My best for John Canal
John Fiorentino
shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
published this before now.
The area in question is behind JFK's right ear which is where the
purported wound is supposed to be. You will note there is absolutely NO
laceration of JFK's scalp. John's idea about "scalp stretching" simply
does not apply.
The area above, below and to the side of JFK's ear is essentially
pristine. The contour of JFK's head is intact.
There is no wound, there is no cut, there is no blood, in fact there is
nothing visible, because there is nothing to see.
There was NO BOH wound!!
(Please do me a favor and do not post this all over the internet - thanks)
John F.
John Canal
>
>Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos. It
>shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
>wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
>years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
>published this before now.
>
>The area in question is behind JFK's right ear which is where the
>purported wound is supposed to be. You will note there is absolutely NO
>laceration of JFK's scalp.
And you're certain that a scalp laceration was not sutured closed
because......? Do you think, like DVP evidently does, that, if they
sutured a the underside of the scalp laceration closed, they would have
done that so sloppily that the sutures could be seen in a photo? Come on,
JF, that's just silly.
>John's idea about "scalp stretching" simply
>does not apply.
Soooo, again like DVP, you think Humes was lying or hallucinating when he
said:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. that the large wund extended into the occipital.
3. that part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. that the occipital bone was fragmented.
5. that they stretched the scalp.
Wow!!! Holly cow...if you're right, Humes was, mentally, not only unfit to
be a pathologist, but also unfit to wear the Naval uniform....especially a
Naval officer's uniform.
>The area above, below and to the side of JFK's ear is essentially
>pristine. The contour of JFK's head is intact.
You are sooo good at interpreting photos...why don't you prove to us the
entry was in the cowlick by replicating F8? I'll tell you why--because
your replication, if done faithfully, would prove the entry was near the
EOP.
Anyway, back to your misstatements. First, the bone was missing all the
way down to near the EOP when that photo was taken. That's based on two
things: 1) Boswell testified accordingly, and 2) the brain was out when
they took that photo. How do we know that, you ask. Not the best question.
In any case, if you'll look real carefully you'll see that the rear scalp
is being held up, and, because his body didn't arrive with the rear scalp
hanging down, we can logically deduce that they were holding that scalp up
because they had previously reflected it.....and that they reflected it to
begin the process of removing the brain.
So, that part about the contour being intact is just as mythical as your
cowlick entry.
Now, get this. There was no missing scalp there because the BOH wound was
not a blow-out wound. IOW, the bullet entering the rear of his head
created an opening (gaps between the dislodged bone fragments) in the
skull there....as well as a scalp laceration over that opening. So, again
by the time that photo was taken, the rear bone and brain were on the
table and the scalp laceration sutured up (from its underside--so the
sutures wouldn't show).
>There is no wound, there is no cut, there is no blood, in fact there is
>nothing visible, because there is nothing to see.
There was when the body was first received---too bad that photo wasn't
taken then, eh, JF?
>There was NO BOH wound!!
Yup, you're back to insisting all those (20+) "EYE"-witnesses, including
neurosurgeons, nurses, radiologsts, autopsists, and FBI and Secret Service
agents were lying or halcinating........ya right.
Instead of all these highly credible individuals lying or hallucinatng,
isn't it a little more believable that Fisher (perhaps thinking he was
doing so in the nation's best interest) reported there had been no BOH
wound so that Jim Garrison, couldn't claim such a wound supported his
Grassy Knoll shooter scenario?
John Canal
David Von Pein
John Fiorentino
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gtobq...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <49ff888a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>>Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos. It
>>shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
>>wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
>>years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
>>published this before now.
>>
>>The area in question is behind JFK's right ear which is where the
>>purported wound is supposed to be. You will note there is absolutely NO
>>laceration of JFK's scalp.
>
> And you're certain that a scalp laceration was not sutured closed
> because......? Do you think, like DVP evidently does, that, if they
> sutured a the underside of the scalp laceration closed, they would have
> done that so sloppily that the sutures could be seen in a photo? Come on,
> JF, that's just silly.
No, it's not "silly" John. NONE of the experts I've shown that photo to
indicated there was ANY evidence of suturing. Based on the account, they all
indicated it would be rather obvious in the photo. There is NOTHING either
above, to the side, or beneath JFK's ear to indicate it was disturbed in any
way. Certainly, NO indication of an avulsing wound or laceration that had
been "sutured."
>
>>John's idea about "scalp stretching" simply
>>does not apply.
>
> Soooo, again like DVP, you think Humes was lying or hallucinating when he
> said:
>
> 1. the entry was near the EOP.
>
> 2. that the large wund extended into the occipital.
>
> 3. that part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
>
> 4. that the occipital bone was fragmented.
>
> 5. that they stretched the scalp.
I really don't know what he was doing John, and neither do you. I do know he
was wrong.
>
> Wow!!! Holly cow...if you're right, Humes was, mentally, not only unfit to
> be a pathologist, but also unfit to wear the Naval uniform....especially a
> Naval officer's uniform.
I have no comment on Humes's fitness for the military. Please don't pander
like that John.
>
>>The area above, below and to the side of JFK's ear is essentially
>>pristine. The contour of JFK's head is intact.
>
> You are sooo good at interpreting photos...why don't you prove to us the
> entry was in the cowlick by replicating F8? I'll tell you why--because
> your replication, if done faithfully, would prove the entry was near the
> EOP.
We've already discussed your model idea, and this photo is mainly concerning
the wound which you postulate was in proximity to JFK's right ear. (BOH) It
has nothing to do with the cowlick issue.
>
> Anyway, back to your misstatements. First, the bone was missing all the
> way down to near the EOP when that photo was taken. That's based on two
> things: 1) Boswell testified accordingly, and 2) the brain was out when
> they took that photo. How do we know that, you ask. Not the best question.
> In any case, if you'll look real carefully you'll see that the rear scalp
> is being held up, and, because his body didn't arrive with the rear scalp
> hanging down, we can logically deduce that they were holding that scalp up
> because they had previously reflected it.....and that they reflected it to
> begin the process of removing the brain.
There is no evidence of that John. The best indication is that this photo
was taken very early on. Procedurally, you would not reflect the scalp,
remove the brain, and then take this type of photo, nor was there any need
to "suture" a wound by JFK's ear (BOH) if in fact it had been there. In fact
you would want to SHOW that wound, to verify it, not cover it up. A
procedure, which would leave signs of it being done, which is not visible.
>
> So, that part about the contour being intact is just as mythical as your
> cowlick entry.
Whatever you say John.
>
> Now, get this. There was no missing scalp there because the BOH wound was
> not a blow-out wound. IOW, the bullet entering the rear of his head
> created an opening (gaps between the dislodged bone fragments) in the
> skull there....as well as a scalp laceration over that opening. So, again
> by the time that photo was taken, the rear bone and brain were on the
> table and the scalp laceration sutured up (from its underside--so the
> sutures wouldn't show).
There is no evidence of that either in the photo, or anywhere else. Your
speculation is rampant, and your logic is worse.
>
>>There is no wound, there is no cut, there is no blood, in fact there is
>>nothing visible, because there is nothing to see.
>
> There was when the body was first received---too bad that photo wasn't
> taken then, eh, JF?
Saying it, doesn't make it so.
>
>>There was NO BOH wound!!
>
> Yup, you're back to insisting all those (20+) "EYE"-witnesses, including
> neurosurgeons, nurses, radiologsts, autopsists, and FBI and Secret Service
> agents were lying or halcinating........ya right.
