McAdams runs from the tough question...again. :-(
John Canal
of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the EOP
(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual), the premier
LNer (as Jerry has dubbed him), .john McAdams, runs without offering an
explanation....much less without an admission he may have been wrong about
the fct the fatal bullet entered near the EOP...and not in the cowlick.
Cudos, however, to Jerry who intervened for McAdams in the thread with his
[Jerry's], albeit typically weak, response. Jer said (of course, ignoring
the near EOP trail), the BOH photo shows the entry was in the
cowlick...period.... and that HB&F, John Canal and all the other near EOP
entry conclusionists are wrong.
Good Jer.
I'm waiting .john.
John C.
John McAdams
wrote:
>Whe confronted with the fact that existance on the ORIGINAL lateral x-ray
>of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the EOP
>(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
>Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual),
John, there is no such trail.
In the first place, you need to post what Sturdivan and Davis said.
It won't do for you to *claim* they agree with you.
We need to hear from them.
Nobody who has look at the x-rays has seen such a trail before you set
out to find one. The Clark Panel didn't see any such thing.
The Rockefeller Panel didn't see any such thing.
The HSCA FPP didn't see any such thing.
>the premier
>LNer (as Jerry has dubbed him), .john McAdams, runs without offering an
>explanation....much less without an admission he may have been wrong about
>the fct the fatal bullet entered near the EOP...and not in the cowlick.
>
You are being absurdly silly.
You think you can huff and puff and bluff to win the argument.
You can't.
>Cudos, however, to Jerry who intervened for McAdams in the thread with his
>[Jerry's], albeit typically weak, response. Jer said (of course, ignoring
>the near EOP trail), the BOH photo shows the entry was in the
>cowlick...period.... and that HB&F, John Canal and all the other near EOP
>entry conclusionists are wrong.
>
>Good Jer.
>
Do you admit a trail of fragments leading back -- more or less -- to
the cowlick area?
And if so, do you think Kennedy was hit *twice* in the back of the
head?
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Paul Seaton
John,
Could you tell me, the trail starts at the eop, and goes ... where exactly ?
This is within the skull, right ?
Could the other credible and qualified individual be Chad ? Or Mantik ?
paul s
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ck8ij...@drn.newsguy.com...
Paul Seaton
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4168038a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 9 Oct 2004 11:23:42 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Whe confronted with the fact that existance on the ORIGINAL lateral x-ray
> >of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the
EOP
> >(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
> >Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual),
>
>
> John, there is no such trail.
>
> In the first place, you need to post what Sturdivan and Davis said.
Davis said he thought he could see a trail up from the eop area which could
'reconcile' things. (FPP interview with Humes & Boswell).
It would be interesting to hear exactly what Larry says.
paul s
John McAdams
<paulREMO...@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:4168038a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 9 Oct 2004 11:23:42 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Whe confronted with the fact that existance on the ORIGINAL lateral x-ray
>> >of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the
>EOP
>> >(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
>> >Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual),
>>
>>
>> John, there is no such trail.
>>
>> In the first place, you need to post what Sturdivan and Davis said.
>
>Davis said he thought he could see a trail up from the eop area which could
>'reconcile' things. (FPP interview with Humes & Boswell).
>It would be interesting to hear exactly what Larry says.
>
Thanks for the information. HSCA Volume 7 it is.
Of course, that was his off-the-cuff observation and not a considered
opinion. The considered opinions didn't include any such trail.
Then there is the undeniable fact of a higher trail of fragments.
Having Kennedy hit twice in the head seems a big far out to me.
Robert Harris
McAdams) wrote:
>On 9 Oct 2004 11:23:42 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Whe confronted with the fact that existance on the ORIGINAL lateral x-ray
>>of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the EOP
>>(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
>>Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual),
>
>
>John, there is no such trail.
>
>In the first place, you need to post what Sturdivan and Davis said.
>
>It won't do for you to *claim* they agree with you.
>
>We need to hear from them.
ROFLMAO!!
Well, if you won't believe Humes, why would you believe anyone else?
"In further evaluating this head wound, I will refer back to the
X-rays which we had previously prepared. These had disclosed to us
multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material traversing a line
from the wound in the occiput to just above the right eye.."
Robert Harris
John Canal
>
>On 9 Oct 2004 11:23:42 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Whe confronted with the fact that existance on the ORIGINAL lateral x-ray
>>of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the EOP
>>(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
>>Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual),
>
>
>John, there is no such trail.
