DVP, I'm sending your reply to this to VB
John Canal
I'm going to let Vince know that you're announcing to the JFK research
community that you're able to predict with virtual certainty whether or
not he will reverse his position ("gobs of stuff") regarding the nature of
the head wounds after having another look at the applicable evidence...if
he has an opportunity to do so. This is what you wrote:
"There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a
complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy, thus
totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his
impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not a
chance."
Frankly, I believe that Vince has a passion for the truth and, when he can
manage the time, will re-investigate the controversies surrounding the
head wounds. That said, I'm confident that, if he determines what I have
told him about those wounds is correct, and that Baden fed him and the
nation a crock of B/S, he will not hestitate to correct himself.
Now, I thought I'd also send him your answers to the 29 questions listed
below......that is if you have the marbles to answer them. Note that you
had answered questions that are similar to some of these before--most,
though, have been updated and several new ones have been added. Also note
that Fiorentino refused to answer the earlier questions, just like he
declines to replicate F8 (which would tell him scientifically where the
entry was)....even after I offered to "give him" an expensive skull model
with which to perform such a replication--JF doesn't walk on thin ice,
that's for sure.
Anyway, here are the questions...note that I'm prefacing each question
with, ?Isn?t it true that......?
1. You cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of
doctors who tried to save JFK?s life at PH, or on the autopsy team, who
you think accurately described his head wounds?
2. You cannot name ONE SINGLE PERSON who saw JFK's wounds while he was
still clinging to life or after he died who said early on that there was
no open ?back of the head? (BOH) wound?
3. You believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound
extended somewhat into the occipital?
4. You believe Humes was wrong when he testified under oath to the Warren
Commission they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?
5. You believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the
location of the entry wound to the back of JFK?s head because they were
rushed and/or inexperienced and/or for other reasons?
6. You believe Humes was mistaken, probably due to his inexperience and/or
the suggestion that they were rushed, about his recollection that when
they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out in the occipital
area?
7. You believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has
examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA, was wrong when he said
that it was possible that some of the pieces of rear skull could have come
?unlatched?, resulting in the type of wound the PH doctors described?
8. You futilely tried to find the trail of opacities (that I told you was
seen on the "original" lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the
EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area cropped and do not
show the detail that the original shows?
9. You find the suggestion of Dr. Joseph Davis, who was a former member of
the HSCA?s Forensic Pathology panel (FPP), that the bullet initially
impacted JFK?s skull near the EOP ridiculous??even though he had been the
Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades and had
performed hundreds of autopsies on GSW victims?
10. You have told us that you can tell from what you see on the published
copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractures are only ?surface
fractures??
11. Regarding the statement in the autopsy report that reads, ?Upon
reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate
from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the
occiput?..these vary greatly in length and direction??.these result in the
production of numerous fragments which vary in size??, you think that they
didn?t intend on giving the impression that numerous fragments were
produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the wound in the
occiput?evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?
12. You have said that you don?t care about understanding F8 (officially #
45)--or words to that effect?
13. The fact that the edge of the intact skull near the level of the EOP,
as seen in F8, is severely jagged doesn?t even slightly suggest to you
that the pieces of bone above that edge "fell out" (just as Humes said)
when they reflected the scalp (as opposed to being cut out with a saw
which would not have left such a jagged edge)?
14. The odd shaped piece of skull drawn on Boswell?s face sheet that he
testified included the top portion of the entry and originally fit on the
intact skull near the level of the EOP with the bottom portion of the
entry, does not even slightly suggest to you that it was one of the pieces
of rear skull that fell out when they reflected the scalp?
15. You are positively certain that the autopsy photos showing a virtually
undamaged BOH were taken before any repair could have been done to the BOH
scalp in preparation for an open-casket funeral?
16. You think that you?d be able to tell from the copies of the photos
that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or not any repairs to the BOH
scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an
open casket funeral?
17. You have no reasonable explanation whatsoever for why the scalp in the
BOH photos is all but undamaged in the area where the bone was blown out
(roughly from the cowlick forward into the frontal bone on the right side)
into DP and/or the limo--the area where the autopsists said the scalp and
skull were missing?
