Rifle
>C2766).
>
>The large exit wound on JFK's head covered a decent-sized area of the
>right side of the head, but it was "chiefly parietal", per the autopsy
>report and the words of the autopsy doctors.
Yes, the top/right/front blow-out wound was indeed "chiefly parietal", but
in the face of reports by about a dozen credible witnesses the condition
of the BOH further down, besides the entry wound, should have been
mentioned.
>But the autopsy report also does use the words "occipital" and
>"temporal" as well, but the word "somewhat" is also used right in
>front of those locations.....
>
>FROM JFK'S AUTOPSY REPORT -- "There is a large irregular defect of the
>scalp and skull on the right, involving chiefly the parietal bone but
>extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
Indeed, but finally to the ARRB they testified that the extended wound
went all the way to near the EOP....and that's hardly "somewhat into the
occipital"...it's very far down into the occipital. Aside from their ARRB
testimony and drawings showing that, we can see for ourselves in the
published copies of F8 that the rear bone was loose all the way to near
the EOP.
>Now, my next question would be this -- Since the autopsy report and
>doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND
>ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively
>consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of
>exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the
>President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the
>slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any
>"BOH" wound (large or small)?
Because they didn't say unambiguously that the BOH was undamaged except
for the entry. Here's an analogy. John Doe is in custody and charged with
committing a murder...but the press has widely reported that the murder
was probably committed by Joe Smith. Then later, a press conference is
held by the police and there's no mention whatsoever of any Joe Smith.
My point is that twenty-something medically trained Parkland witnesses,
not to mention C. Hill, had reported seeing a BOH wound that, alarmingly,
suggested there had been a shot from the front...these deep concerns
should have been addressed and put to rest early on...but they weren't.
>You said that the doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound
>they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK
>had been shot from the front.
>
>But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
>described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
>head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
>came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
Yes, I agree that their one shot to the head conclusion should have
satisfied all. That said, any other BOH wound besides the entry would have
begged the question, even by laymen, "Wasn't such a wound suggestive of a
shot from the front"? The autopsy doctors should, IMO, have put all that
speculation to rest when they had the chance and, because they didn't, is
one of the reasons this case, decades after the fact, is still being
debated to death. IOW, a simple satement (if no other BOH wound existed)
like, "The BOH, contrary to many early reports, was undamaged except for
the entry and the large blow-out wound that extended "somewhat" into the
occipital, was undamaged". But the BOH wound reported by the Parkland docs
went way past, "somewhat into the occipital" and went unaddressed.
>
>There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even
>WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere
>to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger
>BOH hole.
Well, that's your opinion and you'll probably receive five stars for it.
Some of us disagree, though...I hope you don't have a problem with that.
>Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet
>striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH), could
>obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the
>extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet
>which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after
>entering the skull.
You may be correct, but the autopsy doctors, IMO, didn't call in
wound-ballistics experts who could have helped them with such an
explanation. So, perhaps, they didn't feel as if their own explanation was
believable. It's the same thing with the entry location. The autopsy
doctors identified a wound near the EOP and an exit that was high in the
head....and a line connecting those two points extended back, not anywhere
close to six floors up, but, rather, to some point near ground level. This
was a major problem for them and what was their solution? To claim JFK's
forward lean was about 50 degrees when they knew dam well it was about
half that. Now, if they had called in a wound-ballistics expert, that
expert probably would have told them that the bullet most likely deflected
up as it penetrated the rear skull...but they tried to handle the issue on
their own...and did a lousy job of it.
>
>Jackie Kennedy's handling of the President's head during the ride to
>Parkland could also have been a partial explanation for any such large
>BOH wound. Jackie later confirmed that she was "trying to hold his
>head on".
I totally agree. Another likely possibility was that one of the
individuals who helped remove JFK from the limo may have held his BOH and,
because the skull was fragmented beneath the scalp, any small opening
could have been enlarged to let's say, the size of a small fist.
The problem is, though, even if the BOH wound was mostly created by Jackie
or whoever may have held his BOH, any wound there, besides the entry,
needed to be addressed.
>These doctors weren't stupid. One BEVELLED-INWARD entry hole in the
>BOH (which we definitely have in this case) and no other signs of ANY
>other entry hole anyplace else on the head HAS to mean just what it
>does mean -- John Kennedy was shot just once in the head from behind.
>Period. No obfuscation required, regardless of where the larger
>exiting hole(s) are located.
I think we've been here earlier...see above.
>Now, Vincent Bugliosi, in his upcoming book, could have a different
>view than I have regarding all of this "BOH" talk. But one thing's for
>certain--Vince will certainly be talking about the one bevelled-in
>entry hole at the back of JFK's head, and the total lack of any other
>entry wounds on the President's head.
Well, no other BOH wounds were mentioned...but that doesn't mean one
didn't exist. I wanted to call VB on this as we communicated several
times, mostly by fax, when I was trying to get my book published...he was
trying to help...I just didn't have the time.
>That fact is key and should be placed atop all other "head wound"
>facts, and Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly (as I have done in my forum
>posts) be greatly emphasizing that fact re. the SINGLE entry hole in
>JFK's cranium....which, as I said, pretty much makes all of the "Large
>BOH" wound talk a meaningless and moot endeavor altogether.
>
>In fact, Mr. Bugliosi has already talked about that very thing, during
>the 1986 TV Docu-Trial.....
>
>"The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
>body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
>pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
>the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
>Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
>Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
>to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.
>
>"If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
>the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
>President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?
>
>"Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
>come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
>Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
>bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; 1986
>
>~~~~~~
That's all well said, and similar remarks are in my book. That being said,
the cooberating reports of twenty-something Parkland doctors, C. Hill, and
Dr. Ebersole about a BOH wound (some reports say, "gaping")
*****deserve****, by virtue, if nothing else, of the credibility and
backgrounds of those witnesses, to be UNAMBIGUOUSLY and DIRECTLY
ADDRESSED, IMO.
>There's also this interesting portion of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition
>(re. the cerebellum)....
>
>DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the
>cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But
>they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of
>compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut
>the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting
>the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the
>cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
>really very simple to take out."
>
>QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
>opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
>QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
>noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "No."
>
>QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
>were intact?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
>~~~~~~
That's fine, but Humes said it was somewhat disrupted. Add to that the
fact that it was stated in the Supplementary Autopsy Report that sections
taken from the right cerebellar cortex showed "extensive disruption of
brain tissue with associated hemorrage". Lastly, and I thank J. Hunt for
pointing this out to me, Humes tesified to the WC that part of the
cerebellum was severely lacerated...but he didn't say cerebellum...rather
he curiously used a not-so-familar medical tag for a lobe within the
cerebellum, the "flocculus cerebri".
>To summarize:
>
>In my opinion, there was no "large BOH"
I wish you wouldn't parrot others with that "Large" part of the
acronym...compared to the blow-out top/right/front, it was undoubtedly not
large, but only at most, the size of a small fist and perhaps smaller than
that. If you feel compelled to say, LBOH wound, that's your choice.
>wound in President Kennedy's
>head. The sum total of hard, verifiable evidence just does not support
>such a massive "BOH" wound.
>
>1.) The autopsy report doesn't support such a large BOH wound.
Even if no BOH wound was reported, the many credible reports of a BOH
wound went unaddressed.
>2.) The autopsy doctors' statements do not support such a BOH wound
>(and Boswell's statements to the ARRB seem quite confused and muddled,
>IMO; lots of confusion there, as he tries to remember exactly what
>happened, in perfect sequence, 33 years after the events took place).
Sure there's some expected confusion, but do you honestly think he didn't
recall replacing pieces of rear skull BEFORE the skull x-rays? This was
extraordinary as far as autopsy procedures go...such an act would have
been unforgettable.
>3.) The autopsy photos do not support such a large BOH wound.
I disagree. While the BOH photos are not really relevant because they show
the scalp being pulled up (much later in the autopsy) over skull missing
down to near the EOP, F8 shows that pieces of rear skull had come loose
down to near the EOP...meaning it should not be a giant stretch of
anyone's imagination to reconcile loose skull fragments with
twenty-something credible reports of a BOH wound.
>4.) And the Zapruder Film does not support a large BOH wound.
If the BOH wound was mostly enlarged because of Jackie's actions (your own
suggestion) or because someone held him by the BOH as he was transferred
to the gurney from the limo, the z-film would have not been revealing.
>The Parkland witnesses do tend to support such a large BOH wound,
>granted. And those witnesses have bothered me greatly over the years.
>I cannot deny that fact.
They bothered the HSCA too...but because of the BOH photos and the x-rays
they were forced to conclude the Parkland docs were wrong. If they knew
that Boswell ahd replaced some rear skull pieces before the skull x-rays
and that the BOH photo was taken after the brain had been removed, I don't
think they would have concluded that the Parkland docs and the other
eyewitnesses were wrong.
>But I also think there could be a reasonable explanation for those
>witnesses claiming to see what they said they saw at Parkland Hospital
>(while never turning the body over, of course).
Some of them lifted his upper body up so they could get a good look at the
BOH.
>More about that subject in this review of Jim Moore's book (Moore,
>btw, has a very silly explanation to explain away all of the Parkland
>witnesses).....
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000HMSIBE&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=ROEPV7B8GNG96&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>Now, I suppose it's possible that I'm dead-wrong, and I suppose it's
>possible that a large BOH wound did exist on JFK's head on 11/22/63.
Chad, whose opinion I greatly respect, but hate like Hell to speak for
him, agrees that a BOH wound, other than the entry, could possibly have
existed.
>But even WITH such a wound present on JFK's head, conspiracy theorists
>who think such a wound at the FAR RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was
>caused by a FRONTAL gunshot still have a huge hurdle to overcome --
>that hurdle being: Where is the ENTRY wound for any such frontal shot?
Of course, but they are spurred on by the fact that the autopsy doctors
did not directly and unambiguously address so many credible reports of
such a wound.
>Do CTers think the parietal exit wound that resulted from Oswald's
>from-the-rear head shot miraculously masked the entry hole for a
>frontal shot?
Some do...but there are some CTs that think Greer did it.
>Did the plotters truly get THAT lucky, yet again? Much in the same way
>those same Patsy-Framers got incredibly lucky (per many CTers'
>beliefs) when two or THREE different bullets caused wounds that just
>happened to line themselves up on two victims in a manner that could
>even begin to suggest the "SBT"??
>
>Boy, did those conspirators have Lady Luck shining on them that
>Friday, if conspiracists want to believe all of that crazy stuff.
>
>Plus: WHERE could a frontal gunman have possibly been located to have
>caused only the FAR RIGHT-REAR portion of Kennedy's head to be blown
>out by the bullet? Why isn't ANY of the LEFT hemisphere of JFK's head
>affected by a shot coming from (per most CTers) the "Badge Man"/Grassy
>Knoll area of Dealey Plaza?
>
>That bullet sure did some crazy zig-zagging inside Kennedy's head, it
>would seem, if CTers want a wound caused by "Badge Man" to be present
>in THIS part of Mr. Kennedy's head.....
Your last transmissions, if they were addressed to me, constitute
"preaching to the choir". :-)
John Canal
eca...@tx.rr.com
of a post? :-)
ON:-------------------------
"To all,
**********************
Of course it is.
???????????????????????????????
Ed's "proof":
1. The BOH photo.
2. The skull x-rays.
3. The Zapruder film.
**************************
John Canal"
OFF------------------------
Mr Canal, in all sincerity this childish
completely unsubstantiated "argument for
the sake of argument" dialog doesn't fit
with your prior dialog at all.. I'd READ
this stuff more carefully before putting
my name under it if I were you.
Ed :-) 1235Apr2207
On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1177057044.293228.160...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> ecag...@tx.rr.com says...
> >> John C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
two qualities which I admire greatly and I
personally strive to achieve in my own posts:
*Objectivity* and the application of common
sense to known evidence.
Here's a few excerpts example of David Von
Pein's post that clearly demonstrate those
two virtues:
I.
The application of Common Sense
to known evidence and the evidence pattern
DVP ON:------------
* "In my opinion, there was no "large BOH" wound in President Kennedy's
head. The sum total of hard, verifiable evidence just does not support
such a massive "BOH" wound.
1.) The autopsy report doesn't support such a large BOH wound.
2.) The autopsy doctors' statements do not support such a BOH wound (and
Boswell's statements to the ARRB seem quite confused and muddled, IMO;
lots of confusion there, as he tries to remember exactly what happened, in
perfect sequence, 33 years after the events took place).
3.) The autopsy photos do not support such a large BOH wound.
4.) And the Zapruder Film does not support a large BOH wound."
II.
*Objectivity*
(Acknowledging & Addressing counter points)
DVP ON:---------------------
"The Parkland witnesses do tend to support such a large BOH wound,
granted. And those witnesses have bothered me greatly over the years.
I cannot deny that fact.
But I also think there could be a reasonable explanation for those
witnesses claiming to see what they said they saw at Parkland Hospital
(while never turning the body over, of course).
More about that subject in this review of Jim Moore's book (Moore, btw,
has a very silly explanation to explain away all of the Parkland
witnesses)....."
Another very fine and *objective* post David..
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 1316Apr2207
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
eca...@tx.rr.com
David Von Pein made:
"IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
the body?"
Ed Cage 1325Apr2207
On Apr 22, 8:19 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
David Von Pein
"temporal" matter. Those areas do go into the back portion of the
human head. This is even a better diagram for separating the various
sections of the skull.....
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/skull3.gif
But it's still hard to fight these words uttered by Dr. Humes in 1967:
"And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- J. HUMES
David Von Pein
"IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of the
body?"
JOHN CANAL SAID:
"Because a BOH wound that could have been interpreted as being an exit
wound (and an assassination conspiracy) was reported by at least the
Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Hospital even before the
autopsy started. IOW, the autopsy doctors, IMO and in the opinion of many
others, should have addressed this rear exit wound possibility....and they
didn't."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Good point (and it's a point that I knew full well was coming shortly
after I wrote my "left foot" analogy above). ;)
My "left foot" comparison isn't quite as compelling as it could have been
under other circumstances, because the "feet" of JFK are, indeed, far
removed from the HEAD, where the President's fatal wounds were located.
And you're correct....my analogy isn't as persuasive in this (JFK) case
due to the Parkland doctors who saw something that the Bethesda doctors
failed to see (or note).