>
> Instead of all these highly credible individuals lying or hallucinatng,
> isn't it a little more believable that Fisher (perhaps thinking he was
> doing so in the nation's best interest) reported there had been no BOH
> wound so that Jim Garrison, couldn't claim such a wound supported his
> Grassy Knoll shooter scenario?
Poopie John. You're getting close to Lifton in your imaginings.
I'm done with this, you are welcome to your beliefs.
John F.
tims...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see the point of posting this on the newsgroup if you're not
prepared to share the image with everyone.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
NB: That photo was taken later in the autopsy, AFTER the scalp had been
washed. So why is there a dab of tissue on top of the hair down near the
hairline? And I bet John Canal can see the dark black threads from the
sutures if he looks hard enough.
John Fiorentino
posted for me.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5fa96ac6-279f-457b...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I could do that, but all you need to do is save the attachment .John
>posted for me.
>
Well . . . I could do what I first suggested, and put it in a
subdirectory off my web page, where miscellaneous newsgroup stuff is
put.
But I'm not sure you want that kind of availability on the 'net.
I assume Dave is asking for this because he doesn't have access to
binary posts. A lot of people don't. Everybody who uses Google, for
example.
>John F.
>
>"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:5fa96ac6-279f-457b...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> John F.,
>>
>> Any chance you can e-mail me that same photo scan? I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> davevonpein
>> @
>> aol.com
>>
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
also still working on my book and that photo was given to me by David
Belin, and it is something I would like to use myself.
The photo is also generally available, but the ones I've seen to date
aren't as good quality.
John F.
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e900809e-360c-4769...@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
>
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:gtobq...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <49ff888a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>>Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos. It
>>>shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
>>>wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
>>>years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
>>>published this before now.
>>>
>>>The area in question is behind JFK's right ear which is where the
>>>purported wound is supposed to be. You will note there is absolutely NO
>>>laceration of JFK's scalp.
>>
>> And you're certain that a scalp laceration was not sutured closed
>> because......? Do you think, like DVP evidently does, that, if they
>> sutured a the underside of the scalp laceration closed, they would have
>> done that so sloppily that the sutures could be seen in a photo? Come on,
>> JF, that's just silly.
>
>
>No, it's not "silly" John. NONE of the experts I've shown that photo to
>indicated there was ANY evidence of suturing.
That's the point--if the suturing was done professionally and on the
underside of the scalp after it had been reflected, there shouldn't have
been any "evidence" whatsoever of suturing that any experts could
see....especially in a photo. This was the body of the President of the
united States, they just didn't pick the first ad for morticians out of
the yellow pages--Gawler's was undoubtedly among the best at what they do
in the area.
>Based on the account, they all
>indicated it would be rather obvious in the photo. There is NOTHING either
>above, to the side, or beneath JFK's ear to indicate it was disturbed in any
>way. Certainly, NO indication of an avulsing wound or laceration that had
>been "sutured."
They said what you wanted them to say. The alternative to your scenario is
that dozens of credible witnesses can't be trusted and that even the basic
findings from autopsies ought to be overturned if photos and x-rays show a
possible conflict with those findings.
>>>John's idea about "scalp stretching" simply
>>>does not apply.
>>
>> Soooo, again like DVP, you think Humes was lying or hallucinating when he
>> said:
>>
>> 1. the entry was near the EOP.
>>
>> 2. that the large wund extended into the occipital.
>>
>> 3. that part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
>>
>> 4. that the occipital bone was fragmented.
>>
>> 5. that they stretched the scalp.
>
>I really don't know what he was doing John, and neither do you. I do know he
>was wrong.
F8 proves Fisher and Baden et. al. were wrong and Humes was correct about
the entry location.....and that severely undermines the credibility of
Fisher and Baden et. al. when it comes to refuting what Humes said about
the large wound extending into the occipital.
Replicate F8 and prove I'm wrong about the entry location....your constant
"I'm right-you're wrong" claims are hardly convincing arguments.
Look, Bugliosi knows there's a problem with the HSCA's record on this or
else he wouldn't have told me he couldn't drop everything to "get to the
bottom of this."
>> Wow!!! Holly cow...if you're right, Humes was, mentally, not only unfit to
>> be a pathologist, but also unfit to wear the Naval uniform....especially a
>> Naval officer's uniform.
>
>I have no comment on Humes's fitness for the military. Please don't pander
>like that John.
Then give us a reasonable explanation or what gives you the basis for
Humes lying of hallucinating on those findings?
>>>The area above, below and to the side of JFK's ear is essentially
>>>pristine. The contour of JFK's head is intact.
>>
>> You are sooo good at interpreting photos...why don't you prove to us the
>> entry was in the cowlick by replicating F8? I'll tell you why--because
>> your replication, if done faithfully, would prove the entry was near the
>> EOP.
>
>We've already discussed your model idea, and this photo is mainly concerning
>the wound which you postulate was in proximity to JFK's right ear. (BOH) It
>has nothing to do with the cowlick issue.
But the cowlick issue is connected---it shows Fisher and Baden et. al.
were wrong about the entry location and that means they were very much
fallible...much more so than the doctors who tried to save JFK's life, not
to mention the prosectors.
>>
>> Anyway, back to your misstatements. First, the bone was missing all the
>> way down to near the EOP when that photo was taken. That's based on two
>> things: 1) Boswell testified accordingly, and 2) the brain was out when
>> they took that photo. How do we know that, you ask. Not the best question.
>> In any case, if you'll look real carefully you'll see that the rear scalp
>> is being held up, and, because his body didn't arrive with the rear scalp
>> hanging down, we can logically deduce that they were holding that scalp up
>> because they had previously reflected it.....and that they reflected it to
>> begin the process of removing the brain.
>
>There is no evidence of that John. The best indication is that this photo
>was taken very early on.
So Boswell was misremembering? And, if it was taken early on that means
Humes was wrong about the wound extending into the occipital and seeing
cerebellum and all the other EYEwitnesses were wrong too? Get real---your
"the government would never say anything that wasn't true" mentality is
naive at best.
>Procedurally, you would not reflect the scalp,
>remove the brain, and then take this type of photo,
Procedures are never broken?
>nor was there any need
>to "suture" a wound by JFK's ear (BOH) if in fact it had been there.
How about this wild reasoning--or is it to radical for you to contemplate:
The sutued up the laceration behind the right ear for the same reason they
didn't photograph the BOH when the body was first received--they didn't
want anyone to misinterpret phographs of a BOH wound as being evidence
there had been a frontal shooter. They did sa in their report the large
wound extended into the occipital, but their vagueness (using the phrase,
"somewhat" into the occipital and temporal") was by careful design......as
was Humes' use of the word, "flocculus" (instead of saying part of the
cerebellum) in his WC testimony---words were less definitive and had less
chance (as opposed to a photograph) of being misinterpreted [as evdence of
a frontal shot].
See how the scanario I laid out for you works?--nobody who saw the body
lied or hallucinated....only the ones using photographs and x-rays to draw
their conclusions from were wrong.
>In fact
>you would want to SHOW that wound, to verify it, not cover it up.
See above--I'm not going to try to explain it to you again.
>A
>procedure, which would leave signs of it being done, which is not visible.
Gullible?
>> So, that part about the contour being intact is just as mythical as your
>> cowlick entry.
>
>Whatever you say John.
I say the same thing.
>> Now, get this. There was no missing scalp there because the BOH wound was
>> not a blow-out wound. IOW, the bullet entering the rear of his head
>> created an opening (gaps between the dislodged bone fragments) in the
>> skull there....as well as a scalp laceration over that opening. So, again
>> by the time that photo was taken, the rear bone and brain were on the
>> table and the scalp laceration sutured up (from its underside--so the
>> sutures wouldn't show).
>
>There is no evidence of that either in the photo, or anywhere else.
There wasn't supposed to be. What we do know for ceratin is that, while
photos of his body from other angles were taken when the body was first
received, NONE, NADA, ZILCO, ZERO were taken of the BOH....why, JF, do you
think that happened? They were rushed? An oversite? Don't be so
gullible--I hope that, if there are any lurkers who still read threads on
this stuff, they aren't so gullible.
>Your
>speculation is rampant, and your logic is worse.
But, cripes, it is based on the findings, testimony, and statements of the
autopsists and dozens of other credible witnesess.
Your speculation, on the other hand, is based on all those witnesses lying
ofr hallucinating....do you see the difference? Of course you say you
don't.
>>>There is no wound, there is no cut, there is no blood, in fact there is
>>>nothing visible, because there is nothing to see.
>>
>> There was when the body was first received---too bad that photo wasn't
>> taken then, eh, JF?
>
>Saying it, doesn't make it so.
See above.
>>>There was NO BOH wound!!
>>
>> Yup, you're back to insisting all those (20+) "EYE"-witnesses, including
>> neurosurgeons, nurses, radiologsts, autopsists, and FBI and Secret Service
>> agents were lying or halcinating........ya right.
>>
>> Instead of all these highly credible individuals lying or hallucinatng,
>> isn't it a little more believable that Fisher (perhaps thinking he was
>> doing so in the nation's best interest) reported there had been no BOH
>> wound so that Jim Garrison, couldn't claim such a wound supported his
>> Grassy Knoll shooter scenario?
>
>Poopie John. You're getting close to Lifton in your imaginings.
Lifton's scenario is better than yours in one respect--at least he wasn't
calling everybody and his brother a liar or hallucinator.
>I'm done with this, you are welcome to your beliefs.
I'm not worried about yours, DVP's or McAdams' beliefs....it's the ones
who haven't locked their positions on these issues irreversibly in cement
that I'd like to see understand what really happened.
John Canal
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah where's this cosmic image?
Burgundy
John Fiorentino
he looks hard enough."
Yeah, and if I click my heals and wish hard enough, I'll be back in
Kansas!
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a00469e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Von Pein
JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>>> "Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos.
It shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
published this before now." <<<
DVP SAID:
>>> "John F., Any chance you can e-mail me that same photo scan? I'd
appreciate it." <<<
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "I assume Dave is asking for this because he doesn't have access to
binary posts. A lot of people don't. Everybody who uses Google, for
example." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yes, exactly.
Anyway, somebody else e-mailed me the photo today. How that person
obtained it, I have no idea. (I guess he got it through those "binary"
posts that .John mentioned.)
That autopsy photo (a B&W one) is a very clear photo indeed (as John F.
pointed out).
And my eyes are seeing absolutely NO DAMAGE whatsoever to John F.
Kennedy's RIGHT-REAR scalp in that autopsy photograph. The right-rear
(occipital) area of JFK's head is perfectly intact.
Photo Footnote---
I've always wondered why some of the autopsy photos were taken in
black-and-white; while some others were in color.
Why weren't they all taken with color film? I've never understood this.
Seems to me that having all of the autopsy pictures in color would have
made more sense....and would have produced better consistency. (IMO.)
John Fiorentino
just want to set some things straight.
"that even the basic findings from autopsies ought to be overturned if
photos and x-rays show a possible conflict with those findings."
1. That is actually normal procedure in the audit process for autopsies.
2. I really don't care what Bugliosi says. But in any event, I believe you
are misinterpreting his remarks.
3. I never indicated Humes was "lying" or "hallucinating."
4. Nor was I calling everyone liars or hallucinators.
The rest of your theory is simply speculation, now very much akin to a
Liftonesque approach.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gtpmu...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
>
>I'm not going to respond to your whole mish-mosh of convoluted thinking, I
>just want to set some things straight.
>
>"that even the basic findings from autopsies ought to be overturned if
>photos and x-rays show a possible conflict with those findings."
>
>1. That is actually normal procedure in the audit process for autopsies.
>
>2. I really don't care what Bugliosi says.
Most people heed what Bugliosi says.
>But in any event, I believe you
>are misinterpreting his remarks.
How would you interpret what he meant by "get to the bottom of this"? Get
to the bottom of what?
>3. I never indicated Humes was "lying" or "hallucinating."
>
>4. Nor was I calling everyone liars or hallucinators.
If you are saying they were wrong about what they testified under oath
they saw....then they either lied or thought they saw things that weren't
really there....aka hallucinating....Ok, you don't like that insult so how
about just saying "runaway imaginations"? Truthfully, if the witnesses
could meet you I don't think they'd fuss over whether you said they were
wrong or hallucinating....but do think they'd enjoy talking to you.
>The rest of your theory is simply speculation, now very much akin to a
>Liftonesque approach.
And if my theory is speculation then what's a good name for your theory
that Humes was ***WRONG*** when he either wrote in the autopsy report or
testified under oath that:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. that the large wound extended into the occipital.
3. that part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. that the occipital bone was fragmented.
5. that they stretched the scalp.
Huh? Based on 1-5 above, if my theory is speculation, akin to the
Liftonesque approach, yours is off-the-charts ridiculous.
John Canal
John Fiorentino
I e-mailed the photo.
"Why weren't they all taken with color film?"
To avoid the possibility of there being problems with the film. In fact,
MOST of the color/bw pictures are essentially "back-ups" of each other.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:37111200-e9e5-4a60...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
paul seaton
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4a0015f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:gtobq...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <49ff888a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>>Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos. It
>>>shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
>>>wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
>>>years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
>>>published this before now.
>>>
>>>The area in question is behind JFK's right ear which is where the
>>>purported wound is supposed to be. You will note there is absolutely NO
>>>laceration of JFK's scalp.
Just to point out, here, that this statement is patently no more than a
thinly disguised assumption , because *you can't actually see the scalp in
the photo*.
And of course, given that Humes et al removed the brain *without sawing the
skull* - a feat quite impossible without the rear skull being removed - we
can say that the rear skull was neccessarily in pieces down to about the
area of the eop.
I recall questioning people here about this a few years ago and about the
best response was that they must therefore have sucked his brains out
through his nose. To such absurdities are we reduced....
paul s
John Fiorentino
Humes indicated there was little or no sawing needed to remove the brain.
Seaton claims: "a feat quite impossible without the rear skull being
removed"
that of course is non-sense. In any event, it is irrelevant to this thread.
John F.
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4a019b8c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Canal
Good post, Paul and nice to see you strolling by...stay for a while?
Of course you posted here (longer than I) enough to know that JF, DVP, and
McAdams are as concerned about your makes-sense comments that conflict with
their no-BOH-wound theory as ducks are about being out in the rain. Their
positons on this are cured in the best cement known to mankind. Ask them
sometime if they can recall any one EYEwitness that they think didn't
misremember something important about the headwounds....and they'll come up
empty.
Occasionally, though, an on-the-fence lurker is bored enough to drop in on these
perpetually appearing threads and hopefully he or she will heed your words of
wisdom.
John C.
>paul s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
paul seaton
> All that has nothing to do with the photo, or the reason I posted it.
>
> Humes indicated there was little or no sawing needed to remove the brain.