18. (This is a long question, so take a deep breath) You are positively
certain that, even though I have told you that morticians have stated
that, in their opinion, JFK's rear scalp could have been stretched three
inches and possibly even a bit more (as evidenced by the portion of his
scalp where the hair is much less dense, as seen in the bOH
photos)........."AND" that Humes testified they "undermined" the scalp,
which means to seperate the scalp from the underlying muscles (primarily
the Occipitalis muscle) and is a procedure that is done to enable the
scalp to be stretched much more than it could otherwise be
stretched.......the stretching of the scalp could not be a possible
explanation for why, in the BOH photos, there appears to be too much scalp
between the hairline and the the red spot and the scalp in the area where
the bone had been blown out into DP and/or the limo and where Humes said
the skull AND SCALP were MISSING, appears to be virtually undamaged?
19. You don?t think that it?s important that high entry theorists
reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone chips from the skull?s
beveled out inner table around the entry) seen on the original lateral
X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?
20. You are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push any
previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the scalp) back
into place before the X-rays were taken?.even though Boswell testified he
did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken?
21. You find it preposterous that the metal stirrup upon which the back of
JFK?s head rested BEFORE the head x-rays were taken helped push any
dislodged BOH bone pieces back into place prior to the x-rays being taken
and that you find the conclusion that dozens of witnesses, including the
autopsists, were wrong about seeing a BOH wound much more feasible?
22. You are sure that the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH photos is
directly over the entry hole in the skull?.even though prior to the BOH
photos being taken, the scalp had been reflected, pieces of bone came/fell
out, the brain was removed, and the scalp held back up?.and even though
the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) and it has not been
disputed by ?any? of the experts that the entry wound was 2.5 cm right of
midline?
23. You prefer to use the photos showing the entry in the BOH SCALP
instead of the photo showing the entry in the SKULL to determine where the
entry in the SKULL was?
24. Even though you have been invited to explain why Dale Myers' computer
analysis showed that any bullet that hit JFK in the cowlick and exited
where the HSCA said the "principal" exit was would have had to have been
fired from approximately 124 feet above, not the book depository, but the
Dal-Tex Building, you have not attempted to do so.........but continue,
nonetheless, to insist the bullet hit him in the cowlick?
25. You believe FBI Agents, O?Neill and Siebert, as well as SSA Clint
Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?
26. You believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken when he recollected seeing a
right rear gaping wound?.even though he said he held the President?s head
in his hands?
27. You find at best preposterous the theory that Ramsey Clark, who openly
criticized Jim Garrison?s investigation, tasked Dr. Fisher to examine the
autopsy x-rays and photographs (that were unavailable to Garrison) and
report that the nature of the head wounds entirely disproved Garrison?s
Grassy Knoll Shooter theory as well as any suggestions there had been a
shot from the rear at near ground level??.resulting in Fisher refuting the
autopsists? findings that the entry was low and there had been damage to
the BOH that, while chiefly parietal on the right side, extended into the
temporal and occipital?
28. You find ridiculous, if not laughable, the notion that ?experts? from
the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA endorsed Fisher?s cowlick entry and
?No-BOH-Wound? conclusions, even though they knew the autopsists were
correct about those wounds, either in order not to embarrass one of the
most credentialed and prominent forensic pathologists in the country
[Fisher] or to prevent the rather awkward situation where government
panels (Rockefeller Commission and HSCA) would refute the conclusions of
an earlier government investigation (Clark Panel) which had already
refuted the findings published by an even earlier government investigation
(Warren Commission)?
29. Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi understandably and rightfully
accepted much of the information that Dr. Michael Baden provided them or
testified to probably because they trusted him and the members of his
panel?
John Canal
John Fiorentino
I already explained why the model is a waste of time. Now see if you can
grasp this. I know EXACTLY how I would design that model. I know that it
backs up my position.
I don't need a physical model in my hands to determine how I would design
it.
The idea that some revelation would occur by holding the damn thing in my
hands is absurd.
eo/story.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gqtam...@drn.newsguy.com...
WhiskyJoe
I hope Vincent reverses
his position, on the
location of the entry
wound in the back of the
head (to near the EOP).
I cannot predict if he will.
But I do predict that if
Vincent reverses his
position, David will
reverse his position.
You heard it hear first.
