You asked John McAdams if what I said, i.e more witnesses who saw the body said
there was a BOH wound than not.

I suggest that after he tells you that Barb, Gary, Paul Seaton and I are
"misinterpreting" what the witnesses said, you don't rush to jump on his
bandwagon until you consider this quote:



It is assumed that if the Parkland doctors are correct, particularly with
respect to the GAPING HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD, [my caps]....

7HSCA, para. 156.

BTW, I'm surprised you jumped into the BOH wound frey without first reading the
testimony yourself....and I assume that's true because because you asked McAdams
about what the witnesses said.

John Canal

On Sep 6, 10:00 am, John Canal newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sep 6, 10:00 am, John Canal newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sep 6, 10:00 am, John Canal newsguy.com> wrote:

On 7 Sep 2007 00:56:18 -0400, cdddraftsman yahoo.com>
wrote:

In article <1189111091.719742.299920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...



The HSCA said all 26 people that attended the autopsy agreed that the BOH photos
showed what they recalled.

Interestingly, however:

1) Chester Boyers, who I interviewed myself, told the HSCA interviewer that
there was a large wound on the right side towards the rear of the head.

2) FBI Agent, O'Neill, initially told the ARRB that the BOH photo looked
"doctored"...and described a wound in the BOH.

3) FBI Agent, Siebert, told the ARRB the BOH photo looked, "reconstructed".

4) Ebersole tld the HSCA he held the President's head in his hands and that he
saw a gaping occipital wound.

5) Clint Hill testified to the WC and also wrote in his Secret Svc. after action
report that he saw a gaping right-rear wound.

In article <1189109890.481122.137070@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...



Too bad you're confused. Actual demonstrations of stand-ins have been done show
that part of the BOH can be seen on a person that is laying down. Also, at least
one of the Parkland docs said he and and Dr. Clark lifted JFK's head to get a
better look at the wounds.

Then the bottom line is, if they said they saw a BOH wound, you say
they're...er...wrong...or lying.

That's the way to resolve your confusion...run away from the issue.

No loss as far as I'm concerned. IMO, there are too many that seem to parrot
what McAdams says anyway.

Jon Canal

On Sep 7, 12:21 am, Barb Junkkarinen comcast.net>
wrote:

We could really find out how much of the testimony you've read if someone where
to give you a test on who testified to what but you wouldn't touch that with a
ten foot pole....there I go assuming again.

You wined that the BOH witnesess didn't have a good view of the BOH...but what
about Clint Hill, Boyers, Ebersole, O'Neill, and Siebert for instance. Heck,
Ebersole testified he held the President's head in his hands and that he saw a
gaping occipital wound. The others helped position the body or watched pretty
much the entire autopsy.

Then you go running to McAdams asking for his take on my statement saying that
far more of the witnesses said the saw a BOH wound then not...why, if you were
well read on the testimony didn't you just tell me I was wrong and cite
examples?

Any reasonable person would assume you hadn't, at least thoroughly, read the
testimony.

John Canal

On Sep 7, 12:18 am, Barb Junkkarinen comcast.net>
wrote: