James DiEugenio Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Mili Cranor had just written one of her usual brief but pointed essays for Kennedys and King. This one goes after John Canal and the deluded Max Holland. Read it and you will see the lengths these guys will go to. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-magic-scalp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) It's not inappropriate to ask here: Is there anywhere a statement by one of the Bethesda doctors or assistants that describes precisely what they were locating, and where an object was located, when rulers were applied to the body for photographic records? If I read the article correctly, there is no confirmation that these photos were even taken? Edited January 24, 2017 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Mili Cranor replies: Sorry I have no answers. The doctors made many measurements, so of course they used rulers, but I don’t know what they were measuring in the photo. Regarding your second point, when I said “I have no opinion as to whether photographs were taken of a reconstructed skull…” I just meant that I don’t know what was going on in the photo at the time it was snapped. Were they moving loose scalp around, trying to figure out where it belonged? Lifting it to extract loose bone? I don’t have a clue. The back of the head was reconstructed for practical reasons -- to keep it from leaking embalming fluid – not to make it presentable. It would have been hidden from view. This doesn’t mean that reconstruction for the purpose of producing deceptive photos did NOT take place. My only point was, Canal did not produce any proof that it did happen. And that particular photo is not such proof. In any case, the skull was certainly not ready for viewing: the flap was still flapping, and lower down on the skull are odd shapes that might be bone, but it’s hard to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) On 1/24/2017 at 11:19 AM, David Andrews said: It's not inappropriate to ask here: Is there anywhere a statement by one of the Bethesda doctors or assistants that describes precisely what they were locating, and where an object was located, when rulers were applied to the body for photographic records? If I read the article correctly, there is no confirmation that these photos were even taken? Dr. Humes told the HSCA in their interview that the ruler in the BOH photograph isn't there to measure anything, just to "provide scale". Humes, Finck, and Stringer said that the red spot looks like a bit of blood (Humes was coerced into saying the red spot was the entrance in his HSCA testimony, but he quickly reverted back to the EOP location), while Dr. Boswell told the HSCA that the red spot was indeed a blemish related to the large head wound. Stringer, the photographer, also didn't recognize the red spot as the small wound he remembered. Edited January 25, 2017 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now