John Canal
WhiskyJoe says...
I agree, but a friendly suggestion: be careful when posting on threads
that David is involved in....I know from experience that he doesn't
appreciate misspellings very much ("You heard it 'hear' first").
:-)
JC
JohnCanal
>
>John:
>
>I already explained why the model is a waste of time. Now see if you can
>grasp this. I know EXACTLY how I would design that model. I know that it
>backs up my position.
>
>I don't need a physical model in my hands to determine how I would design
>it.
>
>The idea that some revelation would occur by holding the damn thing in my
>hands is absurd.
>
>eo/story.
Damn, if you're correct then I, Seaton, Sturdivan, and Hunt went through a
lot of trouble (superimposing a photo of a model skull at about 50%
opacity onto JFK's skull in F8) that we didn't need to.
My question would be, though, if you did it your way, where would the
photographic documentation be of the results? As it is, we all have that
documentation and it forever proves to anyone that can see and has common
sense that the entry was where Humes said it was.
JC
WhiskyJoe
I see. I used the spell
checker, but, of course,
it doesn't catch those
types of errors.
John Fiorentino
you're wrong in your design.
Your model doesn't "prove" anything of the kind.
John F.
"JohnCanal" <JohnCana...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gquk5...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I'm going to let Vince [Bugliosi] know that you're announcing to the JFK research community that you're able to predict with virtual certainty whether or not he will reverse his position ("gobs of stuff") regarding the nature of the head wounds after having another look at the applicable evidence...if he has an opportunity to do so. This is what you wrote: "There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy, thus totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not a chance." " <<<
Good, John. Please do send that quote of mine to Mr. Bugliosi. It's a
very good quote too, IMO. And I was, indeed, very careful about the
way I worded that message before I posted it yesterday on both the aaj
and acj forums.
Hence, the words "impeccably-researched book for the ages" were
included by me in my original 3/31/09 quote (linked below), indicating
my belief that Bugliosi has already arrived at the truth regarding
this matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print in such an "impeccably-
researched book for the ages".
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cc5f6aabfdfda3d6
>>> "Frankly, I believe that Vince has a passion for the truth and, when he can manage the time, will re-investigate the controversies surrounding the head wounds. That said, I'm confident that, if he determines what I have told him about those wounds is correct, and that Baden fed him and the nation a crock of B/S, he will not hesitate to correct himself." <<<
John Canal must think that, incredibly (and magically, it would seem),
the bullet ENTRY HOLE ITSELF on the back of President Kennedy's head
(i.e., the red spot in the autopsy photograph linked below) was
somehow able to FALSELY APPEAR to be high on JFK's head, i.e., in the
area of the COWLICK, even though that HOLE ITSELF is really (per John
Canal) located much lower on JFK's unstretched scalp.
Amazingly, John C. must actually think that in some crazy and magical
way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp (which John C.
insists is taking place to the scalp in the picture linked below)
somehow resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH
THE COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
head).
David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably couldn't
pull off that incredible illusionary feat of having an EOP entry hole
climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head:
>>> "I thought I'd also send him your answers to the 29 questions listed below....that is if you have the marbles to answer them. Note that you had answered questions that are similar to some of these before--most, though, have been updated and several new ones have been added. .... Here are the questions. Note that I'm prefacing each question with, 'Isn't it true that...?' " <<<
Okay, shoot. This should be fun.
(I guess Mr. Canal doesn't care how many times his silly theory
deservedly gets dragged through the mud. It's kind of like a baseball
player yelling to the pitcher of the opposing team: "Come on, strike
me out again! I dare ya!")
~shrug~
But, anyway...here we go (yet again)....
>>> "1. You cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK's life at PH [Parkland Hospital], or on the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<<
All three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) definitely
described the location of JFK's head wounds fairly accurately--in the
AUTOPSY REPORT, that is.
The later testimony of the autopsy doctors regarding the entry wound
in JFK's head is wrong...that's true (except for Dr. Humes' HSCA
session in 1978, when he decided to use his brains and change his mind
and endorse the cowlick entry location; of course, he decided to
change back to the "white dab of tissue" entry location later on, for
some silly reason that only he could explain).
So, as far as the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT is concerned (the autopsy
report), the locations of JFK's head wounds are reported fairly
accurately.
The autopsy report should have measured the head entry wound from the
top of the head, but for some reason the doctors didn't do that at
JFK's autopsy. So we must be content with this non-exacting
terminology found in the autopsy report -- "slightly above the
external occipital protuberance".
But even that non-exacting description is good enough to prove that
all of the people who love the "low" entry location are 100% wrong.
Because "slightly above" the EOP does not equal LOW ON THE HEAD or AT
THE LEVEL OF THE EOP. Period.
Plus:
It seems to me that I, myself, could have asked you (John Canal) your
first question (with respect to the Parkland doctors anyway)? Because
YOU really don't have ANY Parkland doctors whom you can really say
"GOT IT 100% RIGHT" with respect to locating the head wounds of JFK
accurately.
None of the Parkland people got it right. Not one. Because there's not
a single Parkland witness (to my knowledge) who claimed to see the
large wound of exit on JFK's head (i.e., the wound that we all KNOW
was definitely there...in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP of the head). Nobody
that I am aware of claimed to see that RIGHT-FRONT hole in Kennedy's
head on November 22, 1963.
Yes, a few doctors later changed their minds and said the wound was
located in the "parietal" (right-front) region. Dr. Carrico comes to
mind as one such Parkland witness.
But on 11/22/63, I doubt that we could find a single witness who
claimed to see that wound. And it's a huge 13-centimeter wound that we
KNOW beyond all doubt WAS THERE in the head of JFK when he was at
Parkland. So why nobody saw it remains one of the biggest unsolvable
mysteries of this case (IMHO).
Anyway, you're off to a very poor start with your "Let's Make DVP Look
Bad" test that you're conducting here. Because even you, yourself,
would be hard-pressed to come up with a single Parkland witness who
saw the President's wounds in ALL of the places (including the RIGHT/
FRONT/TOP) where YOU think they were located on JFK's head on
11/22/63.
>>> "2. You cannot name ONE SINGLE PERSON who saw JFK's wounds while he was still clinging to life or after he died who said early on that there was no open "back of the head" (BOH) wound?" <<<
Sure, I can name three such persons -- Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr.
Finck.
Those three men performed the post-mortem exam on President Kennedy's
body, and each of those three men signed the official autopsy report
(on 11/24/63, which is still certainly to be considered "early on").
And none of those three men said that there was any kind of a large
"open back-of-the-head wound".
And you're going to be hard-pressed (again) to prove me wrong here,
John. Because I'm not wrong. And the autopsy report proves it. And the
"somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" language that does,
indeed, appear in the autopsy report doesn't mean I'm wrong about this
point either.
That "somewhat" ambiguous language certainly does not mean that all
three autopsy doctors saw any kind of a large wound (or missing skull)
at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head. And you NEED to have a large-
sized hole present at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR (occipital) of JFK's head in
order for your fantastic BOH/LN theory to have a chance of being true.
Now, let's just have a look at the exact "somewhat" verbiage that
exists in JFK's autopsy report, and let's see if these words add up to
the kind of large, gaping wound in the OCCIPITAL area of President
Kennedy's head that all of the Parkland doctors said they observed:
"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. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
Now, does any reasonable person actually believe that the above
verbiage that appears in the autopsy report could possibly translate
to this location for the massive exit wound that existed in JFK's head
(the drawing below is an illustration that was endorsed by Dr. Robert
McClelland of Parkland Hospital)?:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif
>>> "3. You believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<
The skull FRACTURES (i.e., radiating cracks) certainly extended into
the "occipital", yes. No doubt about that. The X-rays prove that fact.
But the X-rays also prove that there was not (and could not have been)
any kind of a large ABSENCE OF SKULL BONE in the occipital region of
JFK's head.
I think this might be merely a matter of semantics (similar to the
"neck vs. back" controversy with respect to JFK's upper-back wound,
with that wound many times referred to as residing in the "neck" or
"back of the neck"; while at other times, the more-accurate word
"back" was used by Warren Commission counsel members).
With respect to the head-wound terminology utilized by Dr. Humes in
the autopsy report, the word "occipital" does appear (after the
important word "somewhat", of course), which has (IMO) falsely led
some conspiracists to believe the incorrect notion that the area of
MISSING skull and scalp extended all the way to the outer-most BACK
portions of JFK's head.