.john,
Is this your position, i.e. there's no trail extending upwards from near
the EOP? In other words, if there is a such a trail you'll admit a bullet
entering near the EOP (BTW, consistent with what F8 shows and all the
witnesses who sawthe entry on the body) may have caused it [that trail]?
>In the first place, you need to post what Sturdivan and Davis said.
Cripes, he's finishing up an after action report...I'm sure you can wait
for that. In the meantime, I don't think he'd mind me posting an email
that would act as a preview to his report....would that do for now?
>It won't do for you to *claim* they agree with you.
Ya, I know I'm a liar.
>We need to hear from them.
You will.
>Nobody who has look at the x-rays has seen such a trail before you set
>out to find one.
Oh .john...misstatement there old boy. Read Davis' statement in 7HSCA.
about the trail and how the FPP suddenly went "off the record" after he
mentioned it. Do you need the exact page? I'm moving and my notes are
packed. If you don't want to look for it, maybe someone else can help you
out.
>The Clark Panel didn't see any such thing.
Well they couldn't make heads or tails out of F8, so I'm not surprised
they didn't see the "low trail".
>The Rockefeller Panel didn't see any such thing.
Just rubber stamped the Clark Panel's findings, more or less.
>The HSCA FPP didn't see any such thing.
Davis did...he said so!
Baden and some of the others didn't want to see such a trail...they were
going with one of the God's of forensic pathology [Fisher] on the cowlick
entry, no matter what.
>>the premier
>>LNer (as Jerry has dubbed him), .john McAdams, runs without offering an
>>explanation....much less without an admission he may have been wrong about
>>the fct the fatal bullet entered near the EOP...and not in the cowlick.
>>
>
>You are being absurdly silly.
>
>You think you can huff and puff and bluff to win the argument.
No .john. The issue is over...I'm just trying to convince you and a few
others so you don't mislead newbies on this....but you're going kicking
and creaming, that's for sure.
>You can't.
I'm not trying to...but if you'll listen to me now, you'll look less silly
yourself later.
>>Cudos, however, to Jerry who intervened for McAdams in the thread with his
>>[Jerry's], albeit typically weak, response. Jer said (of course, ignoring
>>the near EOP trail), the BOH photo shows the entry was in the
>>cowlick...period.... and that HB&F, John Canal and all the other near EOP
>>entry conclusionists are wrong.
>>
>>Good Jer.
>>
>
>Do you admit a trail of fragments leading back -- more or less -- to
>the cowlick area?
For the umpteenth time, THAT'S NOT A TRAIL!!! No matter what Baden told
you!!! Look at the AP...and see your so-called "trail" scatter. Those high
frags are metal debris (from when the bullet broke apart) that was carried
up along with cranial tissue that exploded up. In fact, a couple of the
frags that appear on the lateral to be part of your trail are actually
outside the skull...in the hair!
>And if so,
See above.
>do you think Kennedy was hit *twice* in the back of the
>head?
Not applicable, of course he was ony hit once in the head.
Baden lied more times than you can shake a stick at. Frankly .john, IMHO,
you're a lot more trusting, if not gullible, when it comes to govt. panels
than I thought someone with your education would be.
John C.
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <4168038a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 9 Oct 2004 11:23:42 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Whe confronted with the fact that existance on the ORIGINAL lateral x-ray
>>>of the trail of radiopaque spots extending upwards frm the area of the EOP
>>>(that the FPP's own Dr. Joe Davis described), has now been confirmed (by
>>>Larry Sturdivan and anoher credible and qualified individual),
>>
>>
>>John, there is no such trail.
>
>.john,
>
>Is this your position, i.e. there's no trail extending upwards from near
>the EOP? In other words, if there is a such a trail you'll admit a bullet
>entering near the EOP (BTW, consistent with what F8 shows and all the
>witnesses who sawthe entry on the body) may have caused it [that trail]?
>
That would at least be evidence for an EOP entry.
>>In the first place, you need to post what Sturdivan and Davis said.
>
>Cripes, he's finishing up an after action report...I'm sure you can wait
>for that. In the meantime, I don't think he'd mind me posting an email
>that would act as a preview to his report....would that do for now?
>
>>It won't do for you to *claim* they agree with you.
>
>Ya, I know I'm a liar.
>
No, but you may be somebody who has latched onto a statement that you
can interpret as supporting your position a bit to hastily.
>>We need to hear from them.
>
>You will.
>
>>Nobody who has look at the x-rays has seen such a trail before you set
>>out to find one.
>
>Oh .john...misstatement there old boy. Read Davis' statement in 7HSCA.
>about the trail and how the FPP suddenly went "off the record" after he
>mentioned it. Do you need the exact page? I'm moving and my notes are
>packed. If you don't want to look for it, maybe someone else can help you
>out.
>
Don't need the exact page. I can find that.
>>The Clark Panel didn't see any such thing.
>
>Well they couldn't make heads or tails out of F8, so I'm not surprised
>they didn't see the "low trail".
>
Sashay(tm)!!
The "high trail" is easy enough to see.
>>The Rockefeller Panel didn't see any such thing.
>
>Just rubber stamped the Clark Panel's findings, more or less.
>
Yep, scum they were.
Have you been taking lessons from Gary Aguilar?
>>The HSCA FPP didn't see any such thing.
>
>Davis did...he said so!
>
In an off-the-cuff remark.
>Baden and some of the others didn't want to see such a trail...they were
>going with one of the God's of forensic pathology [Fisher] on the cowlick
>entry, no matter what.
>
Scum they were. Yes, scum.
Yes, you *are* taking lessons from Aguilar.
You see the world full of scum which splendid qualifications, but
since they are scum they are lying in the service of the Evil Minions.
>Frankly .john, IMHO,
>you're a lot more trusting, if not gullible, when it comes to govt. panels
>than I thought someone with your education would be.
>
I'm way more skeptical of buff amateurs with a pet theory than I am of
government panels.
John Canal
>
>
>John,
>
>Could you tell me, the trail starts at the eop, and goes ... where exactly ?
Larry and the unamed indvidual saw it, they could tell you precisely.
Davis said it extended upwards from the are of the EOP...I believe those
are his words...my notes are packed see 7HSCA (FPP discussions with H&B
present).
>This is within the skull, right ?
Through the skull and into the head. Do you recall Larry's trajectory? I
posted it. Anyway, Larry said the trail is consistent with his trajectory
drawing.
>Could the other credible and qualified individual be Chad ? Or Mantik ?
Sorry, he wants to remain anonymous for now.
John C.
Chad Zimmerman
There are radioopacities on the film near the EOP. There are several.
However, they are not metal. They are most consistent with bone.
There is a fracture just above the EOP with anterior displacement of the
superior bone fragment. There is an area of radiolucency at the inner table
of the skull, albeit small. It was best visualized on the enhanced x-ray.
The question sthat one must ask are:
What testing was done to ensure that the conclusion based on the trail of
fragments was the correct answer- i.e. the high entry?
The brain tissue was blown up and out, above the point of entry. That tissue
contains the metallic fragments. So, should one conclude that the fragments
should point to the entry- or are the blown upwards with the brain tissue
and, hence, the fragment trail is higher than the bullet's initial path?
Now, anyone have any data to contribute to answer those questions? Remember,
the head did not remain a nice closed container and the brain was not
ballistic gelatin that recoils back into its original shape.
Chad
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4168038a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Paul Seaton
I always wonder about the possibility he was hit in the head by a ricochet
fragment *before* the 313 headshot. This (I suppose) counts as being hit
twice in the head. A diagram from Chad showing exactly where this 'other'
trail goes would help...
paul s
TEmptyPockets
>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>Date: 10/9/2004 12:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <41683e2c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
Hope that you have long arms John.
Tom P
Paul Seaton
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4168...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> John(s),
>
> There are radioopacities on the film near the EOP. There are several.
> However, they are not metal. They are most consistent with bone.
Chad,
The $1,000,000 question is, is there a radio-opaque trail of some kind from
the eop to the area of the right eye , as Davis thought he could see ?
>
> There is a fracture just above the EOP with anterior displacement of the
> superior bone fragment.
Presumably (again) implying that the bone just above the eop is loose.. ?
>There is an area of radiolucency at the inner table
> of the skull, albeit small. It was best visualized on the enhanced x-ray.
Which is metal or bone ?
>
> The question sthat one must ask are:
>
> What testing was done to ensure that the conclusion based on the trail of
> fragments was the correct answer- i.e. the high entry?
Even the 'high' entry proposed by the FPP is a couple of inches *below* the
(obvious) trail on the lateral.
>
> The brain tissue was blown up and out, above the point of entry. That
tissue
> contains the metallic fragments. So, should one conclude that the
fragments
> should point to the entry- or are the blown upwards with the brain tissue
> and, hence, the fragment trail is higher than the bullet's initial path?
Would imagine that the fragmenting/ spinning bullet would leave a trail both
above *& below* it's actual track.
The x-ray trail seems to imply that the bullet crossed the skull *higher*
than even the cowlick entry would suggest , and if so, we might have
ourselves a reason why there's so much controversy about the skull entry
point. Possibly there actually wasn't one to be found. The bone at the rear
end of the high trail is *gone*.
paul s
Chad Zimmerman
I wouldn't say that it was a nice trail from entry to behind the eye. You
have bone fragments near the EOP area, then a trail of metal as we all know.
My impression of the metal trail was that it didn't look like much of a
trail. It seemed to me that the distribution was a bit more spread out than
we see in the enhanced version. If I remember correctly, there were many
tiny fragments lower than the *trail*, but they aren't visualized very well
on the stuff we have.
I am going to see if I can go back and map some of that out.
Chad
"Paul Seaton" <paulREMO...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
Robert Harris
wrote:
>John(s),
>
>There are radioopacities on the film near the EOP. There are several.
>However, they are not metal. They are most consistent with bone.
Damn!!
Too bad Humes and Boswell weren't chiropracters, eh?
Robert Harris
Chad Zimmerman
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4168f4b3...@News.Individual.Net...
> On 9 Oct 2004 21:47:34 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >John(s),
> >
> >There are radioopacities on the film near the EOP. There are several.
> >However, they are not metal. They are most consistent with bone.
>
> Damn!!
>
> Too bad Humes and Boswell weren't chiropracters, eh?
Bob,
How very nice of you. I suppose, given your infinite wisdom, you were
aware of the study that showed chiropractic radiologists to be better at
radiographic diagnosis than medical radiologists, right. This is the same
study that found chiropractic students better than medical students and
chiropractors better than general MD's.
I suppose, in your infinite wisdom, you actually know what education a
chiropractor gets, right?
Tell me, Bob, what education do you have that gives you the right to
admonish the education of a chiropractor?
Have you ever read Yochum and Rowe- The Essentials of Skeletal
Radiology? Please do, then tell me what degrees they have and whether
or not you knew 1/10th of what they know regarding radiographic
interpretation.
These fragments I refer to are obviously less dense than the tiny metal
fragments seen elsewhere, yet are much bigger. Tell me, Dr. Harris, what
is your conclusion?
Chad
John Canal
Excuse me for butting in, but I'd like to offer an explanation for why the
spinning bullet didn't throw off frags below its path. I have to believe the
force, whether it was up or down in direction, of the little pieces of metal
that made up the "debris" (created when the bullet broke apart), was overwhelmed
by the force of the upwards exploding brain matter and other cranial
tissue...and were carried upwards along with it.
I realize that's speculation, but, we must keep in mind that even the pieces
that make up what's been called the "high trail" are above both the cowlick
[entry] and near EOP [entry] proposed bullet paths.
Ricochet? No comment. :-)
John C.
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4168f4b3...@News.Individual.Net...
>> On 9 Oct 2004 21:47:34 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John(s),
>> >
>> >There are radioopacities on the film near the EOP. There are several.
>> >However, they are not metal. They are most consistent with bone.
>>
>> Damn!!
>>
>> Too bad Humes and Boswell weren't chiropracters, eh?
>
>Bob,
>
>How very nice of you. I suppose, given your infinite wisdom, you were
>aware of the study that showed chiropractic radiologists to be better at
>radiographic diagnosis than medical radiologists, right.
No, I am not, Chad.
Please tell us about it.
I presume then, that you are a radiologist?
>This is the same
>study that found chiropractic students better than medical students and
>chiropractors better than general MD's.
Fascinating!
I will look forward to reading about this.
Of course, there is another little problem related to objectivity, but
I doubt that it afflicts all chiropracters:-)
Robert Harris
Chad Zimmerman
Right. Now, Bob, without reading anything about it, can you tell me how
there is a problem with objectivity?
Thanks.
Chad