So, on this point, I tend to agree with you....SOME explanation needed to
be put forth on the Bethesda end of the line regarding the Parkland
witnesses' BOH observations. (Okay, so I backpedaled a tad bit on this
point. Maybe I stuck JFK's "left foot" in my own mouth. If somebody wants
to sue me, they'll probably win.)
But in a case as important as the murder of a U.S. President, where two
sets of medical professionals are seeing totally-different things in
Dallas and Washington/(Maryland) on the head of the very same
victim....yes, I think that discrepancy NEEDS and DESERVES to be cleared
up as much as it possibly can be.
>>> "If the BOH wound was mostly enlarged because of Jackie's actions
(your own suggestion) or because someone held him by the BOH as he was
transferred to the gurney from the limo, the Z-film would have not been
revealing." <<<
Another good point indeed. I fully agree. We, obviously, can only see
Z-Film frames that precede any "Jackie handling" of her husband's head.
Of course, as you also know, there are multiple other very good indicators
on the Z-Film that the head shot came from the rear -- e.g., the initial
forward movement of the head from Z312-313....and the tell-tale signs of
that blood spray ALL TO THE FRONT of JFK's head on the film.
This slo-mo Z-Film clip is the best I've ever seen at showing the
undeniable forward head movement at the impact frames....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Sorry, I got slightly off-topic I know. But I wanted to add in those Z-
Film facts just for the record, Your Honor. (Will I be sued a second time
now?) ~grin~
>>> "Your last transmissions, if they were addressed to me, constitute
"preaching to the choir"." <<<
Yes, I realize that. I, again, got slightly off-topic during those wrap-up
"transmissions" in my last post. But when I get wound up in one of my
"This Multi-Gun Patsy Plot Purported By Oliver Stone And Others Is Utter
Nonsense" modes....I just can't stop until the essay reaches its logical
(LN) conclusion.
(A third lawsuit will commence now. I'll be bankrupt at this rate!) ;)
Thanks for the engaging "BOH" conversation, John. I've enjoyed it. And, as
I've stated before, I'm very much looking forward to what Vince Bugliosi
has in store in the BOH regard in his book "Reclaiming History".
Because, in my view, if VB explains those troubling Parkland BOH witnesses
in a reasonable/logical "LN" manner (and he will, of that I have little
doubt), then the rest of the LN case is a literal walk in the park by
comparison.
Regards,
DVP
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Yes, Barb, you are technically correct re. the "parietal" and
I don't have a problem with those words ... what they were able to
identify as bullet exit was to the front right side of the head.
That doesn't mean there wasn't damage elsewhere ... in fact, we know
there was .... nearly aft to fore right of midline was destroyed.
That's all on the right side of the head.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>DVP SAID:
But they weren't seeing totally different things. What the autopsists
saw during the autopsy cooroborates what Parkland saw re the right
rear of the head ... the autopsy diagrams and measurements include the
right rear of the head as where there was damage ..."missing"...on the
face sheet.
The autopsists, with the scalp reflected were able to appreciate the
entire extent of the wound. In Dallas, with lots of hair and blood and
no exploration after death (which was not their place ro do), they
could only see that portion of the wound that was open to them at the
time .... namely, the wound they saw in the right rear of the head
behind the ear. They didn't even see the part of the wound at the open
flap over the ear that is so graphic on the Z film because Jackie had
closed that on the way to the hospital.
>
>
>>>> "If the BOH wound was mostly enlarged because of Jackie's actions
>(your own suggestion) or because someone held him by the BOH as he was
>transferred to the gurney from the limo, the Z-film would have not been
>revealing." <<<
>
>
>Another good point indeed. I fully agree. We, obviously, can only see
>Z-Film frames that precede any "Jackie handling" of her husband's head.
>
>Of course, as you also know, there are multiple other very good indicators
>on the Z-Film that the head shot came from the rear -- e.g., the initial
>forward movement of the head from Z312-313....and the tell-tale signs of
>that blood spray ALL TO THE FRONT of JFK's head on the film.
No one is quibbling over the direction from whence the shot came ....
certainly not John Canal, an LN, and not even me, a CT. :-)
You seem to be equating BOH damage with a shot having come from the
front/side.
Why? A bullet entering the rear could do all that damage ... the whole
right side of his head almost literally exploded.
>
>This slo-mo Z-Film clip is the best I've ever seen at showing the
>undeniable forward head movement at the impact frames....
>
>http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
>
>Sorry, I got slightly off-topic I know. But I wanted to add in those Z-
>Film facts just for the record, Your Honor. (Will I be sued a second time
>now?) ~grin~
>
>
>>>> "Your last transmissions, if they were addressed to me, constitute
>"preaching to the choir"." <<<
>
>
>Yes, I realize that. I, again, got slightly off-topic during those wrap-up
>"transmissions" in my last post. But when I get wound up in one of my
>"This Multi-Gun Patsy Plot Purported By Oliver Stone And Others Is Utter
>Nonsense" modes....I just can't stop until the essay reaches its logical
>(LN) conclusion.
Oh please. Why not just argue (I prefer *discuss*) what's on the table
instead of projecting/injecting/deflecting things that aren't even
being suggested by anyone discussing this?
It's amazin' to me just how strong that "deny BOH damage at all costs
because if it was there it means a shot from the front" doctrine is!
It's a false doctrine! Why not just follow the evidence and see what
it tells you about the overall extent of the wound ... sans a
preconceived conclusion that you *think* makes BOH damage impossible.
Sigh.
>
>(A third lawsuit will commence now. I'll be bankrupt at this rate!) ;)
>
>Thanks for the engaging "BOH" conversation, John. I've enjoyed it. And, as
>I've stated before, I'm very much looking forward to what Vince Bugliosi
>has in store in the BOH regard in his book "Reclaiming History".
>
>Because, in my view, if VB explains those troubling Parkland BOH witnesses
>in a reasonable/logical "LN" manner (and he will, of that I have little
>doubt), then the rest of the LN case is a literal walk in the park by
>comparison.
In a "reasonable/logical 'LN' manner" --- oy. Now just how reasonable
or logical IS such an approach? :-^)
Barb :-)
PS: Aside to John, okay, toots, your turn to talk me out of a tree
.... sigh....
>
>Regards,
>DVP
>
John Canal
Pein says...
>
I know you're responding to Barb, so forgive me for jumping in....couldn't
resist it.
As far as the above quote by Humes in 1967, who's arguing with that? Not
me..not Barb..I don't know of too many that do.
Let me try this approach. You said yourself that the fact there were so
many reports has always bothered you...and that makes sense, even if you
are a non-BOH wound believer. And that's why, IMO, it would take some rock
solid, slam-dunk evidence proving there was no BOH wound...to write off
the BOH wound reports as being all mistaken.
But do we have any evidence like that here? If it exists I'd like to hear
about it, and I've been through the record on this issue somewhat
thoroughly.
You probably disagree with that premise because I know you feel that
because the autopsy doctors made no mention of any BOH wound, aside from
the entry, that constitutes the evidence against any BOH wound I was
referrng to.
Ok, I agree that's some evidence...but IMHO, not the slam-dunk type to
dispell what so many credible eyewitnesses reported seeing.
Let me ask you this key question. "What do you think Boswells motivation
was for replacing some pieces of rear skull before the skull x-rays"?
Before you answer that, let me say that I don't think one has to be a
forensic pathologist to know bones aren't supposed to be rearranged before
any x-rays are taken, especially in a high profile murder case. IOW, what
he did is truly one for the books.
Wouldn't you agree he mst have had a dam good motive for doing something
like that? So what was it? Did he have some extra Super Glue he needed to
use up? No, of course not, but let's just say, for the sake of argument,
that his motive for doing something extraordinary like that was innocent.
Even so, if, for whatever reason, he replaced pieces of rear bone before
the skull x-rays and those films were taken shortly after the body
arrived, I ASK YOU HONESTLY IF IT'S INCONCIEVEABLE TO YOU THAT PIECES OF
REAR SKULL WERE "OUT OF PLACE", NOT ONLY WHEN THE BODY ARRIVED, BUT WHEN
IT WAS IN TRAUMA ROOM 1 AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL, AS WELL.......thus making it
understandable why so many medically trained personnel and other witnesses
said they saw a BOH wound?
Now, as far as Humes not mentioning any BOH wound other than the entry
goes, isn't that consistent with Boswell replacing some pieces of rear
skull and them not taking photos of the BOH when the body was received or
of the BOH from the rear with the scalp reflected? A good case can be made
for them doing these things because they feared a BOH wound would set off
frontal shot alarm bells...EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 100% CERATIN ONLY ONE
BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD AND IT HIT HIM IN THE BOH!
David, if you stand firm that there was no BOH wound after what I've just
said, well, I'm just going to have to leave you to your opinion...that you
are certainly entitled to.
Thanks for listening.
John Canal
John Canal
Pein says...
<TOP POST>
David, if I had read this first, I wouldn't have butted in on your reply to
Barb....sorry about that.
Takes courage and class to back pedal on a point.
As far as VB goes, I'm sure you're rght...I just hope his book doesn't cost too
much.
BTW, you'l not be getting any five stars for this post.
:-)
Take care,
John Canal
John Canal
says...
Are you saying you're not incorrigible?
<VBG>
Actually, I think you'll be able to climb down on this quite soon with great
dignity...as usual.
Bests,
John
>>Regards,
>>DVP
>>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>In article <7vho239u9dtbjabbr...@4ax.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
I guess I havemy mopments too. :-)
>
>Actually, I think you'll be able to climb down on this quite soon with great
>dignity...as usual.
:-)
Moi :-)
>
>Bests,
>
>John
>
>>>Regards,
>>>DVP
>>>
>>
>
James K. Olmstead
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:f0hii...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1177299611.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> Pein says...
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> David, if I had read this first, I wouldn't have butted in on your reply to
> Barb....sorry about that.
>
> Takes courage and class to back pedal on a point.
>
> As far as VB goes, I'm sure you're rght...I just hope his book doesn't cost too
> much.
>
S&S has now reduced the price to just over 20 bucks on their website and
it hasn't even been actually made available to the public yet.....reduced
by over half in price. Amazon still lists it over 30 bucks, but it's still
well below the jacket sticker price. At this rate it should be hitting the
$14.95 range after May....even I can afford that. Perhaps Walmart will
carry it at the $9.99 discount price.
BTW just to add a side note, I watched a program dealing with a gunshot
wound to the head last week....A 14 year old boy, from Dayton, Ohio was
hit in the head, half of his brain and skull was totally destroyed and
removed during the operation to save his life. He lived, finished high
school and graduated community college with only half a brain. Totally
amazing, made me re-consider JFK's odds of living...but only briefly, the
odds were stacked too high against life after his gunshot wound to the
head, regardless of the actual size of any "exterior" wound seen or the
"center" of that wound as seen briefly at Parkland or by those attending
the auptosy, but not actually handling the head.
btw......I did two photographic assignments in Germany for Col Finck, who
was stationed at 97th General Hospital at the time. He assured me JFK was
dead the last time he saw him.....I never contested that statement. Nor
should it be. No debate is going to bring him back.....but conflicts of
the records and proceedures done must be resolved.
John's effort's to set the record straight are without doubt a goal all
should strive for....but few do......IMO they are locked in a mind set
that borders the absurd. The basic rear entry and frontal exit result,
will never be replaced and is not even "contested" in this debate, yet the
details, not even studied by many, will be argued. To quote Barb "Oy".
The primary value to setting the record straight is not a complex
issue....but the actual effort should be left up to the experts, who have
actually made the effort of independent research.
Those of us on the sidelines should support such efforts made by the
experts on both sides, regardless if we support conspiracy or a lone
assassin and keep feet out of mouths, until the issues are resolved by
these experts. No points for either side are made with feet in mouth or
without detailed independent research on the actual details contested.
There are primary issues that can be resolved....or at least accepted by the majority
jko
Barb Junkkarinen
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Well said, as always. A cry of reason muchly needed ... abnd often ...
in this wilderness. No wonder I love you. :-)
BTW, my personal hope is that Bugliosi rises above the level of laying
everything at the feet of the nasty stupid conspiracy believers (as if
we were all fringies, many boobs attached to one befuddled brain, and
that he takes a critical look at the issues that come around again and
again without resolution .... like the BOH thing. He's a good writer,
he's supposedly sharp, and given his experience he should rise above
all that and deal with the issues .... I expect nothing less from the
likes of someone like him. If he punts with the old canards and writes
things that show he hasn't done his homework (cripes, he's certainly
had *long* enough) and fails to take a sincere critical look at the
unresolved issues (like the BOH wound for one) ... I may need to buy
the 2-pack of tums at Costco. :-) I fear that may be the case; I hope
I am wrong.
Barb :-)
>
>
pjsp...@aol.com
agreeing with DVP that the large frag on the x-rays wasn't faked, and
disagreeing with John Canal, who is arguing for a conspiracy. At the
same time, however, I agree with Canal that the entrance wound was
near the EOP.
The Clark Panel was told to explain some of the stuff in Thompson's
book. They sought to explain the trajectory of the bullet in the
skull, which made little sense when one compared CE 388 with Z-312.
When they looked at the brain, furthermore, they saw that the bullet
had not entered at the EOP and exploded upwards. They looked for a
higher entrance. When they noticed the red mark in the cowlick, they
convinced themselves it was the actual entrance. They then relied on
Russell Morgan to interpret the x-rays. He interpreted them to fit
this conclusion. The fragment behind the eye was incorrectly
determined to be on the back of the head, and indicative of a
bullet's breaking up on the skull. I believe the Clark Panel, as the
autopsy doctors in January 67 collapsed under political pressure. No,
scratch that "I believe" stuff. It's obvious.
It;s obvious that the Justice Department never really believed the
Clark Panel's interpretation. If they had, and had truly believed
that the autopsy doctors had misidentified the location of the bullet
entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, and had confirmed this
location TWICE, after reviewing the autopsy photos, how can one
explain the Justice Department's continued use of the autopsy doctors
in important autopsies? Finck, after all, assisted in RFK's autopsy
and testified at the trial of Clay Shaw--AFTER the Clark Panel had
already supposedly exposed him as an incompetent. Boswell, after all,
was called on to assist in MLK's autopsy, and called down to New
Orleans to back up Finck.