>
> Seaton claims: "a feat quite impossible without the rear skull being
> removed"
Don't ask me, ask Joe Riley . In any case it's pretty obvious.
>
> that of course is non-sense.
Where do you get this 'of course' ? Do you think everyone here is a
professional brain remover ? If it is non-sense, you will have no trouble
explaining to dumb ole me how someone should go about doing it. ( I
guarantee you will be too sensible to try. It would be like attempting to
explain how to get a blancmange through a keyhole - intact .)
> In any event, it is irrelevant to this thread.
I am pointing out problems with statements you made. If my responses are
irrelevant, so were your statements. Thus you are claiming your own post
was irrelevant. Even I didn't go that far.
Paul S
John Canal
>
>All that has nothing to do with the photo, or the reason I posted it.
>
>Humes indicated there was little or no sawing needed to remove the brain.
>
>Seaton claims: "a feat quite impossible without the rear skull being
>removed"
>
>that of course is non-sense.
Then explain, JF, if the pieces of skull didn't fall out or adhere to the
underside of the scalp when they reflected it like they said, why the edge
of the rear skull, as seen in F8, is so jagged? IOW, if a saw was used
that edge wouldn't be jagged, would it....unless a chain saw were used?
>In any event, it is irrelevant to this thread.
It's rellevant because it shows you don't know what you're talking about
when you discuss all aspects of the head wounds.
Back up your claims, for a change, that our theories are "nonsense" with
some evidence (e.g. a replication of F8) or testimony.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Ask them [DVP, John F., and John McAdams] sometime if they can recall
any one EYEwitness that they think didn't misremember something important
about the headwounds....and they'll come up empty." <<<
And John Canal will come up completely "empty" in this regard as well.
Why?
Because there isn't ONE solitary witness whom John Canal can prop up in
the category of:
THIS WITNESS GOT EVERYTHING 100% CORRECT CONCERNING PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S
HEAD WOUNDS.
And that's because John C. doesn't have one single witness who claimed to
have seen BOTH a large "BOH" wound in JFK's head AND the large
FRONT/RIGHT/TOP wound in the President's head on 11/22/63.
And John C. cannot possibly prop up Humes, Finck, and Boswell as being in
the "Everything Correct" category I just mentioned above -- because not a
single one of those three autopsy surgeons ever said they saw a large-ish
hole in the back of JFK's skull.
John Fiorentino
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gtsa...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
For the last time, do not rely on EYEwitnesses.
WBurg...@aol.com
> In article <4a019b8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, paul seaton says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:4a0015f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >> "John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >>news:gtobq...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>> In article <49ff888...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good post Paul Sounds like surgery to the head area to me. By the way I
have a photo (it's attached) from LBJ that shows E. Howard Hunt sawing
JFK's brain at Walter Reed and removing bullets but please don't share it
all over the Internet because... well just because. But trust me.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>
>>>> "Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos.
> It shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH
> wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many)
> years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never
> published this before now."<<<
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>>>> "John F., Any chance you can e-mail me that same photo scan? I'd
> appreciate it."<<<
>
>
>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
>
>
>>>> "I assume Dave is asking for this because he doesn't have access to
> binary posts. A lot of people don't. Everybody who uses Google, for
> example."<<<
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> Anyway, somebody else e-mailed me the photo today. How that person
> obtained it, I have no idea. (I guess he got it through those "binary"
> posts that .John mentioned.)
>
> That autopsy photo (a B&W one) is a very clear photo indeed (as John F.
> pointed out).
>
> And my eyes are seeing absolutely NO DAMAGE whatsoever to John F.
> Kennedy's RIGHT-REAR scalp in that autopsy photograph. The right-rear
> (occipital) area of JFK's head is perfectly intact.
>
John Canal's way out is to claim that photo was taken AFTER Humes
sutured the scalp back together. We do know that it was taken later in
the autopsy after the scalp had been washed.
> Photo Footnote---
>
> I've always wondered why some of the autopsy photos were taken in
> black-and-white; while some others were in color.
>
> Why weren't they all taken with color film? I've never understood this.
> Seems to me that having all of the autopsy pictures in color would have
> made more sense....and would have produced better consistency. (IMO.)
>
Exactly the opposite.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "Ask them [DVP, John F., and John McAdams] sometime if they can recall
>any one EYEwitness that they think didn't misremember something important
>about the headwounds....and they'll come up empty." <<<
>
>And John Canal will come up completely "empty" in this regard as well.
>
>Why?
>
>Because there isn't ONE solitary witness whom John Canal can prop up in
>the category of:
>
>THIS WITNESS GOT EVERYTHING 100% CORRECT CONCERNING PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S
>HEAD WOUNDS.
>
>And that's because John C. doesn't have one single witness who claimed to
>have seen BOTH a large "BOH" wound in JFK's head AND the large
>FRONT/RIGHT/TOP wound in the President's head on 11/22/63.
You and JF repeatedly demonstrate how little you know about the medical
evidence....all you two do is squawk like a parrot, "There was no BOH
wound....the entry was in the cowlick...because all those experts and
Bugliosi said so."
That said, I'll bet you the cost of a steak dinner that there were some
EYEwitnesses who stated the the large wound was both in the parietal as
well as the occipital.
Put up or shut up.
John Canal
[...]
Anthony Marsh
No, we KNOW it was taken later. The ones taken earlier show the scalp
still matted with blood and brain matter, the earliest still showing the
gauze squares packed in the wound. This photo was taken later, AFTER the
scalp had been washed.
> scalp, remove the brain, and then take this type of photo, nor was there
John Fiorentino
attention before you engage your fantasies.
John F.
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80c625ee-de4b-417e...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Paul says stuff like this: "I am pointing out problems with statements you
made. If my responses are irrelevant, so were your statements. Thus you
are claiming your own post was irrelevant. Even I didn't go that far."
I've encountered better debating techniques in grade school.
As for all of this crap about sucking the brain out of JFK's nose, etc.
Let me post a professional description of a brain removal at autopsy:
It will explain to all except the mentally deficient just how this
"miracle" was accomplished in this case, and how it is accomplished
everyday around the world.
The description will answer and address these points:
1. WHY the photo I posted was NOT taken post brain removal.
2. WHY the idea of "invisible sutures" is a fantasy.
3. HOW JFK's brain was removed without a great deal of effort, and with
little or no sawing.
4. WHY JFK's brain was NOT "plunked down on the table" as alluded to by
John Canal to give some added defense to his occipital entry and negate
Humes' own findings at autopsy, which indicated the base of the laceration
through JFK's brain was only several inches down from the vertex. As Humes
himself indicated in his supplemental exam and even in his ARRB testimony.
5. WHY you don't remove the "back of the head" to extract a brain at
autopsy.
6. Finally, (and mercifully) why all of this is just a dream.
Removing The Brain
The diener takes the body block out from under the patient's back and
places it under the back of the head. This elevates the head so that it is
positioned as if it were on a very thick, stiff pillow. The diener uses a
scalpel to cut from behind one ear, over the crown of the head, to behind
the other ear. Like with the trunk incisions, this one is deep, all the
way to the skull. The skin and soft tissues are now divided into a front
flap and a rear flap. The front flap is pulled (this takes some strength)
forward (like being "scalped") over the patient's face, thus exposing the
top and front of the skull. The back flap is pulled backwards over the
nape of the neck. The whole top hemisphere of the skull is now exposed.
The diener takes an electric saw (typically called a "Stryker saw," even
if it's not manufactured by Stryker) and makes cuts around the equator of
the cranium. This cut must be deep enough to cut all the way through the
skull, but not so deep that the brain is cut (this takes some skill).
