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
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 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
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.
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
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
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!
>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 :-)
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.
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 -
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...
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.
[....]
>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
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
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 :-)
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
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...
<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
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.
~~~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>
I quibble with it. There was no entry wound anywhere on the back of the
head.
=========================
>>> "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
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.
>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 :-)
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
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 -
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...
"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...
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
"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
>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 :-)
>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
>