FWIW, John Canal, the large fragment in CE 843 is only a part of the
fragment recovered from Kennedy's skull, and as seen on the x-rays.
The fragment was cut up by the FBI for their spectrographic analysis.
The original appearance of the fragment, as far as can be determined,
was captured in a little-seen FBI photograph dredged up from the
archives by John Hunt. It reveals a rounded edge which, when seen at
an angle, could very well give the impression the fragment was
circular.
David Von Pein
I will (again) admit that the BOH situation is my #1 snafu (if I may
be allowed to call it that) in the whole case. And I don't have all
the answers (quite obviously). It's a toughie, no doubt.
But you said something the other day that makes me curious too.....
You said that you'd be willing to accept the idea that a larger-sized
(non-entry) BOH wound at the back of JFK's head was only about the
size of a "quarter". But how would a small BOH wound of that
particular size equate to a much-larger wound that so many Parkland
witnesses claim they saw?
Seems to me there's still a large gap between Parkland and Bethesda if
you're willing to accept merely a "quarter"-sized BOH (non-entry)
wound.
So I'm just wondering how you can reconcile (in your mind) a "quarter"-
sized BOH wound AND the Parkland witnesses who saw nothing nearly that
tiny (per their accounts of the wound)?
I'm still leaning toward the scenario I put on the table earlier (and
has probably been postulated over the years by many other people too
that I am unaware of) -- and that is the very real possibility that
the Parkland witnesses equated the blood and gore that was pooling to
the back of JFK's head to there being a "wound" in that BOH area of
the head.
Now, given that scenario, we're still left to ask another very
important question, and that is this -- Why in the world didn't any of
those Parkland witnesses ALSO see the ACTUAL large "chiefly parietal"
exit wound on the FRONT/RIGHT/TOP of the President's head?
How could every Parkland witness totally MISS seeing the actual exit
wound that we can easily see here?.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
How could some PH witnesses possibly NOT comment on that obvious
disruption at the right/front of JFK's head? It just doesn't make
sense.
UNLESS -- As fate would have it, the rather-incredible scenario
occurred that was outlined previously, i.e., Jackie Kennedy literally
DID PIECE JFK'S HEAD BACK TOGETHER (temporarily anyway, using that
"hinged" flap we can see in some of the autopsy pictures) during the
drive to Parkland Hospital, thereby re-arranging the way the right/
front exit wound appeared to the witnesses inside the Parkland
emergency room....in essence, masking the wound's existence entirely.
I'll admit, that explanation doesn't fully satisfy me either, just as
it probably won't satisfy anyone else. Because even if Jackie DID
"piece" the head back together again in some jimmy-rigged fashion (as
she did say she attempted to do), I'd STILL think that the disruption
of the skull would have been noticed by at least a few Parkland
witnesses on November 22...even WITH the "hinged flap" put back in its
proper place on the head.
But, since we weren't in that Parkland emergency room that day, it's
impossible to know for sure just exactly what JFK's head looked like
to the witnesses who were there.
I'm just trying to use the physical evidence of the President's body
and the autopsy photos (and Jackie's own words as well) to piece
together some kind of logical explanation where, in effect, EVERYBODY
CAN BE RIGHT -- from Parkland to Bethesda.
Regards,
DVP
David Von Pein
Only $32 (take-home price). And that price includes a CD-ROM with
1,100+ pages of additional material too.
IMO, it looks like a heck of a good bargain.
And others think so too (well, at least the editor does) ;) .....
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-02-21-book-buzz_x.htm
http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=9144393
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>Thanks John.
>
>I will (again) admit that the BOH situation is my #1 snafu (if I may
>be allowed to call it that) in the whole case. And I don't have all
>the answers (quite obviously). It's a toughie, no doubt.
>
>But you said something the other day that makes me curious too.....
>
>You said that you'd be willing to accept the idea that a larger-sized
>(non-entry) BOH wound at the back of JFK's head was only about the
>size of a "quarter".
Well I thought I said that was the smallest it could have been, with the
largest size being the size of a small fist. But I also added, we'll never
know. The quarter lower limit is how Dr. Grossman described the size of
the wound and he said he and Dr. Clark lifted the President's head to see
it.
Again, the quarter size I mentioned is based on what Grossman stated, and
that's would have been the absolute minimum.
That said, if one were were to take in to account what all the BOH wound
witnesses said, maybe the size most reported would be about the zize of a
small fist. Note that McClelland, for example approved of a drawing of the
described wound that showed it to be even larger.
It's important to accept that nobody can ever be certain exactly how big
it was. **************
>But how would a small BOH wound of that
>particular size equate to a much-larger wound that so many Parkland
>witnesses claim they saw?
The witnesses who said they saw one larger could be correct.....I just
gave my opinion, based partiall on the fractures seen on the copy of the
lateral x-ray...****BUT****, I NEVER SAW THE BODY, DAVID.
********************** >Seems to me there's still a large gap between
Parkland and Bethesda if >you're willing to accept merely a
"quarter"-sized BOH (non-entry) >wound.
It's just possible...IMO, the BOH wound was probably larger.
************
>So I'm just wondering how you can reconcile (in your mind) a "quarter"-
>sized BOH wound AND the Parkland witnesses who saw nothing nearly that
>tiny (per their accounts of the wound)?
Again, I only said the quarter beause that's what Grossman said...it's
possible he was correct, but it's also possible witnesses who said they
saw a much larger wound could be correct too. We'll never know.
But what you can take to the bank is that, besides the entry hole there
was a visible larger BOH wound.
The HSCA was really the first "authority" to dismiss the reports of the
Parkland witnesses as being incorrect...BUT, FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME,
DAVID, THEY NOT ONLY DIDN'T KNOW THE BOH PHOTO SIMPLY SHOWED A SCALP BEING
PULLED UP OVER THE BOH WITH PIECES OF REAR SKULL OUT DOWN TO NEAR THE
EOP....BUT ALSO DIDN'T KNOW BOSWELL HAD INCREDIBLY REPLACED SOME PIECES OF
REAR SKULL BEFORE THE SKULL X-RAYS WERE TAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!
If they had known all that, I seriously doubt they would have written off
the Parkland BOH reports as being mistaken. **************
>I'm still leaning toward the scenario I put on the table earlier (and
>has probably been postulated over the years by many other people too
>that I am unaware of) -- and that is the very real possibility that
>the Parkland witnesses equated the blood and gore that was pooling to
>the back of JFK's head to there being a "wound" in that BOH area of
>the head.
SO ARE YOU REALL SAYING THAT WHEN BOSWELL SAID HE REPLACED PIECES OF REAR
SKULL SHORTLY AFTER THE BODY ARRIVED...THE REAR SKULL WAS REALLY
UNDAMGED...HE JUST IMAGINED THAT REAR SKULL PIECES NEEDED TO BE
REPLACED??????????????
Good grief!
*********************
>Now, given that scenario, we're still left to ask another very
>important question, and that is this -- Why in the world didn't any of
>those Parkland witnesses ALSO see the ACTUAL large "chiefly parietal"
>exit wound on the FRONT/RIGHT/TOP of the President's head?
The record makes it likely that Jackie pulled the torn, but basically
complete scalp back over the top/right/front huge wound. ***************
>How could every Parkland witness totally MISS seeing the actual exit
>wound that we can easily see here?.....
Can you imagine, while they were trying to save his life them pulling back
the large flap of scalp to expose a huge area of missing skull and
brain????? If they had, you'd have your answer. ************
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
>
>How could some PH witnesses possibly NOT comment on that obvious
>disruption at the right/front of JFK's head? It just doesn't make
>sense.
See above.
But what doesn't make sense is that Boswell replaced pieces of and
undamaged rear skull....THAT'S WHAT DOESN'T MAKE A LICK OF SENSE, DAVID.
*********************
>UNLESS -- As fate would have it, the rather-incredible scenario
>occurred that was outlined previously, i.e., Jackie Kennedy literally
>DID PIECE JFK'S HEAD BACK TOGETHER (temporarily anyway, using that
>"hinged" flap we can see in some of the autopsy pictures) during the
>drive to Parkland Hospital, thereby re-arranging the way the right/
>front exit wound appeared to the witnesses inside the Parkland
>emergency room....in essence, masking the wound's existence entirely.
Evidently, she masked the huge top/right/front wound, but, considering
that one would probably characterize the time in the limo that she had to
move scalp flaps around as being chaotic and limited, I'd say she didn't
have an opportunity to cover the BOH wound. ************ >I'll admit, that
explanation doesn't fully satisfy me either, just as >it probably won't
satisfy anyone else. Because even if Jackie DID >"piece" the head back
together again in some jimmy-rigged fashion (as >she did say she attempted
to do), I'd STILL think that the disruption >of the skull would have been
noticed by at least a few Parkland >witnesses on November 22...even WITH
the "hinged flap" put back in its >proper place on the head.
Remember, they were a little busy...but the BOH wound was apparently
unmasked and so visible they couldn't miss seeing it (as opposed to the
huge one covered up). ************************
>But, since we weren't in that Parkland emergency room that day, it's
>impossible to know for sure just exactly what JFK's head looked like
>to the witnesses who were there.
Well the x-rays, photos, and first hand accounts give us a pretty fair,
albeit not hardly exact, picture. ***************
>I'm just trying to use the physical evidence of the President's body
>and the autopsy photos (and Jackie's own words as well) to piece
>together some kind of logical explanation where, in effect, EVERYBODY
>CAN BE RIGHT -- from Parkland to Bethesda.
You want reconciliation, i.e. hardly any liars or hallucinators among the
eyewitnesses? Then read the scenario that Barb, I, and Paul Seaton have
been arguing for for years. ************************
>Regards, >DVP
Indeed,
John Canal
>
>
John Canal
>fragment recovered from Kennedy's skull, and as seen on the x-rays.
>The fragment was cut up by the FBI for their spectrographic analysis.
>The original appearance of the fragment, as far as can be determined,
>was captured in a little-seen FBI photograph dredged up from the
>archives by John Hunt. It reveals a rounded edge which, when seen at
>an angle, could very well give the impression the fragment was
>circular.
Are you saying that J. Hunt thinks the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet
fragment and that it was recovered?
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Of course they WERE seeing totally different things. Dr. Malcolm Perry was
not a butcher. Dr. Crenshaw saw the tracheotomy when the President was
being operated on and says it was not the monstrosity seen in the autopsy
photos. Something happened between Parkland and Bethesda.
James K. Olmstead
Thanks for the comments.....not only to me....but in these types of threads. Your one
of the most respected experts discussing the issues in the proper manner.
jko
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:15vp23tjhp1u2am67...@4ax.com...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Thanks John.
You are incorrect on this point.
Dr. Grossman saw the small wound at the back of the head and the large
gaping wound at the right side with the hinged flap of bone blown
open. Here is a transcription of Dr. Grossman's comments on the Larry
King Live Show (Nov. 2003):
<quote on>
Larry King: You examined the head wound?
Yes, when Dr. Clark came in he was surrounded by physicians ... trying
to resuscitate him, and you could see that the right side of his head
had suffered a major wound. But I don't think anyone had had the time
to examine him closely. So Dr. Kemp and I went to the head of the
stretcher ... and we lifted up his head. He had very thick bristly
hair, and when you parted the hair you could see that the right
posterior part of the head (puts his hand above the ear and toward the
back fingers on top of head) ... was simply blasted out. There was a
large plate of bone that was hinged upwards and you could see the
brain tissue was all macerated and white. As Dr. Jones said there was
no active bleeding. Then we lifted his head up further and he had a
small opening in the back of his head. (Shows skull model) We lifted
his head up like this and you could see in the back here there was an
opening the size of a quarter which was clearly a bullet entry wound,
and then there was this massive gaping wound on the side of his head
with the plate of bone blown up.
I thought I saw some gasping, but it was perfectly clear he could
not live very long. I thought he might remain in a coma for some hours
or even some days with brain stem intact. It was clear to me that the
bullet had entered the back of his head and blasted out this part
(right side of head above ear). This was an exit wound.
<quote off>
Dr. Grossman said he saw the plate of bone hinged up.
>UNLESS -- As fate would have it, the rather-incredible scenario
>occurred that was outlined previously, i.e., Jackie Kennedy literally
>DID PIECE JFK'S HEAD BACK TOGETHER (temporarily anyway, using that
>"hinged" flap we can see in some of the autopsy pictures) during the
>drive to Parkland Hospital, thereby re-arranging the way the right/
>front exit wound appeared to the witnesses inside the Parkland
>emergency room....in essence, masking the wound's existence entirely.
>
>I'll admit, that explanation doesn't fully satisfy me either, just as
>it probably won't satisfy anyone else. Because even if Jackie DID
>"piece" the head back together again in some jimmy-rigged fashion (as
>she did say she attempted to do), I'd STILL think that the disruption
>of the skull would have been noticed by at least a few Parkland
>witnesses on November 22...even WITH the "hinged flap" put back in its
>proper place on the head.
>
>But, since we weren't in that Parkland emergency room that day, it's
>impossible to know for sure just exactly what JFK's head looked like
>to the witnesses who were there.
>
>I'm just trying to use the physical evidence of the President's body
>and the autopsy photos (and Jackie's own words as well) to piece
>together some kind of logical explanation where, in effect, EVERYBODY
>CAN BE RIGHT -- from Parkland to Bethesda.
>
>Regards,
>DVP
PF
>
Peter Fokes
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Dr. Grossman, who did handle the head at Parkland, said on Larry King
Live in 2003 that he thought the President might live for a few hours
or even a few days if his brain stem was intact. But that was his
first impression. As I noted in an earlier post, he said he did handle
the head and observed a small wound at the back of the head and the
larger wound with the hinged flap of bone blown open at the right
posterior above the ear.
I'm not sure if his comments on the Larry King Show are consistent
with any earlier remarks he made. I'll leave that for others to
debate. Also his comments do not touch on the 6.5 mm spot.
>
>btw......I did two photographic assignments in Germany for Col Finck, who
>was stationed at 97th General Hospital at the time. He assured me JFK was
>dead the last time he saw him.....I never contested that statement. Nor
>should it be. No debate is going to bring him back.....but conflicts of
>the records and proceedures done must be resolved.
>
>John's effort's to set the record straight are without doubt a goal all
>should strive for....but few do......IMO they are locked in a mind set
>that borders the absurd. The basic rear entry and frontal exit result,
>will never be replaced and is not even "contested" in this debate, yet the
>details, not even studied by many, will be argued. To quote Barb "Oy".
>
>The primary value to setting the record straight is not a complex
>issue....but the actual effort should be left up to the experts, who have
>actually made the effort of independent research.
Here, here.
>Those of us on the sidelines should support such efforts made by the
>experts on both sides, regardless if we support conspiracy or a lone
>assassin and keep feet out of mouths, until the issues are resolved by
>these experts. No points for either side are made with feet in mouth or
>without detailed independent research on the actual details contested.
>
>There are primary issues that can be resolved....or at least accepted by the majority
>
>jko
PF
James K. Olmstead
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:f0isu...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <462cda67$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, James K. Olmstead says...
I have that much in the change bowl on the dishwasher even though at least two
pennies seem to disappear every once in awhile.
>
> Fascinating story about the 14 year old....that would have been gutwrentching
> had you finished your story by telling us he died.
>
I wish I had taped the program......they later attached a rounded plate
under his scalp after about 12 years. Although limited in speech and
actions he had plans of running his own internet company. I used to
photograph such repairs from start to finish, while stationed at Walter
Reed a true highlight of my photographic career there.
> And well said about trying to resolve the conflicts and widespread ambiguity
> with the eidence in this case. We at least owe it to future generations
> interested in an accurate historical account to try to get that done.
Ignorance is like a wall....but to quote Firesign " If you push something
hard enough it will fall over".
jko
David Von Pein
I'm still quite dubious about taking that particular information to my
bank, John.
For one thing -- How could the Parkland people have possibly even seen
such a larger BOH wound at the far-right-rear of the head if the ONLY WAY
TO HAVE SEEN IT WOULD BE TO REFLECT THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT *VERY FAR*
BACK ON HIS HEAD TO MAKE SUCH A FAR-RIGHT-REAR HOLE VISIBLE AT ALL?
The Parkland personnel didn't peel back the President's scalp. Or are you
of the opinion they did do this? Or that the scalp reflected itself back
somehow to reveal the larger BOH hole to the many witnesses?
If JFK's scalp totally covered that BOH wound in this picture.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
....How can it be that this same area of scalp didn't totally MASK the
hole underneath it while the President was in the Parkland emergency room?
>>> "SO ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT WHEN BOSWELL SAID HE REPLACED PIECES OF
REAR SKULL SHORTLY AFTER THE BODY ARRIVED...THE REAR SKULL WAS REALLY
UNDAMAGED...HE JUST IMAGINED THAT REAR SKULL PIECES NEEDED TO BE
REPLACED???" <<<
I just now went through all of Dr. Boswell's 1996 ARRB testimony/
deposition, and I failed to see any definitive testimony from the lips of
Dr. Boswell that indicates he "REPLACED PIECES OF REAR SKULL" on the head
of President Kennedy.
Perhaps you can lead me to such a definitive hunk of Boswell's ARRB
testimony that I might have missed. ....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
Excerpts from Boswell's ARRB session:
Q. During the course of the autopsy, did any skull fragments, in addition
to the three that you've already shown on the X-ray drawing, come to the
autopsy room?
A. No.
Q. Just those three?
A. Well, I'm not sure all of them came in that night. Probably just this
one. And then the other two I think came later. I know we had them by the
time we examined the brain.
Q. When you say "just this one," you're referring to the drawing on the
bottom of Exhibit 1; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have skull fragments with you at the time of the supplementary
examination of the brain?
A. Yes.
Q. How many fragments did you have, as best you recall?
A. I think there were three.
Q. Do you know whether those fragments were X-rayed at about the time of
the supplementary examination?
A. I'm sure they were.
Q. Did you see them being X-rayed during the supplementary examination?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you see any X-rays of the three fragments during the time of the
autopsy?
A. One.
==============
Q. Were any skull fragments put back into place before photographs or
before X-rays?
A. I think before we took the--the ones that came from Dallas were never
put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones that were
present. But I think all the others were left intact.
Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point
that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X- ray was
taken?
A. Yes.
Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the--
A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10- centimeter
piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of
these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out at
one time or another. But those were all put back.
==============
Q. Do you remember in terms of the general chronology of events when the
skull fragment or fragments arrived? Was that very late in the autopsy? Do
you recall?
A. I think like midway. The one. I think the others came after we had
finished.
==============
John, is it your contention that Boswell put the three fragments that were
transported from Dallas back into place on JFK's head BEFORE the X-rays
were taken?
If that's your contention, you are positively incorrect, given Boswell's
testimony that the X-rays were taken at the very start of the
autopsy....and that only ONE Dallas fragment arrived "midway" through the
autopsy, with the other two fragments (per Boswell) arriving only "after
we had finished" (and obviously well after the X- rays were taken).
>>> "You want reconciliation, i.e. hardly any liars or hallucinators among
the eyewitnesses?" <<<
Yes. Exactly. And that includes Dr. Humes and the Bethesda autopsy team.
(Except for the fact that the word "hallucinators" could easily be
described more fairly as people who truthfully believed they saw something
that probably wasn't there at all. Perhaps a better term for the Parkland
witnesses would be "misrepresenters"...but "truthful misrepresenters" to
be sure.)
There was simply no logical reason, IMO, for the Bethesda doctors to want
to HIDE or mask info re. JFK's wounds (BOH or otherwise), especially in
light of the fact that the autopsy report that all three of the doctors
will be affixing their signatures to will be declaring in bright, bold,
unambiguous-as-can-be letters that President Kennedy was struck by ONLY
TWO BULLETS THAT BOTH CAME FROM ABOVE AND BEHIND THE LEVEL OF THE
DECEASED.
There is/was NO REASON for the Bethesda doctors to hide the existence of
even a larger "BOH" wound given the above "Only From Behind" autopsy
conclusions.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1177228474.4...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> Pein says...
>> MORE "BOH" TALK:
>>
>> =========================
>>
>>>>> "Read carefully what Humes said {during the 1967 CBS Special}. All that he said
>>>>> is that there was only one entrance wound (which, BTW, I've noticed you've been
>>>>> careful all along not to commit yourself on where in the BOH that entry
>>>>> was...cowlick or near-EOP)." <<<
>> You're right, I haven't committed to an exact location. Mainly because
>> I truly don't think it matters a darn bit.
>
> the conflict over the location of the entry wound is important for at
> least the following reasons.
>
> 1. The "movement" of the entry wound first reported by the Clark Panel and
> confirmed by the HSCA has been one of the many suspicious occurances in
> this case that have helped convince too many that JFK was the victim of an
> assassination conspiracy. IOW, if the LNers are going to ever convince the
> general public there was no conspiracy, issues like the entry wound
> "movement" must be explained.
>
That discrepancy alone did not convince many people it was a conspiracy.
It's a ho-hum. That's still a bullet from behind. The silliness of the SBT
and the release of the Zapruder film indicating the head shot came from
the front had the most impact.
The goal of the LNers is not to convince the public. They realize that
they've already lost the argument. Their only goal now is to keep electing
leaders who will continue to cover up the documents. For example, take a
look at the original Frazier drawings of the holes in Connally's coat.
Before he found those the WC defenders could get away with claiming that
Connally's back wound was vertically elongated. All the conspiracy writers
could do was point out that they were wrong. But of course the counter
argument from the WC defenders was, "Na Na Ya Na Ya, you don't have any
evidence to the contrary." Now we do and most WC defenders are smart
enough to concede the point.
> 2. Because I'm proud of my 21 year military career, I probably take it
> more personal than I should when our own government reports that the
> reason the autopsy doctors grossly mislocated the entry wound was because
> they were not qualified to do an autopsy.
>
Misplaced sentimentality.
> 3. The historical record should be as unambiguous as possible...and the
> record relating to the location of the fatal entry wound is anything but.
>
History is written by the victors. When we are not allowed to know our
history, we are doomed to repeat it.
>> The key fact is that all the doctors agree that there was ONLY ONE
>> entry wound at the back of the head (regardless of the exact square
>> inch on the head). This fact proves that the one and only head shot
>> had to have come from the REAR, not from the front (knoll).
>
> Yes, that is the key fact...we agree there.
>
>>>>> "David, read the WC testimony and the autopsy report...they avoided any mention
>>>>> of the BOH...except for the entry." <<<
>> Yes, and there's a very good reason for that, IMO. And that reason is:
>> Because there was no real REASON to mention the "BOH" except with
>> respect to the one small entry wound in the BOH.
>>
>> IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
>> JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
>> either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
>> hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
>> the body?
>
> Because a BOH wound that could have been interpreted as being an exit
> wound (and an assassination conspiracy) was reported by at least the
Or a massive BOH wound could have been interpreted as being an entrance
wound (hence no conspiracy) by some doctors who were told to say that
for the good of the country, to prevent WWIII.
> Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Hospital even before the
> autopsy started. IOW, the autopsy doctors, IMO and in the opinion of many
> others, should have addressed this rear exit wound possibility....and they
> didn't.
>
They should have discussed conspiracy? Would YOU want to be the person
with loose lips who starts WWIII and causes the deaths of 40 million
Americans?
>> The whole argument over any potential "Large BOH" wound
>
> It wasn't "large" as compared to the top/right/front blow-out wound.
> Rather it was most likely no bigger than a small fist and perhaps as small
> as a quarter....no one can ever be certain.
>
What wound?
>> is really
>> pretty much a moot point altogether, due to the undeniable FACT that
>> President Kennedy sustained just the ONE gunshot wound to his head,
>> and that shot definitely came from the rear (consistent with having
>> come from the TSBD and Oswald's rifle, given the bullet fragment taken
>>from JFK's head that was determined via NAA to have come from Rifle
>> C2766).
>>
>> The large exit wound on JFK's head covered a decent-sized area of the
>> right side of the head, but it was "chiefly parietal", per the autopsy
>> report and the words of the autopsy doctors.
>
> Yes, the top/right/front blow-out wound was indeed "chiefly parietal", but
> in the face of reports by about a dozen credible witnesses the condition
> of the BOH further down, besides the entry wound, should have been
> mentioned.
>
There was no separate BOH wound.
>> But the autopsy report also does use the words "occipital" and
>> "temporal" as well, but the word "somewhat" is also used right in
>> front of those locations.....
>>
>>FROM JFK'S AUTOPSY REPORT -- "There is a large irregular defect of the
>> scalp and skull on the right, involving chiefly the parietal bone but
>> extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
>
> Indeed, but finally to the ARRB they testified that the extended wound
> went all the way to near the EOP....and that's hardly "somewhat into the
> occipital"...it's very far down into the occipital. Aside from their ARRB
> testimony and drawings showing that, we can see for ourselves in the
> published copies of F8 that the rear bone was loose all the way to near
> the EOP.
>
Occipital bone being loose and fractured is not the same thing as being
missing.
>> Now, my next question would be this -- Since the autopsy report and
>> doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND
>> ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively
>> consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of
>> exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the
>> President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the
>> slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any
>> "BOH" wound (large or small)?
>
> Because they didn't say unambiguously that the BOH was undamaged except
> for the entry. Here's an analogy. John Doe is in custody and charged with
> committing a murder...but the press has widely reported that the murder
> was probably committed by Joe Smith. Then later, a press conference is
> held by the police and there's no mention whatsoever of any Joe Smith.
>
> My point is that twenty-something medically trained Parkland witnesses,
> not to mention C. Hill, had reported seeing a BOH wound that, alarmingly,
> suggested there had been a shot from the front...these deep concerns
> should have been addressed and put to rest early on...but they weren't.
>
A BOH wound does not have to suggest a shot from the front.
Nor does a shot from the front have to cause a BOH wound.
>> You said that the doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound
>> they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK
>> had been shot from the front.
>>
>> But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
>> described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
>> head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
>> came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
>
> Yes, I agree that their one shot to the head conclusion should have
> satisfied all. That said, any other BOH wound besides the entry would have
Well, it would have satisfied if everyone had just done their patriotic
duty and shut up, never questioning authority.
> begged the question, even by laymen, "Wasn't such a wound suggestive of a
> shot from the front"? The autopsy doctors should, IMO, have put all that
> speculation to rest when they had the chance and, because they didn't, is
> one of the reasons this case, decades after the fact, is still being
Maybe the autopsy doctors knew instantly that the head wound was caused by
a shot from the front. And only later did someone tell them that the
shooter was firing from behind. Just as some WC defenders came up with a
theory that JFK was shot in the throat when he turned around to look at
the TSBD.
> debated to death. IOW, a simple satement (if no other BOH wound existed)
> like, "The BOH, contrary to many early reports, was undamaged except for
> the entry and the large blow-out wound that extended "somewhat" into the
> occipital, was undamaged". But the BOH wound reported by the Parkland docs
> went way past, "somewhat into the occipital" and went unaddressed.
>
>> There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even
>> WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere
>> to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger
>> BOH hole.
>
> Well, that's your opinion and you'll probably receive five stars for it.
> Some of us disagree, though...I hope you don't have a problem with that.
>
>> Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet
>> striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH), could
>> obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the
>> extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet
>> which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after
>> entering the skull.
>
> You may be correct, but the autopsy doctors, IMO, didn't call in
> wound-ballistics experts who could have helped them with such an
> explanation. So, perhaps, they didn't feel as if their own explanation was
> believable. It's the same thing with the entry location. The autopsy
> doctors identified a wound near the EOP and an exit that was high in the
> head....and a line connecting those two points extended back, not anywhere
> close to six floors up, but, rather, to some point near ground level. This
> was a major problem for them and what was their solution? To claim JFK's
> forward lean was about 50 degrees when they knew dam well it was about
> half that. Now, if they had called in a wound-ballistics expert, that
> expert probably would have told them that the bullet most likely deflected
> up as it penetrated the rear skull...but they tried to handle the issue on
> their own...and did a lousy job of it.
>
>> Jackie Kennedy's handling of the President's head during the ride to
>> Parkland could also have been a partial explanation for any such large
>> BOH wound. Jackie later confirmed that she was "trying to hold his
>> head on".