Typically, the cut is not totally straight but has a notch so that the
skull top (calvarium) will not slide off the bottom half of the skull
after everything is sewn back up. After this cut, the calvarium is removed
and set aside. As the calvarium is lifted off, there is a very
characteristic sound that is sort of a combination of a sucking sound and
the sound of rubbing two halves of a coconut together. The best recorded
representation of this sound that I have heard is in the brain transplant
scene of the film Robocop II.
The outer layer of the meninges (the coverings of the brain), called the
dura, stays with the calvarium, so that the top of the brain is now fully
exposed. After the chore of getting to it, it is a relatively easy matter
to get the brain out. There are no tough ligaments that hold the brain in,
so really all that needs to be done is to cut the spinal cord and the
dural reflections that go between the cerebellum and cerebrum (called the
tentorium). The brain is then easily lifted out.
Since the brain is very soft and easily deformable, it is not manipulated
at the time of the autopsy. Instead it is hung up by string in a large jar
of formalin (a 10% solution of formaldehyde gas in buffered water) for two
weeks or longer. The action of formaldehyde is to "fix" the tissue, not
only preserving it from decay, but also causing it to become much firmer
and easier to handle without deforming it. The reason that it is suspended
by string is to prevent it from having a flattened side from lying in the
bottom of the jar (the brain is heavier than water and therefore sinks).
Closing Up And Releasing The Body
After all the above procedures are performed, the body is now an empty
shell, with no larynx, chest organs, abdominal organs, pelvic organs, or
brain. The front of the rib cage is also missing. The scalp is pulled down
over the face, and the whole top of the head is gone. Obviously, this is
not optimal for lying in state in public view. The diener remedies this
problem. First, the calvarium is placed back on the skull (the brain is
not replaced), the scalp pulled back over the calvarium, and the wound
sewn up with thick twine using the type of stitch used to cover baseballs.
The wound is now a line that goes from behind the ears over the back of
the skull, so that when the head rests on a pillow in the casket, the
wound is not visible.
John F.
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4a01c59e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
paul seaton
> The silliness continues unabated:
>
> Paul says stuff like this: "I am pointing out problems with statements you
> made. If my responses are irrelevant, so were your statements. Thus you
> are claiming your own post was irrelevant. Even I didn't go that far."
>
> I've encountered better debating techniques in grade school.
>
> As for all of this crap about sucking the brain out of JFK's nose, etc.
> Let me post a professional description of a brain removal at autopsy:
>
> It will explain to all except the mentally deficient just how this
> "miracle" was accomplished in this case, and how it is accomplished
> everyday around the world.
>
> The description will answer and address these points:
>
> 1. WHY the photo I posted was NOT taken post brain removal.
John you really should engage *your* brain before making absurd statements
like that.
Let me just walk you quickly through that one :
1) The back wound was found LATE, by FINCK
2) The brain was OUT by the time Finck arrived
3) The back wound is clearly visible in the series of photos of which you
posted one, here.
4) Therefore the back wound was found by the time those photos were taken.
5) Therefore Finck was there at the time these photos were taken
6) Therefore ( see 2) the brain was OUT when your photo was taken.
It may take some effort on your part to understand this. Don't give up too
soon. You can climb this mountain. If it is not clear to you within (say) 5
minutes, go away & have a coffee. Come back to it. You can do it.
>
> 2. WHY the idea of "invisible sutures" is a fantasy.
>
> 3. HOW JFK's brain was removed without a great deal of effort, and with
> little or no sawing.
I look forward to reading that part.
>
> 4. WHY JFK's brain was NOT "plunked down on the table" as alluded to by
> John Canal to give some added defense to his occipital entry and negate
> Humes' own findings at autopsy, which indicated the base of the laceration
> through JFK's brain was only several inches down from the vertex. As Humes
> himself indicated in his supplemental exam and even in his ARRB testimony.
>
>
> 5. WHY you don't remove the "back of the head" to extract a brain at
> autopsy.
Again, I am holding my breath.
>
>
> 6. Finally, (and mercifully) why all of this is just a dream.
I resist temptation to make obvious comment.
Before reading the following, I will say up front that my feeling is that
you have copied & pasted this from somewhere & have made no effort to
actually think about it. We shall see ...
>
> Removing The Brain
>
> The diener takes the body block out from under the patient's back and
> places it under the back of the head. This elevates the head so that it is
> positioned as if it were on a very thick, stiff pillow. The diener uses a
> scalpel to cut from behind one ear, over the crown of the head, to behind
> the other ear. Like with the trunk incisions, this one is deep, all the
> way to the skull. The skin and soft tissues are now divided into a front
> flap and a rear flap. The front flap is pulled (this takes some strength)
> forward (like being "scalped") over the patient's face, thus exposing the
> top and front of the skull. The back flap is pulled backwards over the
> nape of the neck. The whole top hemisphere of the skull is now exposed.
>
> The diener takes an electric saw (typically called a "Stryker saw," even
> if it's not manufactured by Stryker) and makes cuts around the equator of
> the cranium.
See, i knew you hadn't read it.
Let's repeat the above sentence :
**makes cuts around the equator of the cranium. **
Just how far above the eop do you think the 'equator of the cranium' is,
John ?
You claimed above :
> 5. [..] you don't remove the "back of the head" to extract a brain at
> autopsy
You really think that removing the cranium down to 'the equator' doesn't
remove any of the 'back of the head ' , do you ? What kind of alternate
geometrical reality do you inhabit, John ? I mean .... this is just so
absurd my pet cat could understand it. ( And believe me he's not bright).
John , that is like saying removing the top of planet earth down to the
equator *doesn't remove any of the western hemisphere*, isn't it ? IE it's
total nonsense. **Think** before you cut & paste these things, please. It's
embarrassing. Really. Proof read your posts or something. Above all
*engage your brain*. Please.
This cut must be deep enough to cut all the way through the
> skull, but not so deep that the brain is cut (this takes some skill).
> Typically, the cut is not totally straight but has a notch so that the
> skull top (calvarium) will not slide off the bottom half of the skull
> after everything is sewn back up. After this cut, the calvarium is removed
> and set aside. As the calvarium is lifted off, there is a very
> characteristic sound that is sort of a combination of a sucking sound and
> the sound of rubbing two halves of a coconut together. The best recorded
> representation of this sound that I have heard is in the brain transplant
> scene of the film Robocop II.
>
> The outer layer of the meninges (the coverings of the brain), called the
> dura, stays with the calvarium, so that the top of the brain is now fully
> exposed. After the chore of getting to it, it is a relatively easy matter
> to get the brain out. There are no tough ligaments that hold the brain in,
> so really all that needs to be done is to cut the spinal cord
There we are again. Proof positive you either did not read or did not
understand this.:-
**all that needs to be done is to cut the spinal cord **
Tell me John, with the rear skull 'intact' from the cowlick back , & with
the whole frontal bone pretty well intact ( as per the HSCA Dox drawings)
**how can anyone even reach the spinal cord ?** ???
The brain is sitting inside the skull , & the skull has a hole in the top of
it you could _just about_ get your fist through if you didn't mind getting a
bit lacerated. . ( per Dox) & through which the brain will by no means pass
even if it were already loose, which it isn't.
And your solution to this thorny little problem is to *cut the spinal cord*
??
HOW, John ?
Stuff your hand straight through the brain and start blindly chopping away
with a scalpel ?
You clearly haven't thought this through.
and the
> dural reflections that go between the cerebellum and cerebrum (called the
> tentorium). The brain is then easily lifted out.
The brain is 'easily lifted out' through a fist sized jagged hole in the top
of the skull despite the fact that the brain stem cannot be cut due to the
small problem alluded to above. ????
This is where relying on slap dash cut-&-paste ( rather than understanding
what you are reading) gets you, John.
You :->
> 3. HOW JFK's brain was removed without a great deal of effort, and with
> little or no sawing.
!!! "Without a great deal of effort" !!! ???
The remaining brain is bigger than the hole the HSCA allows for John. And
there is no way to 'detach' it because the brain stem cannot be cut because
there is no possible access to the base of the brain. Have a look at the
Dox drawing. It's blatantly impossible.
>
> Since the brain is very soft and easily deformable,
.. the 7" odd length brain must have had a hard time being yanked out
through a 4" jagged hole by a man with 5 or 6 " hands.?
The rest of your cut & paste job is irrelevant, as you would have realised
had you actually read it. Had you read it, of course, a man of your obvious
intelligence would have instantly realised that it proves my point.
Please do me the honour of 'abating your silliness' ( your rather
patronising phrase) , rather than pontificating on the basis of a cut &
paste you obviously haven';t understood.
This image shows the defect through which you are telling me the brain was
removed : ( Image marked 'A' )
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/main.jpg
See also =>
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/Dox.htm#brnrem
Paul S
paul seaton
>
[..]
> The diener takes an electric saw (typically called a "Stryker saw," even
> if it's not manufactured by Stryker) and makes cuts around the equator of
> the cranium.
And here is that very equator ->
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/vermont.jpg
In John Fiorentino's opinion, this graphic shows that :
>
>.. you don't remove the "back of the head" to extract a brain at autopsy.
Again, let's see how much bone the HSCA Dox drawing says was actually
missing : ( picture 'A') =>
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/main.jpg
Compare that to how much HAS TO BE MISSING TO GET THE BRAIN OUT, according
to John's own source =>
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/vermont.jpg
Of course the same silly/careless 'logic' John employs would lead the unwary
to conclude that by the same token you don't have to remove any of the
"front of the head" either.
So, having diligently proved you need to remove neither the front nor the
back of the head to remove the brain , John is left to conclude that really,
you don't need to remove ANY skull at all, ( since *all* skull is either at
the front or at the back. )
I see both Humes ( literally) & John F ( metaphorically) as having the same
problem as this well known ape :- >
"As an analogy for the problem of vertical thinking one might use the story
of how monkeys are supposedly caught by burying a narrow mouthed jar of nuts
in the ground. A monkey comes along, puts his paw into the jar and grabs a
handful of nuts. But the mouth of the jar is of such a size that it will
only admit an empty paw but not a clenched paw full of nuts. The monkey is
unwilling to let go of the nuts and so he is trapped. "
http://www.edwarddebono.com/PassageDetail.php?passage_id=970&
Hence the expression "caught by the nuts" I imagine, John ?
John Canal
>
>The silliness continues unabated:
It's not silly when supposedly educated individuals are in denial about what
happened during the autopsy, it's sad.
>Paul says stuff like this: "I am pointing out problems with statements you
>made. If my responses are irrelevant, so were your statements. Thus you
>are claiming your own post was irrelevant. Even I didn't go that far."
>
>I've encountered better debating techniques in grade school.
When was that...not recently, I hope?
Is there any criterior for posting on this NG?
>As for all of this crap about sucking the brain out of JFK's nose, etc.
>Let me post a professional description of a brain removal at autopsy:
Is the standard brain removal procedure used when the cadaver's head has been
practically blown apart?
>It will explain to all except the mentally deficient
Are you an expert on who fits in that category too?
>just how this
>"miracle" was accomplished in this case, and how it is accomplished
>everyday around the world.
Again, do these cases around the world involve victims with their head being
practically blown to pieces?
>The description will answer and address these points:
For the "mentally deficient", perhaps.
>1. WHY the photo I posted was NOT taken post brain removal.
Perhaps you should have read the testimony regarding the medical evidence in
this case before you began blabbering like this?
Fiorentino is certain that the photos showing an intact undamaged [repaired]
rear scalp being held up were taken before the brain was removed based on______,
well give me a minute to find it. Ok, found it....I guess it's from this
procedure for brain removal....that I don't think applies when the brain is
being removed from a skull that has been practically blasted to pieces. But
that's good enough for Fiorentino...right, John?
Read this:
Dr. Coe: "Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it
must have been after the brain had been removed."
Note 1. Prior to Coe's comment, they had been asking Finck questions about photo
no. 42 (we call it one of the BOH photos).
Note 2. All the photos showing the back wound and entry in the scalp, to include
the photo JF posted, were obviously taken during the same period.
Note 3. Finck testified he was there, and in fact helped Stringer take some of
those photos.
Note 4. Finck arrived after the brain was removed.
>2. WHY the idea of "invisible sutures" is a fantasy.
Not invisible--hidden--just the way they are supposed to be.
>3. HOW JFK's brain was removed without a great deal of effort, and with
>little or no sawing.
What we don't need is you telling us why the brain was removed with little or no
sawing and without much difficulty...because we've read the testimony regarding
these issues. Maybe this next bit of Humes' testimony sheds some light on why
the brain was easily removed?
"Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could be removed, you
know by picking them up because they were not held together very well, other
than by the dura...it was all falling apart, the skull." Humes ARRB, pg. 102
>4. WHY JFK's brain was NOT "plunked down on the table" as alluded to by
>John Canal to give some added defense to his occipital entry and negate
>Humes' own findings at autopsy, which indicated the base of the laceration
>through JFK's brain was only several inches down from the vertex. As Humes
>himself indicated in his supplemental exam and even in his ARRB testimony.
JF again shows how desperate he is to defend his high entry myth. While this
explanation for JF's rhetoric will be over his head and therefore not intended
for him, if there are any lurkers who are still reading these threads, this
[explanation] is for you.
During the Supplementry Autopsy a week or so after the main autopsy, the
autopsists examined the brain that had been suspended in formaldehyde [since the
main autopsy]. Humes noted a channel-lick laceration that began at the tip of
the occipital lobe and ended at the tip of the frontal lobe. He also measured
the base of that laceration from the vertex of the brain--it was 4.5 cm.
Now JF and Durnavich (I think DVP is too sharp to jump on board with these two)
"reasoned" that if the base of the laceration was only 4.5 cm down from the
vertex then it was consistent with a bullet entering the cowlick and
inconsistent with a bullet entering near the EOP. Folow their so-called
"reasoning"?--to which I don't even say, "nice try"--I say pathetic B/S which
insults the intelligence of anyone who they tried to make believe it. Here's why
that measurement was only 4.5 cm.
First, let me say that I was going to attach a graphic to refer to here, but I
think everyone except JF can visualize what I'm describing.
Now, the brain in a live person's head is more or less crescent-shaped fitting
the contour of one's skull.
Note that JFK was leaning forward approximately 27 degrees when the bullet
impacted him (Z-312/313).
Try to visualize a stright line extending from the tip of the occipital lobe
(slightly above the EOP) to the tip of the frontal lobe (in the area of the
frontal sinus).
The midpoint of such a line would have been (in JFK's brain at Z-312/313)
roughly 9 cm from the vertex...****"NOT 4.5 CM."**** IF THE BULLET (large
fragments) had tracked from the tip of the occipital lobe and then went up to a
point 4.5 cm from the vertex and then back down to exit the tip of the frontal
lobe, that track would have been like a roller coaster...a parabola-like track.
I assure you if they somehow could have measured the base of that channel-like
path through his brain at Z-312/313 that measurement would have been roughly 9
cm. SO WHY WAS IT MEASURED TO BE 4.5 cm? Here's why:
The brain is very "deformable", but who here besides JF thinks that when they
gripped the brain from its underside and pulled it out of what remained of the
skull that THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP IT IN THAT ORIGINAL CRESCENT-LIKE FORM? No one
else, I hope. So then they made it less "deformable" by soaking it in
formaldehyde...great. A week or so later they "put" it on the table and
measured the base of that laceration to the vertex to be 4.5 cm.
My God, I hope one can see why that measurement was so short...and that's not to
mention that a good portion of the President's brain had been blown into DP
and/or the limo. SO MUCH FOR PARABOLIC, ROLLER-COASTER TRACKING BULLETS, eh?
>5. WHY you don't remove the "back of the head" to extract a brain at
>autopsy.
In cadavers whose skull wasn't in pieces, yup, that's probably very
true...thanks, but this case is the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy...got it? No, I'm not surprised! :-(
>6. Finally, (and mercifully) why all of this is just a dream.
Well put, but you must be talking about your blabber.
>Removing The Brain
>The diener
I like that, "diener" part...but deleting what the "diener" does because it's
not applicable to this case....WHICH YOU OUGHT TO READ ABOUT SOMETIME, JF.
>John F.
[...]
John Canal
"alt.assassination.jfk comment of the year" award. Peter, do we have one
like that....if not, can we start now?
John Canal
Paul's award winning [?] comment:
John Fiorentino
quite well the "actual" procedure in JFK's case was different than what I
posted.
I am accused of "cutting and pasting," to which I plead guilty. However, I
did read what I posted quite thoroughly, and have read it many times in
the past. Something obviously Seaton and Canal did not do.
They fail to address the "suture" issue, and instead are happy with
casting aspersions and making snide remarks.
There is in fact no case for any BOH wound, nor an EOP entry.
Since these people are so far into this thing, they can't get themselves
out, and the tone here is not to my liking, I will simply leave them to
their fantasies.
John F.
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4a02a74a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
applied in the JFK case.
I understand what "little or no sawing means."
I addressed the rest in my other post.
John F.
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4a02d554$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
paul seaton
WARNING = > SERIOUSLY NOT FOR THE FAINTHEARTED
THIS is the kind of bone removal that is neccessary to allow removal of
the brain, John =>
http://www.nshafer.com/cryopatientbrainremoval.jpg
Let's compare again to the Dox Defect, through which you maintain the
brain was removed
(graphic A. upper right ) =>
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/main.jpg
As Greer described the appearance of JFK's head at the autopsy " like a
boiled egg with the top sliced off"
John, you really have no idea at all just how shattered his skull was, do
you ?
Paul S
Anthony Marsh
Nice, but do any witnesses or the S&O report corroborate that timeline?
You mean the Dox drawing? That only shows the condition at the time of
the head shot in Dealey Plaza. When they unwrapped the head many pieces
of skull fell out.
> HOW, John ?
>
> Stuff your hand straight through the brain and start blindly chopping
> away with a scalpel ?
>
> You clearly haven't thought this through.
>
>
> and the
>> dural reflections that go between the cerebellum and cerebrum (called
>> the tentorium). The brain is then easily lifted out.
>
> The brain is 'easily lifted out' through a fist sized jagged hole in the
> top of the skull despite the fact that the brain stem cannot be cut due
> to the small problem alluded to above. ????
>
It was not fist sized at that point in the autopsy.
Look at the ARRB drawings by Humes and Boswell.
> This is where relying on slap dash cut-&-paste ( rather than
> understanding what you are reading) gets you, John.
>
> You :->
>
>> 3. HOW JFK's brain was removed without a great deal of effort, and
>> with little or no sawing.
>
> !!! "Without a great deal of effort" !!! ???
>
> The remaining brain is bigger than the hole the HSCA allows for John.
> And there is no way to 'detach' it because the brain stem cannot be cut
> because there is no possible access to the base of the brain. Have a
> look at the Dox drawing. It's blatantly impossible.
>
No, it is not. The Dox drawing only shows the missing parts of the skull
at the time of the shot.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4a02...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
> [..]
>
>
>
> > The diener takes an electric saw (typically called a "Stryker saw," even
>> if it's not manufactured by Stryker) and makes cuts around the equator
>> of the cranium.
>
> And here is that very equator ->
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/vermont.jpg
>
> In John Fiorentino's opinion, this graphic shows that :
>
>>
>> .. you don't remove the "back of the head" to extract a brain at autopsy.
>
> Again, let's see how much bone the HSCA Dox drawing says was actually
> missing : ( picture 'A') =>
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/main.jpg
>
Misleading. The Dox diagram only shows what they thought the condition
of the skull was at the moment of the head shot, not what it was like
during the autopsy.
> Compare that to how much HAS TO BE MISSING TO GET THE BRAIN OUT,
> according to John's own source =>
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/vermont.jpg
>
False comparison.
> Of course the same silly/careless 'logic' John employs would lead the
> unwary to conclude that by the same token you don't have to remove any
> of the "front of the head" either.
>
Did they have to cut the brain stem to remove the brain? Did they have
to cut any nerves going into the brain to remove it? Can you see those
cut marks on the photos of the removed brain?
paul seaton
## the only 'surgery of the head area' was performed by Humes, to get the
brain out.
By the way I have a photo (it's attached) from LBJ that shows E. Howard
Hunt sawing JFK's brain at Walter Reed and removing bullets
## Sorry, I didn't realise you were delusional. Have a nice day.
paul seaton
> applied in the JFK case.
>
> I understand what "little or no sawing means."
>
> I addressed the rest in my other post.
You didn't 'address' anything anywhere, and you know it.
You tried to change the subject & then ran away before you made an even
bigger fool of yourself.
Paul S
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a034dd9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Yup.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/boh_found.htm
Humes & Co variously have prevaricated on the issue over the years but the
only consistent picture - from disinterested parties - adds up to the body
not even being turned over till late. Hard to believe, from a competence
POV, but apparently true.
"When I arrived at the hospital at approximately 8:00 o'clock at night on
the 22nd of November, 1963 X-rays of the head had been taken prior to my
arrival, and Dr. Humes had told me so over the phone when he called me at
home, asking me to come over. After I found the wound of entry in the back
of the neck no corresponding exit, I requested a whole body X-ray,
"(Finck,Shaw Trial)
etc etc
Perhaps the clincher is this :-
"I helped the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital
wound, external and internal aspects as well as the wound in the back."
(Finck, Letter to Gen. Blumberg)
along with (for eg - there are too many confirmations of this part to list
them all ) this :-
"Q: When you first saw the body of President Kennedy, had the scalp been
reflected at all? A: Well, the scalp must have been reflected for the
reason that the brain had been removed before my arrival, which means the
scalp must have been reflected in order to be able to remove the brain."
(Finck, ARRB)
Which , when you put the 2 statements together, amounts to direct
confirmation from Finck that the brain was out when the back / BOH photos
were taken.
I pointed all this out years ago. I have no idea why people still come up
with the claim that 'the brain is still present' in the BOH / back photos.
Put this together with the deceptive, apparent ( ahem) 'intactness' of the
rear of the head in those photos and you realise ( given the removal of
rearward bone neccessary to remove the brain prior to the photos being
taken ) that there simply cannot be a whole lot of bone behind the scalp /
hair in those pictures. And these are the photos that are touted ( by the
naive) as showing the rear of the head 'intact'.
In reality, the shot in DP did a pretty good job of shattering more or
less the whole skull cap, 'above the equator' as it were. This is why
there was no need for the Stryker saw. What was left of the dome of the
skull was loose & largely held together by the scalp - hence it's variable
appearance ( see the autopsy photos for the amazing vanishing front right
flap, for eg. Where is it in the superior profiles ? Hint : closed & thus
more or less invisible).
This 'variable' appearance ( due to mobile scalp & bone) has led to 45
years of confusion & Lifton's 'surgery' theory, an attempt to explain by
'surgery' an effect that was due to the mobile state of the scalp &
underlying fragmented bone.
Paul S
John Canal
>quite well the "actual" procedure in JFK's case was different than what I
>posted.
>
>I am accused of "cutting and pasting," to which I plead guilty. However, I
>did read what I posted quite thoroughly, and have read it many times in
>the past. Something obviously Seaton and Canal did not do.
>
>They fail to address the "suture" issue, and instead are happy with
>casting aspersions and making snide remarks.
>
>There is in fact no case for any BOH wound, nor an EOP entry.
>
>Since these people are so far into this thing, they can't get themselves
>out, and the tone here is not to my liking, I will simply leave them to
>their fantasies.
I'll miss your rhetoric, which you have a full repertoire of as opposed to
substantive points. Squawking away with B/S like, "there is in fact no
case for any BOH wound, nor an EOP entry", or "the tone is not to my
liking", or "I'll leave them to their fantasies" just doesn't do it. It
may have in that high school debating situation you brought up, but not
here.
John Canal
John Fiorentino
Humes indicated x-rays and some photos were taken BEFORE the start of the
"official proceedings" Finck didn't arrive until 1/2 hr. later.
BTW F-8 (your pride and joy) shows the scalp reflected over JFK's face.
Where are those suture lines behind JFK's right ear since you claim that
BOH photo, was taken post brain removal?
Also, on the left lateral, do you see any evidence of sutures? (I'll
answer, you don't see any) Obviously some photos were taken BEFORE the
brain was removed.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gtusb...@drn.newsguy.com...
paul seaton
Humes insists he did. I think o'Connor insisted it had 'already been cut'
This may have been because he smelled Lifton's trend of thought.
Did they have
> to cut any nerves going into the brain to remove it?
The only thing I specifically recall from reading about the usual
procedure is the difficulty of cutting around the tentorium. ( Covering
the cerebellum). Just another of the impossibilities implied by the Dox
drawing, though there apparently are (usually) a few nerves to be cut.
Let's face it, if the Dox drawing represented reality, Humes ( who
apparently had very big hands) would have just about been able to get one
hand inside the skull, at severe risk of slicing himself to pieces on the
jagged bone edges around the margin. What the dickens he could have
usefully done next I leave to defenders of the drawing. But whetever it
was, he could not possibly have been able to see what he was doing.
For those who seem to have staked their well being on the accuracy of the
drawing though, this is just another of those irritating problems that is
best ignored, as it obviously cannot be answered.
Can you see those
> cut marks on the photos of the removed brain?
I wouldn't know where to start. I never heard it mentioned.
John Canal
>
>Sorry John:
>
>Humes indicated x-rays and some photos were taken BEFORE the start of the
>"official proceedings" Finck didn't arrive until 1/2 hr. later.
I could list many citations that tell us photos were taken throughout the night,
but you're locked in forever in believing Baden's crap--so I can't help you.
Nevertheless, again, this is for any lurkers:
What do you think compelled Coe to offer Finck this deduction?
Dr. Coe: "Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it
must have been after the brain had been removed."
Note . Prior to Coe's comment, they had been asking Finck questions about photo
no. 42 (we call it one of the BOH photos).
Also, Boswell testified, regarding the BOH photo, that the skull was missing
under the scalp DOWN TO THE BASE OF THE EAR...which made it easier for them to
remove the brain.
>BTW F-8 (your pride and joy) shows the scalp reflected over JFK's face.
>Where are those suture lines behind JFK's right ear
There were 11 witneses, inluding two neurosurgeons and Humes, who said they saw
cerebellum. Humes even said they saw (when the body arrived) that a particular
aspect of the cerebellum was lacerated--the flocculus. If the right-rear scalp
wasn't torn how would that have been possible? So, based on what you think can't
be seen in a copy of F8, you've deemed all those witnesses wrong? Unbelievable.
Listen to yourself--you're not making sense!
Note that, if the rear skull were fragmented, which it was (unless you think the
autopsists misremembered about that too), the sharp edges of one or two of those
rear bone fragments could have easily torn the scalp.
>since you claim that
>BOH photo, was taken post brain removal?
>Also, on the left lateral, do you see any evidence of sutures? (I'll
>answer, you don't see any) Obviously some photos were taken BEFORE the
>brain was removed.
Yes, obviously SOME photos and X-rays were taken prior to the brain being
removed and any work done on the BOH scalp--just not the ones showing an intact
BOH scalp. Again, for the umpteenth time, Finck testified he was there when some
of those photos were taken and he arrived after the brain was removed.
I know you don't think much of Baden's reasoning regarding the back wound,
meaning even you agree his credibility can be questioned....so why do you take
his word for it over soooo many credible witnesses who saw the body and had no
reason whatsoever to lie? Note that Baden, like Fisher, "DID" have a motive for
spinning the medical evidence towards a no-BOH wound conclusion---he wanted to
avoid explaining why there would have been such a wound if no bullet hit JFK
from the front. In the end, there would have been much less controversy if he
simply explained that the rear entering bullet caused a collateral damage-like
BOH wound....which is what the autopsy report says.
Note also that Fisher and Baden aren't around to defend their bizarre,
"all-the-witnesses-who-saw-the-body-were-wrong" and
"all-of-us-who-saw-only-the-photos-and-x-rays-know-that" conclusions--, no, they
left that dirty, impossible work for you to do.
I see Paul, perhaps out of frustration, has been more stern with you and DVP
trying to make you guys see the light...maybe that'll work.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Don't take Paul O'Connors word on anything. Isn't he the body bag guy?
> Did they have
>> to cut any nerves going into the brain to remove it?
>
> The only thing I specifically recall from reading about the usual
> procedure is the difficulty of cutting around the tentorium. ( Covering
> the cerebellum). Just another of the impossibilities implied by the Dox
> drawing, though there apparently are (usually) a few nerves to be cut.
>
So, you don't know the specifics. That's why you are here debating it.
> Let's face it, if the Dox drawing represented reality, Humes ( who
> apparently had very big hands) would have just about been able to get
> one hand inside the skull, at severe risk of slicing himself to pieces
> on the jagged bone edges around the margin. What the dickens he could
> have usefully done next I leave to defenders of the drawing. But
> whetever it was, he could not possibly have been able to see what he was
> doing.
>
Again, if you are talking about the Dox drawing F-66 then you are
misrepresenting.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95&relPageId=256
This drawing only represents what Baden imagined the damage looked like
at the moment the bullet hit.
Not the condition of the skull at autopsy.
> For those who seem to have staked their well being on the accuracy of
> the drawing though, this is just another of those irritating problems
> that is best ignored, as it obviously cannot be answered.
>
> Can you see those
>> cut marks on the photos of the removed brain?
>
> I wouldn't know where to start. I never heard it mentioned.
>
I think that is my job here, to ask questions that no one else dares to
ask. And of course you have no answers.