>
> I totally agree. Another likely possibility was that one of the
> individuals who helped remove JFK from the limo may have held his BOH and,
> because the skull was fragmented beneath the scalp, any small opening
> could have been enlarged to let's say, the size of a small fist.
>
Huh? What kind of a kooky theory is this? Clint Hill put his fist through
the President's head? Reminds me of Paul Kastner's theory of the throat
wound.
> The problem is, though, even if the BOH wound was mostly created by Jackie
> or whoever may have held his BOH, any wound there, besides the entry,
> needed to be addressed.
>
Nope.
>> These doctors weren't stupid. One BEVELLED-INWARD entry hole in the
>> BOH (which we definitely have in this case) and no other signs of ANY
>> other entry hole anyplace else on the head HAS to mean just what it
>> does mean -- John Kennedy was shot just once in the head from behind.
>> Period. No obfuscation required, regardless of where the larger
>> exiting hole(s) are located.
>
> I think we've been here earlier...see above.
>
>> Now, Vincent Bugliosi, in his upcoming book, could have a different
>> view than I have regarding all of this "BOH" talk. But one thing's for
>> certain--Vince will certainly be talking about the one bevelled-in
>> entry hole at the back of JFK's head, and the total lack of any other
>> entry wounds on the President's head.
>
> Well, no other BOH wounds were mentioned...but that doesn't mean one
> didn't exist. I wanted to call VB on this as we communicated several
> times, mostly by fax, when I was trying to get my book published...he was
> trying to help...I just didn't have the time.
>
>> That fact is key and should be placed atop all other "head wound"
>> facts, and Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly (as I have done in my forum
>> posts) be greatly emphasizing that fact re. the SINGLE entry hole in
>> JFK's cranium....which, as I said, pretty much makes all of the "Large
>> BOH" wound talk a meaningless and moot endeavor altogether.
>>
>> In fact, Mr. Bugliosi has already talked about that very thing, during
>> the 1986 TV Docu-Trial.....
>>
>> "The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
>> body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
>> pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
>> the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
>> Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
>> Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
>> to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.
>>
>> "If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
>> the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
>> President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?
>>
>> "Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
>> come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
>> Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
>> bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; 1986
>>
>> ~~~~~~
>
> That's all well said, and similar remarks are in my book. That being said,
> the cooberating reports of twenty-something Parkland doctors, C. Hill, and
> Dr. Ebersole about a BOH wound (some reports say, "gaping")
> *****deserve****, by virtue, if nothing else, of the credibility and
> backgrounds of those witnesses, to be UNAMBIGUOUSLY and DIRECTLY
> ADDRESSED, IMO.
>
So, just because a witness says something, that proves it is a fact?
That's how you do your research? So, if a witness says that there was no
brain left in the head at all when the body arrived, that is a fact that
the brain had already been removed and the photos of the brain we have are
fakes?
>
>> There's also this interesting portion of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition
>> (re. the cerebellum)....
>>
>> DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the
>> cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But
>> they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of
>> compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut
>> the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting
>> the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the
>> cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
>> really very simple to take out."
>>
>> QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
>> opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>>
>> QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
>> noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "No."
>>
>> QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
>> were intact?"
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>>
>> ~~~~~~
>
> That's fine, but Humes said it was somewhat disrupted. Add to that the
> fact that it was stated in the Supplementary Autopsy Report that sections
> taken from the right cerebellar cortex showed "extensive disruption of
> brain tissue with associated hemorrage". Lastly, and I thank J. Hunt for
> pointing this out to me, Humes tesified to the WC that part of the
> cerebellum was severely lacerated...but he didn't say cerebellum...rather
> he curiously used a not-so-familar medical tag for a lobe within the
> cerebellum, the "flocculus cerebri".
>
>
>> To summarize:
>>
>> In my opinion, there was no "large BOH"
>
> I wish you wouldn't parrot others with that "Large" part of the
> acronym...compared to the blow-out top/right/front, it was undoubtedly not
> large, but only at most, the size of a small fist and perhaps smaller than
> that. If you feel compelled to say, LBOH wound, that's your choice.
>
>> wound in President Kennedy's
>> head. The sum total of hard, verifiable evidence just does not support
>> such a massive "BOH" wound.
>>
>> 1.) The autopsy report doesn't support such a large BOH wound.
>
> Even if no BOH wound was reported, the many credible reports of a BOH
> wound went unaddressed.
>
>> 2.) The autopsy doctors' statements do not support such a BOH wound
>> (and Boswell's statements to the ARRB seem quite confused and muddled,
>> IMO; lots of confusion there, as he tries to remember exactly what
>> happened, in perfect sequence, 33 years after the events took place).
>
> Sure there's some expected confusion, but do you honestly think he didn't
> recall replacing pieces of rear skull BEFORE the skull x-rays? This was
> extraordinary as far as autopsy procedures go...such an act would have
> been unforgettable.
>
>> 3.) The autopsy photos do not support such a large BOH wound.
>
> I disagree. While the BOH photos are not really relevant because they show
> the scalp being pulled up (much later in the autopsy) over skull missing
> down to near the EOP, F8 shows that pieces of rear skull had come loose
> down to near the EOP...meaning it should not be a giant stretch of
> anyone's imagination to reconcile loose skull fragments with
> twenty-something credible reports of a BOH wound.
>
>> 4.) And the Zapruder Film does not support a large BOH wound.
>
> If the BOH wound was mostly enlarged because of Jackie's actions (your own
> suggestion) or because someone held him by the BOH as he was transferred
> to the gurney from the limo, the z-film would have not been revealing.
>
Nonsense.
>> The Parkland witnesses do tend to support such a large BOH wound,
>> granted. And those witnesses have bothered me greatly over the years.
>> I cannot deny that fact.
>
> They bothered the HSCA too...but because of the BOH photos and the x-rays
> they were forced to conclude the Parkland docs were wrong. If they knew
> that Boswell ahd replaced some rear skull pieces before the skull x-rays
> and that the BOH photo was taken after the brain had been removed, I don't
> think they would have concluded that the Parkland docs and the other
> eyewitnesses were wrong.
>
>> But I also think there could be a reasonable explanation for those
>> witnesses claiming to see what they said they saw at Parkland Hospital
>> (while never turning the body over, of course).
>
> Some of them lifted his upper body up so they could get a good look at the
> BOH.
>
>> More about that subject in this review of Jim Moore's book (Moore,
>> btw, has a very silly explanation to explain away all of the Parkland
>> witnesses).....
>>
>>
>> Now, I suppose it's possible that I'm dead-wrong, and I suppose it's
>> possible that a large BOH wound did exist on JFK's head on 11/22/63.
>
> Chad, whose opinion I greatly respect, but hate like Hell to speak for
> him, agrees that a BOH wound, other than the entry, could possibly have
> existed.
>
>> But even WITH such a wound present on JFK's head, conspiracy theorists
>> who think such a wound at the FAR RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was
>> caused by a FRONTAL gunshot still have a huge hurdle to overcome --
>> that hurdle being: Where is the ENTRY wound for any such frontal shot?
>
> Of course, but they are spurred on by the fact that the autopsy doctors
> did not directly and unambiguously address so many credible reports of
> such a wound.
>
>> Do CTers think the parietal exit wound that resulted from Oswald's
>> from-the-rear head shot miraculously masked the entry hole for a
>> frontal shot?
>
> Some do...but there are some CTs that think Greer did it.
>
Here we go again. Yes, you can find one or two kooks.
>> Did the plotters truly get THAT lucky, yet again? Much in the same way
>> those same Patsy-Framers got incredibly lucky (per many CTers'
>> beliefs) when two or THREE different bullets caused wounds that just
>> happened to line themselves up on two victims in a manner that could
>> even begin to suggest the "SBT"??
>>
>> Boy, did those conspirators have Lady Luck shining on them that
>> Friday, if conspiracists want to believe all of that crazy stuff.
>>
>> Plus: WHERE could a frontal gunman have possibly been located to have
>> caused only the FAR RIGHT-REAR portion of Kennedy's head to be blown
>> out by the bullet? Why isn't ANY of the LEFT hemisphere of JFK's head
>> affected by a shot coming from (per most CTers) the "Badge Man"/Grassy
>> Knoll area of Dealey Plaza?
>>
>> That bullet sure did some crazy zig-zagging inside Kennedy's head, it
>> would seem, if CTers want a wound caused by "Badge Man" to be present
>> in THIS part of Mr. Kennedy's head.....
>
> Your last transmissions, if they were addressed to me, constitute
> "preaching to the choir". :-)
>
> John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Excellent point about the lead fragments. One thing that both sides don't
seem to know is that almost all the ballistics evidence was not in the
condition we see it in on the evidence photos, especially the WC exhibits
when they were originally found. So, the mystery opacity could be a real
bullet fragment, but not found inside the head and not 6.5 mm wide.
John Canal
Thanks Peter for posting this...I hadn't seen it before.
What's interesting to me are the conflicts.
1. He told the Boston Globe in 1981 that the hole he saw in the occiput
was too big to be an entry....but in the version you've just given us he
said the occiput wound was clearly an entry wound.
2. He did also tell Horne and Gunn that the occiput wound was an entry,
but that it was about 2 cm in diameter...which coes across as being kind
of big for an entry wound, even to this layman.
3. And Clark, standing right besde him, said the wound in the BOH could
have been either an entry or exit.
4. Grossman also told Horne an Gunn that Clark would be a better auhority
on gunshot wounds than him ["much more experience"].
5. It doesn't surprise me that Grossman saw a "massive gaping wound on the
side of his head" (which really was probably the huge blow out wound in
the top/right/front)...because he and Clark did lift the head up giving
them the best view of probably all of the Parkland witnesses.
I still opine that the reason more Parkland witnesses didn't notice the
huge wound was because it was masked....evidently "fairly well".
John Canal
John Canal
I forgot one other td bit re. Grossman't "observances".
In every interview he had that I can think of, he said he saw
cerebellum....but how does one see cerebellum through an entry wound?
The other much larger wound he described seeing wouldn't exactly expose
the cerebellum.
John Canal
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "But what you can take to the bank is that, besides the entry hole,
>there was a visible larger BOH wound." <<<
>
>I'm still quite dubious about taking that particular information to my
>bank, John.
>
>For one thing -- How could the Parkland people have possibly even seen
>such a larger BOH wound at the far-right-rear of the head if the ONLY WAY
>TO HAVE SEEN IT WOULD BE TO REFLECT THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT *VERY FAR*
>BACK ON HIS HEAD TO MAKE SUCH A FAR-RIGHT-REAR HOLE VISIBLE AT ALL?
>
>The Parkland personnel didn't peel back the President's scalp. Or are you
>of the opinion they did do this? Or that the scalp reflected itself back
>somehow to reveal the larger BOH hole to the many witnesses?
>
>If JFK's scalp totally covered that BOH wound in this picture.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>....How can it be that this same area of scalp didn't totally MASK the
>hole underneath it while the President was in the Parkland emergency room?
John has mentioned that to you before, I think. The autopsists ....
Boswell specifically to both the HSCA and ARRB ... testified that the
large defect in the BONE does not show in what we call the BOH photo
because SCALP is being held up obscuring it. The purpose of that photo
was to get a shot of the bullet hole in the scalp.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Barb: I'm actually looking forward to VB's book if it's ever publlished.
Hi James -- I've been waiting for that book for decades, ever since I
saw Bugliosi on a talk show, I think it was Johnny Carson, and he said
that someday when he had a little time he'd write the book proving
Oswald did it and did it alone .... he said it wouldn't take him long
at all. :-)
Seems it's definitely coming out this time ... I am quite looking
forward to it too.
>
>Thanks for the comments.....not only to me....but in these types of threads. Your one
>of the most respected experts discussing the issues in the proper manner.
I'd say those words apply to you. :-)
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>How could some PH witnesses possibly NOT comment on that obvious
If you are interested in viewing the interviews with Dr. Grossman, Dr.
Roland Jones and Dr. Charles Baxter on Larry King Live, let me know. I
recorded the show on DVD.
>What's interesting to me are the conflicts.
>
>1. He told the Boston Globe in 1981 that the hole he saw in the occiput
>was too big to be an entry....but in the version you've just given us he
>said the occiput wound was clearly an entry wound.
Dr. Grossman used the word "quarter" to describe the size of the
wound. However, on the sample skull he held up to the camera, the
circle indicating the location of the hole seemed to be somewhat
larger than a quarter. Yes, he said it was an entry wound.
>2. He did also tell Horne and Gunn that the occiput wound was an entry,
>but that it was about 2 cm in diameter...which coes across as being kind
>of big for an entry wound, even to this layman.
I doubt he took the time to measure the wound while holding up the
back of the head. He doesn't mention feeling any loose or fragmented
skull at the back of the head, but then again we do not know exactly
what part of the skull he was holding to raise the back of the head
for examination.
>
>3. And Clark, standing right besde him, said the wound in the BOH could
>have been either an entry or exit.
My kinda person ... unwilling to jump to a conclusion.
>4. Grossman also told Horne an Gunn that Clark would be a better auhority
>on gunshot wounds than him ["much more experience"].
It could simply be that Dr. Clark was being careful not to rule out
any possibilities at that point in time. I don't think we can dismiss
Dr. Grossman's comments.
>5. It doesn't surprise me that Grossman saw a "massive gaping wound on the
>side of his head" (which really was probably the huge blow out wound in
>the top/right/front)...because he and Clark did lift the head up giving
>them the best view of probably all of the Parkland witnesses.
He placed the palm of his hand just behind and above the right ear.
They both stood behind the head and Dr. Grossman lifted the head,
noting the "bristly hair" of the President. He also described
"parting" the hair to look at the small wound. It was not a cursory
glance; they parted the hair and both observed the wound. Dr. Grossman
also said the larger "exit" wound had a hinged flap of bone that had
been "blown open".
>I still opine that the reason more Parkland witnesses didn't notice the
>huge wound was because it was masked....evidently "fairly well".
>John Canal
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I forgot one other td bit re. Grossman't "observances".
>
>In every interview he had that I can think of, he said he saw
>cerebellum....but how does one see cerebellum through an entry wound?
>
>The other much larger wound he described seeing wouldn't exactly expose
>the cerebellum.
Did he specifically say he saw the cerebellum through the small hole
of entry in the back of the head, or did he think he saw some of that
portion of the macerated brain through the larger wound at the right
side of the head?
He described the brain exposed by the larger gaping wound at the right
side of the head as "macerated and white." How he determined what
portion of the "macerated" brain he saw through the gaping hole is a
matter only he can answer. Is he still alive? Have you asked him?
>
>John Canal
PF
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 24 Apr 2007 00:33:31 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>> "But what you can take to the bank is that, besides the entry hole,
>>there was a visible larger BOH wound." <<<
>>
>>I'm still quite dubious about taking that particular information to my
>>bank, John.
>>
>>For one thing -- How could the Parkland people have possibly even seen
>>such a larger BOH wound at the far-right-rear of the head if the ONLY WAY
>>TO HAVE SEEN IT WOULD BE TO REFLECT THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT *VERY FAR*
>>BACK ON HIS HEAD TO MAKE SUCH A FAR-RIGHT-REAR HOLE VISIBLE AT ALL?
>>
>>The Parkland personnel didn't peel back the President's scalp. Or are you
>>of the opinion they did do this? Or that the scalp reflected itself back
>>somehow to reveal the larger BOH hole to the many witnesses?
>>
>>If JFK's scalp totally covered that BOH wound in this picture.....
>>
>>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>>
>>....How can it be that this same area of scalp didn't totally MASK the
>>hole underneath it while the President was in the Parkland emergency room?
>
>John has mentioned that to you before, I think. The autopsists ....
>Boswell specifically to both the HSCA and ARRB ... testified that the
>large defect in the BONE does not show in what we call the BOH photo
>because SCALP is being held up obscuring it. The purpose of that photo
>was to get a shot of the bullet hole in the scalp.
David VP seemed to be referring to the "Parkland people" though not
the autopsists.
Dr. Grossman apparently did not "feel" that "large defect in the bone"
when he held up the head .... at least in his 2003 interview on LArry
King Live.
David Von Pein
Okay....then how could so many Parkland witnesses possibly get a good
look at a hole in the head that almost certainly was covered up by the
scalp?.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>> "But what you can take to the bank is that, besides the entry hole,
>there was a visible larger BOH wound." <<<
>
>I'm still quite dubious about taking that particular information to my
>bank, John.
Why doesn't that surprise e?
>For one thing -- How could the Parkland people have possibly even seen
>such a larger BOH wound at the far-right-rear of the head if the ONLY WAY
>TO HAVE SEEN IT WOULD BE TO REFLECT THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT *VERY FAR*
Ok, stop. I'm not going to read what I wrote...I'm just going to assume I
wasn't clear.
Let me try again. Your question was why didn't the Parkland MDs see the
huge right/front/top wound, but see the right rear BOH wound. I tried to
say that it was my opinion that the larger wound was fairly well covered
up and the last thing they would have done (while they were trying to save
his life) would have been to peel the flap to the side that Jackie
probably covered the large wound with.
Now the smaller BOH wound I suggest wasn't cvered and more visible...even
though they may not have had such a great angle. Remember, they testified
or stated they saw a BOH wound...so, do you want to call them liars?
>BACK ON HIS HEAD TO MAKE SUCH A FAR-RIGHT-REAR HOLE VISIBLE AT ALL?
>
>The Parkland personnel didn't peel back the President's scalp. Or are you
>of the opinion they did do this? Or that the scalp reflected itself back
>somehow to reveal the larger BOH hole to the many witnesses?
No, I guess I was unclear...see above.
>If JFK's scalp totally covered that BOH wound in this picture.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>....How can it be that this same area of scalp didn't totally MASK the
>hole underneath it while the President was in the Parkland emergency room?
>>>> "SO ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT WHEN BOSWELL SAID HE REPLACED PIECES OF
>REAR SKULL SHORTLY AFTER THE BODY ARRIVED...THE REAR SKULL WAS REALLY
>UNDAMAGED...HE JUST IMAGINED THAT REAR SKULL PIECES NEEDED TO BE
>REPLACED???" <<<
>
>
>I just now went through all of Dr. Boswell's 1996 ARRB testimony/
>deposition, and I failed to see any definitive testimony from the lips of
>Dr. Boswell that indicates he "REPLACED PIECES OF REAR SKULL" on the head
>of President Kennedy.
>
>Perhaps you can lead me to such a definitive hunk of Boswell's ARRB
>testimony that I might have missed. ....
What is he saying here?
>Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point
>that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X- ray was
>taken?
>
>A. Yes.
>
>Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the--
>
>A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10- centimeter
>piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of
>these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out at
>one time or another. But those were all put back.
The diagram he's talking about is the head diagram on his face
sheet....there is a "10" noted on one of the loose pieces at the rear of
the head....he saying he put that and some smaller ones back.
Two things are important to note here.
One, the skull fragments from Dallas had not arrived when he drew that
diagram and they pretty much were from an opening from the cowlick forward
to even past the coronal suture.........which means the pieces drawn on
his face sheet were from behind the cowlick.
This part is irrelevant:
>Q. Do you remember in terms of the general chronology of events when the
>skull fragment or fragments arrived? Was that very late in the autopsy? Do
>you recall?
>
>A. I think like midway. The one. I think the others came after we had
>finished.
>
>==============
>
>John, is it your contention that Boswell put the three fragments that were
>transported from Dallas back into place on JFK's head BEFORE the X-rays
>were taken?
No, no, no! See above.
>If that's your contention,
No, and it's not even close to "my contention!".
>you are positively incorrect, given Boswell's
>testimony that the X-rays were taken at the very start of the
>autopsy....and that only ONE Dallas fragment arrived "midway" through the
>autopsy, with the other two fragments (per Boswell) arriving only "after
>we had finished" (and obviously well after the X- rays were taken).
Glad to see that you're doing some reading anyway.
>>>> "You want reconciliation, i.e. hardly any liars or hallucinators among
>the eyewitnesses?" <<<
>
>Yes. Exactly. And that includes Dr. Humes and the Bethesda autopsy team.
>(Except for the fact that the word "hallucinators" could easily be
>described more fairly as people who truthfully believed they saw something
>that probably wasn't there at all. Perhaps a better term for the Parkland
>witnesses would be "misrepresenters"...but "truthful misrepresenters" to
>be sure.)
>
>There was simply no logical reason, IMO, for
the Bethesda doctors to want
>to HIDE or mask info re. JFK's wounds (BOH or otherwise),
Who said they hid or masked the BOH wounds? Not me. I said they didn't
directly address the reports of the Parkland witnesses re. a BOH wound.
HB&F didn't lie, they just didn't talk about the BOH other than an entry.
Also, they didn't take what could have een arguably among the most
important photos, i.e. one of the BOH when the body was received and one
of the BOH from the rear with the scalp reflected.
>especially in
>light of the fact that the autopsy report that all three of the doctors
>will be affixing their signatures to will be declaring in bright, bold,
>unambiguous-as-can-be letters that President Kennedy was struck by ONLY
>TWO BULLETS THAT BOTH CAME FROM ABOVE AND BEHIND THE LEVEL OF THE
>DECEASED.
Of course they would have signed that..it was true.
>There is/was NO REASON for the Bethesda doctors to hide the existence of
>even a larger "BOH" wound given the above "Only From Behind" autopsy
>conclusions.
They didn't hide one. It's possible, though, if one existed that they
wouldn't have mentioned it. And, turn that around, if there wasn't any
BOH, in the face of the alarming reports from Parkland, don't you think
they could have said there wasn't any BOH wound, other than the
entry...HOW FRICKIN MUCH TROUBLE WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?
John Canal
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>>"The large defect in the BONE does not show in what we call the BOH photo
>>>>because SCALP is being held up obscuring it." <<<
>
>Okay....then how could so many Parkland witnesses possibly get a good
>look at a hole in the head that almost certainly was covered up by the
>scalp?.....
At least one piece of rear bone that had been fragmented when the bullet
hit had moved out of position, IMO mostly when he was being carried to TR1
from the limo (but that's just my best guess, meaning the bone piece/s
could have moved while he was still in the limo).
There, undoubtedly was a tear in the scalp allowing brain tissue to exude
and be visible through the gap/s between the intact skull and/or moved
pieces. The scalp, meanwhile, held the moved/loose pieces very much
atached to his head.
NOW, BY THE TIME THE BOH PHOTO WAS TAKEN THE BRAIN AND REAR SKULL HAD BEEN
REMOVED.
John Canal
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>
>
John Canal
>
>On 24 Apr 2007 00:49:55 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Peter,
>>
>>I forgot one other td bit re. Grossman't "observances".
>>
>>In every interview he had that I can think of, he said he saw
>>cerebellum....but how does one see cerebellum through an entry wound?
>>
>>The other much larger wound he described seeing wouldn't exactly expose
>>the cerebellum.
>
>Did he specifically say he saw the cerebellum through the small hole
>of entry in the back of the head, or did he think he saw some of that
>portion of the macerated brain through the larger wound at the right
>side of the head?
>
>He described the brain exposed by the larger gaping wound at the right
>side of the head as "macerated and white." How he determined what
>portion of the "macerated" brain he saw through the gaping hole is a
>matter only he can answer. Is he still alive? Have you asked him?
I'm not a brain surgeon, bit I bet one would agree with me when I say it
would be pretty wierd if cerebellum could have been seen or escaped
through the larger top/right/front exit wound. And, as I said before, it'd
be almost as wierd to be able to see it through just an entry wound.
Since you posted this about his L. King appearance, I've been doing some
thinking about Grossman's credibility. He previously said that the BOH,
quarter size wound was too big to be an entry and that he'd seen
cerebellum....but, low and behold, in 2003, he says nothing about seeing
any cerebellum and that the wound was ******CLEARLY****** an entry wound.
Barb cautioned me a few years ago about putting a lot of stock in what
Grossman said...I beginning to agree fully with her. Could it be that the
collaboration between he and Larry Sturdivan, at least on Grossman's
article in Neurosurgery, has changed his mind about what he thinks he saw?
Let me add something else. To be honest, although I've said the smallest
possible size of the BOH wound was quarter size based on Grossman's
account, I never would have bet a nickel it was that small.....I just felt
compelled to factor in Grossman's account to come up with the smallest to
largest possible size of that wound as I imagined it from "all" the
accounts.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, make sure you point us to the poorest quality copy you can find.
John Fiorentino
Believe me, I really don't want to get involved in this discussion other
than to say the following: I've had many discussions with Canal on this
subject. I've talked off the record with Chad and some others. I have also
posted on the record on this forum.
I will say: While I don't agree with Canal's hypothesis of a "plant" or
deliberate alteration, I do believe this spot on the X-ray has some
disturbing features. Some of my own observations have been verified by
several radiologists, who unfortunately will not let me put them on the
record.
Personally, I'm still looking into this, and if I can develop anything
concrete for public disclosure, i.e., professional expert opinions (names
included) I will certainly publish it.
Now, most here know I am a LN, so take it for what it's worth.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:462812b4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 19 Apr 2007 21:08:16 -0400, eca...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
>>
>>JC I sense you started a new thread in an effort to
>>dump my points in the trailer below.. Please don't
>>do that. AND BTW why don't you cut&paste like others
>>do? It could save you a lot of embarrassment JC.
>>
>>CANAL ON: ------------------
>>"But now that you brought it up, the evidence record
>>(which you're apparently not familiar with) is
>>crystal clear, IMHO, that the 6.5 mm opacity was
>>planted. That said, the importance is that it shows
>>the lengths the government would go to to make
>>absolutely certain the medical evidence showed it was
>>consistent with a shot from the sixth floor of the
>>TSBD."
>>- John Canal April 14, 2007 10:21 pm
>>CANAL OFF -----------------
>>JC you say "the 6.5 mm opacity was (gULp) *planted*
>>yet you run for cover when I ask why the government
>>and Ebersole would *plant* the 6.5 mm spot on only
>>**ONE** x-ray.
>>
>>
>>CANAL ON:--------
>>"Paul Seaton and I (maybe others, but I don't recall
>>any) several years ago posited that, even though the
>>fatal was bullet fired from the SN and struck JFK in
>>the BOH, a piece of right-rear scalp, with bone
>>adhered to it, moved out of its natural anatomic
>>position just prior to C. Hill seeing what he
>>describes as a "gaping right-rear wound"....after he
>>climbed up on the back of the limo. And, that gaping
>>wound was still there for many other Parkland
>>witnesses to see when JFK was brought into the ER."
>>CANAL OFF----------
>
> John appears to be ignoring what Hill told National Geographic: that
> the wound was "above the ear."
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
wrote:
We could speculate about such a possibility.
>Let me add something else. To be honest, although I've said the smallest
>possible size of the BOH wound was quarter size based on Grossman's
>account, I never would have bet a nickel it was that small.....I just felt
>compelled to factor in Grossman's account to come up with the smallest to
>largest possible size of that wound as I imagined it from "all" the
>accounts.
>
>John Canal
Interesting points, John.
My intent was simply to provide a transcript of Grossman's comment in
2003, and offer you a copy if so desired. Mission accomplished...
PF
Anthony Marsh
> All:
>
> Believe me, I really don't want to get involved in this discussion other
> than to say the following: I've had many discussions with Canal on this
> subject. I've talked off the record with Chad and some others. I have
> also posted on the record on this forum.
>
> I will say: While I don't agree with Canal's hypothesis of a "plant" or
> deliberate alteration, I do believe this spot on the X-ray has some
> disturbing features. Some of my own observations have been verified by
> several radiologists, who unfortunately will not let me put them on the
> record.
>
What I don't understand is the logic of the conspirators. Fake or plant
a bullet fragment or image thereof in the back of the head a couple of
inches above where the autopsy doctors said there was an entrance wound
so that it makes it look like a conspiracy, so that later when that
fabrication is discovered, it will then be obvious that it was not a
conspiracy and someone was just faking the evidence to make it look like
a conspiracy.
Mike
> On 23 Apr 2007 21:57:43 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
> <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Barb: I'm actually looking forward to VB's book if it's ever publlished.
>
> Hi James -- I've been waiting for that book for decades, ever since I
> saw Bugliosi on a talk show, I think it was Johnny Carson, and he said
> that someday when he had a little time he'd write the book proving
> Oswald did it and did it alone .... he said it wouldn't take him long
> at all. :-)
>
Sounds like we can expect another unobjective lawyerly brief for the
prosecution. Didn't we already have one of those...?<g>
Mike :-)
<snip>
pjsp...@aol.com
John, some posts ago I explained Humes and Boswell's ARRB statements.
BOTH Humes and Boswell, by the end of their ARRB testimony, asserted
that they believed the fragment was the one they recovered at
autopsy. They were not radiologists. They were told that
radiologists had said this fragment was on the back of the head.
Doctors tend to defer to specialists. As they thought about it,
however, they came back to their recollection that the fragment was
the one recovered at autopsy. In my online presentation, now
available at patspeer.com, I go into this in great detail. Last year,
I presented my findings to a radiology forum. NOT ONE radiologist, of
the hundreds to go to my presentation, defended the Clark Panel and
HSCA radiologists against this layman, and not one defended David
Mantik's assertion that the 6.5 mm fragment was added in against this
layman. Several did email me privately and express their support,
though the only specific point they would confirm was my assertion
that occipital fractures do not show up with clarity on A-P x-rays,
and that the supposed occipital fractures in the A-P x-ray were more
logically in Kennedy's eye socket.
John Fiorentino
Personally, I never mentioned a "conspiracy"......as there wasn't any.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rN-dnfJQV66iz7Lb...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
"Smaller" BOH wound? Are we still talking about the right-rear BOH wound
that you are advocating? You're not making sense here with the word
"smaller", which should equate (per your theory) to the entry hole (which
is a hole that nobody could possibly have seen at Parkland since JFK was
lying on it the whole time).
>>> "Remember, they testified or stated they saw a BOH wound...so, do you
want to call them liars?" <<<
No. None of them are liars. I think they probably saw something that they
truly thought was a "wound", which was really "pooling gore" from the
"front-right-top" wound. That's the only way I can reconcile the Parkland
witnesses as of this pre-Vince Bugliosi moment.
Maybe Vince B. can use that wealth of CS&L that he definitely possesses to
come up with a more logical explanation for why dozens of people said they
saw something that couldn't have been there. We'll see.
But you still didn't answer my question....which was: How could any
Parkland people possibly have seen any BOH wound in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of
the head if the only way to see such a hole would be to pull JFK's scalp
almost completely back off of his head to expose such a far- right-rear
occipital hole WHICH WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN VISIBLE WITH THE SCALP PULLED
ALMOST ALL THE WAY BACK OFF OF HIS HEAD?
Why would the scalp have been reflected back that far during JFK's time in
the Parkland ER? Furthermore, HOW could it have been reflected back that
far deep into the occipital area without someone physically manipulating
the scalp and pulling the scalp all the way back?
>>> "If there wasn't any BOH, in the face of the alarming reports from
Parkland, don't you think they could have said there wasn't any BOH wound,
other than the entry...HOW FRICKIN MUCH TROUBLE WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?" <<<
Not much trouble at all. I agree. But if any such BOH wound had extended
as far back into the occipital as you advocate, I also cannot see the
Bethesda doctors NOT revealing that data in their autopsy report (instead
of merely utilizing that one word, "somewhat").
Plus: There is also Humes' 1967 statement to Dan Rather on national TV, in
which Humes says the exit wound was at the "front and right side of the
President's head".
Plus: Even with the alarming reports from Parkland, it's fairly obvious
that NOT A SINGLE BETHESDA PERSON was watching TV at around 3:15 PM on
November 22nd. Because if they HAD been watching the TV reports from
Parkland, somebody at Bethesda would have ALREADY KNOWN that JFK had a
bullet hole in his throat.
I'm still wondering how in heck it was that NOBODY at Bethesda could have
already known about the throat wound via the Clark/Perry afternoon news
conference which was on live TV? Very strange, IMO. You'd think that
somebody who was later at the autopsy would have seen and heard Dr. Perry
describe the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat on live television.
Also -- I still want to see the definitive testimony of Boswell stating he
replaced REAR skull fragments before the X-rays were taken. I see nothing
definitive re. that matter via his ARRB transcript. He says that some
fragments on the head were "put back in"....but he doesn't say exactly
WHERE on the head. Why do you think he meant REAR of the skull? Please
cite that ARRB testimony specifically to straighten this dumb LNer out.
Thanks. ;)
DVP
eca...@tx.rr.com
Downsizing again huh Mr Canal?
CANAL ON:---------
"It wasn't "large" as compared to the top/right/front blow-out wound.
Rather it was most likely no bigger than a small fist and perhaps as small
as a quarter....no one can ever be certain."
CANAL OFF--------
CANAL ON:---------
"And, turn that around, if there wasn't any BOH, in the face of the
alarming reports from Parkland, don't you think they could have said there
wasn't any BOH wound, other than the entry...HOW FRICKIN MUCH TROUBLE
WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?"
CANAL OFF---------
Your problem here is a biggie Mr Canal: Just
changing the (LGBOH) wound to the Gaping
Right Rear wound (GRR) and then to the (LBOH)
wound, then finally to the (BOH) wound does
not create a LGBOH wound or any of it's
subtle spin-offs you have created in an
effort to simply save-face. Your multiple
chairs descriptions continually scaling down
may sooth your ego and perhaps fool a few
newcomers but not savvy vets who are on to
your scale-it-down and maybe it will sneak
by routine. Why do you think you and Barb
are all alone on this turkey? Why do you
think your egotistical and unrealistic dream
of the Discovery or History Channels taking
a "fresh look" (Good luck), at this largely
unsubstantiated scenario never materialized?
Your suggested evolution of the LGBOH wound
slowly disappearing just as the LGBOH wound
itself seems to frequently creep upward and
to the top above the ear where it really was
after all.
----------
LGBOH wound
----------
LBOH wound
----------
GRR wound (gaping right rear)
----------
BOH wound
Now we have evolved all the way to a BOH
wound that could be the bullet hole from the
rear.
Plus as a bonus it doesn't show up on ANY of
the three separate forms of photographic *proof*
(Each a series btw..)
Impressive.
Same goes for your other failed opinion that
the government and Ebersole ( gULp ) *PLANTED*
the 6.5 mm opacity to make it look like a shot
from the rear.
These things never really existed Mr Canal;
except in your mind and that of Barb.. - Hence
you have nowhere to go but to attempt
(continually) to downsize hoping nobody will
notice.
We noticed Mr Canal.
Ed Cage 1835Apr2507
And BTW what happened to my title "6.5 mm spot,
Government *PLANT*, LGBOH wound, all RIP?"
That sophomoric tactic is growing stale as well.
On Apr 24, 10:29 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1177377508.448557.211...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> John Canal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
James K. Olmstead
"Mike" <mikere...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:462f867b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mike: Actually it's without doubt going to be a long read to get anything
new, however it should have a very strong legal base, which needs to be
evaluated, so I'm looking forward to it. I based alot of my work "A Case
Not Tried" on Posner's work and if VB ignores the key aspects of the case
on the "defense" side I feel safe in presenting the finished work for "A
Case Not Tried". I had a brief ready to submit for peer review with some
of the nation's top lawyers, but held off for several reasons. If I ask
the Dean of the law school, I'm sure he will submit the work for peer
review after I check out VB's book.
The only way this case will advance to resolve issues is if people such as
VB actually get involved. I would welcome the opportunity to work with
such people.
I have some of the really tough questions a jury would ask of both the
defense and prosecution. I would love to see a panel of both sides
resolving the issues.
jko
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>On Apr 23, 3:28 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >FWIW, John Canal, the large fragment in CE 843 is only a part of the
>> >fragment recovered from Kennedy's skull, and as seen on the x-rays.
>> >The fragment was cut up by the FBI for their spectrographic analysis.
>> >The original appearance of the fragment, as far as can be determined,
>> >was captured in a little-seen FBI photograph dredged up from the
>> >archives by John Hunt. It reveals a rounded edge which, when seen at
>> >an angle, could very well give the impression the fragment was
>> >circular.
>>
>>Are you saying that J. Hunt thinks the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet
>> fragment and that it was recovered?
>>
>> John Canal
>
>John, some posts ago I explained Humes and Boswell's ARRB statements.
>BOTH Humes and Boswell, by the end of their ARRB testimony, asserted
>that they believed the fragment was the one they recovered at
>autopsy. They were not radiologists. They were told that
>radiologists had said this fragment was on the back of the head.
>Doctors tend to defer to specialists. As they thought about it,
>however, they came back to their recollection that the fragment was
>the one recovered at autopsy.
So, how do you deal with this in your presentation:
"Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these
films....."
Humes to the ARRB, pp. 213-214
Custer did recall seeing it either.
"Behind the right eye" is NOT even close to "the surface of the right
cerbral cortex"
You need for the roundish opacity to be real to fit your fragment exiting
out the throat theory, fine...so go ahead, you keep it, but, for me it's
not a real bullet fragment.
Maybe J. Fiorentino will spend spme time arguing with you on this....I'm
done.
John Canal
John Canal
<TOP POST>
One correction and some after thoughts.
1. I shouldn't have said that Custer didn't recall seeing it, I should
have said that he didn't recall them recovering it.
2. I can't see how you can explain the fact that Boswell also said they
didn't find any fragment that large and that Fick couldn't even recall it.
3. I asked you if you're saying J. Hunt thinks it represents a real bullet
fragment.
John Canal
David Von Pein
find." <<<
Are you nuts?! That color BOH autopsy picture that I previously posted is
probably the BEST quality BOH pic available (or at least that I've seen).
It's crystal clear.
David Von Pein
moved pieces." <<<
Then where's that "tear in the scalp" here?.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>>> "BY THE TIME THE BOH PHOTO WAS TAKEN THE BRAIN AND REAR SKULL HAD BEEN
REMOVED." <<<
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Where does Boswell ever
specifically say such a thing within his ARRB session?
During his 1996 ARRB deposition, Boswell said that the photos and X- rays
were taken at the "VERY BEGINNING" of the autopsy, which would have
certainly equated to before the brain had been removed from JFK's head (or
I certainly would THINK it would equate to such a time). ....
QUESTION -- "Approximately when during the course of the autopsy were
these photographs taken? And by that I mean beginning, middle, end."
DR. BOSWELL -- "This is the beginning, very beginning. These were initial
photographs."
~~~~~
QUESTION -- "At what point during the autopsy was the brain removed?"
BOSWELL -- "I can't be sure, but I think that we did the brain first
before we did the dissection of the thorax and abdomen. But I can't be
sure about that. I mean, normally, it would be the last thing to be done.
But since it was the prime thing in the autopsy, I sort of have a feeling
that we did that first. But I won't say for sure."
~~~~~
But then we have the following comments from Boswell, which further
indicate the order of things (and order that equates to: PHOTOS TAKEN,
BRAIN REMOVED, THEN THE DISSECTION OF THE THORAX).....
"The external examination was done first, and as soon as the body had been
examined, the photographer was brought in and various photographs,
external photographs, were taken, at which point we then backed away and
permitted the radiologist to X-ray the entire body, and then we began
further external examination and dissection while awaiting the development
of the X-ray film. Then the wounds of entry and exit were studied
preliminary to an examination of the abdominal and thoracic cavity. The
neck wound was determined-- its direction and dimension was determined
after we had opened the thorax and been able to review the right thoracic
cavity, which was the midpoint of the wound."
~~~~~
And also from Boswell.....
"Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp was pulled
forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then the scalp
was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or less the
direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain."
Via the totality of the above Boswell comments, it sounds to me as though
the brain was probably still in JFK's head when the BOH picture was taken.
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>> "The smaller BOH wound I suggest wasn't covered and more
>visible...even though they may not have had such a great angle." <<<
>
>
>"Smaller" BOH wound? Are we still talking about the right-rear BOH wound
>that you are advocating? You're not making sense here with the word
>"smaller",
"Smaller" as in about one-fifth the size of the great top/right/front
blow-out wound.
>which should equate (per your theory) to the entry hole (which
>is a hole that nobody could possibly have seen at Parkland since JFK was
>lying on it the whole time).
Well, a couple of them picked up his head,but, you're right the entry was
undoubtedly in the lower margin of the right rear BOH wound, and, because
it was there, it would have been the most difficult of all the wounds,
especially considering its size.
>>>> "Remember, they testified or stated they saw a BOH wound...so, do you
>want to call them liars?" <<<
>
>No. None of them are liars. I think they probably saw something that they
>truly thought was a "wound", which was really "pooling gore" from the
>"front-right-top" wound.
I'm sure you've checked the anatomy books...10 eyewitnesses, INCLUDING TWO
NEUROSURGEONS, said they saw cerebellum...even to this layman, that part
of the brain would have been unlikely seen through a hole it the
top/right/front. Sooo, you don't want to call them liars right...then
agree they saw cerebellum through a wound that'd make doing so
possible....the right-rear BOH wound.
>That's the only way I can reconcile the Parkland
>witnesses as of this pre-Vince Bugliosi moment.
I'm waiting for your explanation about Boswell replacing pieces of rear
bone, which makes a leap to a right-rear BOH wound, a baby step.
>Maybe Vince B. can use that wealth of CS&L that he definitely possesses to
>come up with a more logical explanation for why dozens of people said they
>saw something that couldn't have been there. We'll see.
"That couldn't have been there?" You may not want to call them liars but
you're calling them something many of them would consider
worse.."hallucinators'.
>But you still didn't answer my question....which was: How could any
>Parkland people possibly have seen any BOH wound in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of
>the head if the only way to see such a hole would be to pull JFK's scalp
>almost completely back off of his head to expose such a far- right-rear
>occipital hole WHICH WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN VISIBLE WITH THE SCALP PULLED
>ALMOST ALL THE WAY BACK OFF OF HIS HEAD?
I'll go slow. At least one piece of the fragmented skull under the rear
scalp moved out of position and the scalp undoubtedly torn in that area
moved as well. That's why Boswell had to "smooth" the rear scalp, with
fragmented pieces of rear skull adhered to its underside back into place
before the x-rays. IOW, it surely wasn't as if he had to ick uppieces off
the table and super glue them back....they were stuck to the underside of
the scalp, making it easy for him.
>Why would the scalp have been reflected back that far during JFK's time in
>the Parkland ER?
It was never "reflected" back, David. Surely a portion of it had moved
along with the attached underlying skull fragments.
>Furthermore, HOW could it have been reflected back that
>far deep into the occipital area without someone physically manipulating
>the scalp and pulling the scalp all the way back?
First, the near-EOP entry surely was in the lower margin of the right rear
BOH wound...and, considering that the EOP is a long ways from being at the
bottom of the occipital bone, we're not talking about a right rear BOH
wound that was that "deep" in the BOH.
>>>> "If there wasn't any BOH, in the face of the alarming reports from
>Parkland, don't you think they could have said there wasn't any BOH wound,
>other than the entry...HOW FRICKIN MUCH TROUBLE WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?" <<<
>
>
>Not much trouble at all. I agree. But if any such BOH wound had extended
>as far back into the occipital as you advocate, I also cannot see the
>Bethesda doctors NOT revealing that data in their autopsy report (instead
>of merely utilizing that one word, "somewhat").
Pretty vague the word, "somewhat", isn't it, David. Remember, they didn't
want to lie about the existance of any BOH wound...thus the vague
adjectives and lack of acknowledgement of any reported BOH wound.
>Plus: There is also Humes' 1967 statement to Dan Rather on national TV, in
>which Humes says the exit wound was at the "front and right side of the
>President's head".
So? It was. The right rearBOH wound was not an exit ound...it was what you
could call, "colateral damage" from the bullet entering there.
>Plus: Even with the alarming reports from Parkland, it's fairly obvious
>that NOT A SINGLE BETHESDA PERSON was watching TV at around 3:15 PM on
>November 22nd. Because if they HAD been watching the TV reports from
>Parkland, somebody at Bethesda would have ALREADY KNOWN that JFK had a
>bullet hole in his throat.
That's a good point. They surely heard about what Perry and Clark said at
the afternoon Dallas Press Conference. Then, you've got our C. Hill....he
saw the right rear BOH wound in Dallas and was at Bethesda. Whenever, they
learned about the throat wound, it was taken care of in the autopsy
report. The right rear BOH was right there for them to worry about when
the body arrived....and Boswell took care of it very quickley.
>I'm still wondering how in heck it was that NOBODY at Bethesda could have
>already known about the throat wound via the Clark/Perry afternoon news
>conference which was on live TV? Very strange, IMO. You'd think that
>somebody who was later at the autopsy would have seen and heard Dr. Perry
>describe the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat on live television.
I agree. But, like I said, the right rear BOH would has hunting them from
the start....they could see the obscured throat wound..."out of sight-out
of mind?"
>Also -- I still want to see the definitive testimony of Boswell stating he
>replaced REAR skull fragments before the X-rays were taken. I see nothing
>definitive re. that matter via his ARRB transcript. He says that some
>fragments on the head were "put back in"....but he doesn't say exactly
>WHERE on the head. Why do you think he meant REAR of the skull? Please
>cite that ARRB testimony specifically to straighten this dumb LNer out.
You're far from being dumb.
Ok, let's do this sequentially.
1. Because the rear bone pieces were replaced right away, we know that
they couldn't have included any of the three "late-arriving" skull
fragments.
2. Now, we know that those three late-arriving skull fragments fit in the
"missing" skull area, as described by the forensic anthropologist, Dr.
Angel.
3. That "missing skull" area went from roughly the cowlick forward to even
forward of the coronal suture, IOW roughly forward to his forehead.
4. One of the pieces of bone Boswell seems most definitive about replacing
was a 10 cm piece. (Boswell to the ARRB, pg. 99)
5. If a 10 cm piece of bone had been replaced it must have been to the
posterior of the "missing skull"....and, David, even without any other
skull pieces, that gets us pretty deep into the BOH already.
>Thanks. ;)
My pleasure.
John Canal
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>> "There undoubtedly was a tear in the scalp allowing brain tissue to
>exude and be visible through the gap/s between the intact skull and/or
>moved pieces." <<<
>
>Then where's that "tear in the scalp" here?.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
Ok, good questio...but one that's been recycled here many time before.
Coincidently, Dr. McAdams brings that up in another thread..."The Evolution of
the ....", whatever it was. Can you find it and read my reply to his
post...which, BTW, he intended for Barb.
>>>> "BY THE TIME THE BOH PHOTO WAS TAKEN THE BRAIN AND REAR SKULL HAD BEEN
>REMOVED." <<<
>
>How did you arrive at this conclusion? Where does Boswell ever
>specifically say such a thing within his ARRB session?
Well, he specifically states the bone behind the scalp in the BOH photo is out
down to near the EOP. That rear bone either fell out or was taken out when they
reflected the rear scalp to remove the brain. There're other indications as
well...j. Hunt came up with the best...it's in my notes. Also, Paul Seaton may
have an explanation on his sight...do you have his site bookmarked?
>During his 1996 ARRB deposition, Boswell said that the photos and X- rays
>were taken at the "VERY BEGINNING" of the autopsy,
Obviously not all of them.....F8, for example, shows the brain out.
>which would have
>certainly equated to before the brain had been removed from JFK's head (or
>I certainly would THINK it would equate to such a time). ....
>
>QUESTION -- "Approximately when during the course of the autopsy were
>these photographs taken? And by that I mean beginning, middle, end."
>
>DR. BOSWELL -- "This is the beginning, very beginning. These were initial
>photographs."
Yes, "initial photographs".
Indeed, the BOH photo.
>And then the scalp
>was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or less the
>direction of the bullet,
Ah, yes...one of the photos that were never taken or just that we never got to
see...yup, if we did see one like that we wouldn't be here right now.
>and then to remove the brain."
>Via the totality of the above Boswell comments, it sounds to me as though
>the brain was probably still in JFK's head when the BOH picture was taken.
That'd make him a liar...I thought you didn't like to do that?
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "That'd make him {Boswell} a liar...I thought you didn't like to do that?" <<<
I don't. And he (Boswell) isn't a liar.
His ARRB testimony is too muddled to clear up the issue of whether any
REAR skull fragments were replaced back into JFK's skull or not,
IMO. .....
BOSWELL -- "Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-
centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think
maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram
also were out at one time or another. But those were all put back."
And the orientation of this crude drawing has always been a bit of a
mystery to this writer:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/pages/Image1.gif
John Canal
Pein says...
>
But don't you see the piece of skull marked with a "10" at the rear of his head
in the diagram? And don't you see the other smaller pieces near that one?
Seeing that there was no bone from about the cowlick forward to about the top of
the forehead when he replaced bones ("some of these back here"), which pieces do
you think he replaced?
David, we're looking for a reasonable bridge to the controversial reports of a
right-rear BOH wound (I hope I wrote that correctly, I'd hate for that wound
description to "evolve" again) from what the Bethesda evidence "APPEARS" to
show......this is the bridge.
If you don't want to take this bridge, then your other choice is to opine that
twenty-something medically trained eyewitnesses at Parkland, C. Hill, and
Ebersole, were grossly mistaken about what they said they saw......and that's
not to mention the 10 eyewitnesses, who include two neurosurgeons, that must
have been wrong about seeing cerebellum, if there was no right-rear BOH wound
(did I spell that right?).
John Canal
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "There undoubtedly was a tear in the scalp allowing brain tissue to
> exude and be visible through the gap/s between the intact skull and/or
> moved pieces." <<<
>
> Then where's that "tear in the scalp" here?.....
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>
>>>> "BY THE TIME THE BOH PHOTO WAS TAKEN THE BRAIN AND REAR SKULL HAD BEEN
> REMOVED." <<<
>
> How did you arrive at this conclusion? Where does Boswell ever
> specifically say such a thing within his ARRB session?
>
> During his 1996 ARRB deposition, Boswell said that the photos and X- rays
> were taken at the "VERY BEGINNING" of the autopsy, which would have
> certainly equated to before the brain had been removed from JFK's head (or
> I certainly would THINK it would equate to such a time). ....
>
No. SOME photos and the X-rays were taken at the very beginning. Not
all. Some were taken before the brain was removed, others were obviously
taken after the brain was removed.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f0pcs...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
taken after the brain was removed." <<<
Of course, it really doesn't make a darn bit of difference. Although your
"obviously" comment has me scratching my own cranium. Which ones are
"obviously" taken post-brain removal, Sir Marsh?
Mike
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:462fede0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Mike" <mikere...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:462f867b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:kc6r23h0ctcv1j3vb...@4ax.com...
>>> On 23 Apr 2007 21:57:43 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
>>> <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Barb: I'm actually looking forward to VB's book if it's ever
>>>>publlished.
>>>
>>> Hi James -- I've been waiting for that book for decades, ever since I
>>> saw Bugliosi on a talk show, I think it was Johnny Carson, and he said
>>> that someday when he had a little time he'd write the book proving
>>> Oswald did it and did it alone .... he said it wouldn't take him long
>>> at all. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like we can expect another unobjective lawyerly brief for the
>> prosecution. Didn't we already have one of those...?<g>
>>
>> Mike :-)
>
Hi Jim
> Mike: Actually it's without doubt going to be a long read to get anything
> new, however it should have a very strong legal base, which needs to be
> evaluated, so I'm looking forward to it. I based alot of my work "A Case
> Not Tried" on Posner's work and if VB ignores the key aspects of the case
> on the "defense" side
I'll be pleasantly surprised if he doesn't. Prosecuting lawyers seldom go
out of their way to help the defense.
I feel safe in presenting the finished work for "A
> Case Not Tried". I had a brief ready to submit for peer review with some
> of the nation's top lawyers, but held off for several reasons. If I ask
> the Dean of the law school, I'm sure he will submit the work for peer
> review after I check out VB's book.
>
> The only way this case will advance to resolve issues is if people such as
> VB actually get involved. I would welcome the opportunity to work with
> such people.
>
> I have some of the really tough questions a jury would ask of both the
> defense and prosecution. I would love to see a panel of both sides
> resolving the issues.
>
Yes. And I'd like to see (for a change) a book which is entirely objective
and not written with pre-formed conclusions. Dream on, eh?<g>
Mike :-)
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, I don't know. That's a tough one. Could be the ones where we can
see only skull bone and no brain inside. That is, if you actually bother
to look at ALL the photos.
James K. Olmstead
"Mike" <mikere...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:46320535$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:462fede0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "Mike" <mikere...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:462f867b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:kc6r23h0ctcv1j3vb...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 23 Apr 2007 21:57:43 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
>>>> <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Barb: I'm actually looking forward to VB's book if it's ever publlished.
>>>>
>>>> Hi James -- I've been waiting for that book for decades, ever since I
>>>> saw Bugliosi on a talk show, I think it was Johnny Carson, and he said
>>>> that someday when he had a little time he'd write the book proving
>>>> Oswald did it and did it alone .... he said it wouldn't take him long
>>>> at all. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like we can expect another unobjective lawyerly brief for the prosecution. Didn't we already have one of
>>> those...?<g>
>>>
>>> Mike :-)
>>
>
> Hi Jim
>
>> Mike: Actually it's without doubt going to be a long read to get anything new, however it should have a very strong
>> legal base, which needs to be evaluated, so I'm looking forward to it. I based alot of my work "A Case Not Tried" on
>> Posner's work and if VB ignores the key aspects of the case on the "defense" side
>
>
> I'll be pleasantly surprised if he doesn't. Prosecuting lawyers seldom go out of their way to help the defense.
Mike: A good trial lawyer such as VB would address the defense issues...it's
how he addresses them that is important. He will without doubt ignore several
key defense points. He's not going to show the weak points of prosecution to
help, but if one knows the points he would ignore...one can see the strength of
the defense in key areas.
>
>
> I feel safe in presenting the finished work for "A
>> Case Not Tried". I had a brief ready to submit for peer review with some of the nation's top lawyers, but held off
>> for several reasons. If I ask the Dean of the law school, I'm sure he will submit the work for peer review after I
>> check out VB's book.
>>
>> The only way this case will advance to resolve issues is if people such as VB actually get involved. I would welcome
>> the opportunity to work with such people.
>>
>> I have some of the really tough questions a jury would ask of both the defense and prosecution. I would love to see
>> a panel of both sides resolving the issues.
>>
>
>
> Yes. And I'd like to see (for a change) a book which is entirely objective and not written with pre-formed
> conclusions. Dream on, eh?<g>
Someday perhaps a book such as the above will emerge.....it is without needed.
jko
>
> Mike :-)
eca...@tx.rr.com
CANAL:
"That'd make him {Boswell} a liar...I thought you didn't like to do
that?"
David, Mr Canal as you can see (above), has been
doing these creative spins on the dialog for
quite some time.. He refers to people supporting
him who don't.. He refers to "answers" that never
existed and those who disagree with him as "not
understanding".. I didn't know about these subtle
spin tactics until I began reading Canal's posts
about 2 months ago.
Mr Canal ON:
"AND YOUR ANSWER WHICH I DECODED FROM ALL THE
DANCING AROUND WAS A, "NO".
CAGE ON:
"Mr Canal see if you can 'decode' this:
I said no such thing."
Canal has also introduced us to his creative
evolution of the LGBOH wound slowly
disappearing.. just as the LGBOH wound
itself seems to frequently creep upward and
to the top above the ear where it really was
after all.
----------
LGBOH wound
----------
LBOH wound
----------
GRR wound (gaping right rear)
----------
BOH wound
Pulling the scalp up to apparently intentionally
hide a LGBOH or LBOH wound is instead referred
to as it was "reflected" to make it appear he is
really into some heavier than average GRR
research.. Speaking of the "GRR wound" what Clint
Hill actually saw after Kennedy dropped from
sight was his ""gaping Right Rear" head wound
which Canal chose to present as the full story
even though he KNEW that Hill had years later
outlined the same story in National Geographic
making the GRR version obsolete.
These spins and references to those who support
his LGBOH wound, and his theory: the government
and Ebersole *planted* the 6.5 mm opacity to make
it appear there was a shot from the rear, have
hurt his credibility in my view.. More importantly
newcomers who are not on to these misleading
tactics are deceived. I must say one good thing
about Mr Canal however he did finally admit his
LGBOH wound was kaput:
*********************
"Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
- John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
*********************
But as you can also see he desperately wants to
save face on these 2 stinker opinions of his:
A) The 6.5 mm was *planted* to support a shot from
the rear and..
B) His LGBOH, LBOH, GRR, and now BOH theory(s).
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 0846Apr2807
(NFL DFAFT TODAY!!)
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md1/pages/I...