But this autopsy X-ray should cause a reasonable person looking at it
to conclude that there was no HOLE in ANY part of the BACK of
President Kennedy's head at any time on November 22, 1963:
Also see my answer to #2 above.
>>> "4. You believe Humes was wrong when he testified under oath to the Warren Commission they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<
Funny, though, isn't it, that the actual word "CEREBELLUM" doesn't
appear ONCE in Dr. James J. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony?
Not once:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
Could it be that perhaps John Canal is mixed up about what Humes
thought was "part of the cerebellum"?
~shrug~
>>> "5. You believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head because they were rushed and/or inexperienced and/or for other reasons?" <<<
Those three doctors certainly did NOT "grossly misidentify" the
location of Kennedy's head entry wound in the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT.
The language used to describe the location of the entry wound in JFK's
head certainly could have been more precise and exacting--that's true.
I cannot deny that. And, as mentioned earlier, the doctors probably
should have measured the distance of the wound from the very top of
JFK's head, as Dr. Cyril Wecht says he always does with wounds in the
autopsies he has performed.
But I don't think the wound location is "grossly" inaccurate in the
autopsy report itself. The report gives the location as being "2.5
centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above the external
occipital protuberance".
Now, yes, the three doctors (all of them, incredibly) decided to give
their good sense a breather when they testified in front of the
various U.S. Government investigative bodies (except for Dr. Humes'
HSCA session), and they went off half-crocked and said the wound was
located way down near the hairline -- which is just flat-out silly.
Is the white piece of brain tissue near JFK's hairline supposed to be
"slightly above" the EOP? ~shrug~
That's just crazy. But, for some reason, all three autopsists decided
to be silly whenever talking about the precise location of the entry
wound (save the one time Humes regained his common sense in front of
the HSCA in '78).
>>> "6. You believe Humes was mistaken, probably due to his inexperience and/or the suggestion that they were rushed, about his recollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out in the occipital area?" <<<
If Humes ever said those exact things about "bone falling out of the
occipital area", then yes, he was positively mistaken/wrong.
>>> "7. You believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA [National Archives], was wrong when he said that it was possible that some of the pieces of rear skull could have come "unlatched", resulting in the type of wound the PH doctors described?" <<<
Yes. In my opinion, Dr. Chad Zimmerman was wrong if he said that.
But you, John, still have a huge hurdle to jump (besides the "skull"
hurdle). You've got to find a way for the Parkland people to see a
great-big hole in the occipital region of JFK's SCALP (and all of the
witnesses said the hole was quite large and gaping; so don't try to
minimize the size of the hole they described by scaling it down to a
tiny "quarter"-sized defect), even though the occipital region of
President Kennedy's scalp looks like this just a few hours later:
The scalp was stitched up before that picture was taken, eh?
And yet there's not a HINT of any damage to that scalp in the above
photos (except for the entry wound near the cowlick) -- even though
the Parkland witnesses were sure they saw a great-big deficit in
Kennedy's head (including the SCALP, naturally) when JFK was in the
emergency room.
Miraculously, John Canal thinks his strange "BOH/LN" theory can still
float, even though EVERY piece of photographic evidence is telling him
his theory is dead-wrong -- from the X-rays, to the autopsy photos, to
the Zapruder Film.
But, I guess, the IN-TANDEM agreement among those photographic items
(which are spelling out, in unison, "There Was No Large BOH Wound") is
to be considered unimportant or trivial in the mind of one John Canal.
Curious indeed.
But what SHOULD be even more curious to John Canal is the fact that he
endorses an odd theory about the back of John Kennedy's head even
though NONE of those photo/film items agrees with his theory in any
way whatsoever.
Shouldn't John be asking himself -- How can this be (if I'm right)?
>>> "8. You futilely tried to find the trail of opacities (that I told you was seen on the "original" lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area cropped and do not show the
detail that the original shows?" <<<
This is a bunch of gobbledygook, as far as I'm concerned.
John's "trail of opacities" could easily be something OTHER than proof
of a low/EOP entry wound.
Quite obviously, any such "opacities" (whether they be merely make-
believe ones in John's mind or not) MUST indicate something OTHER than
proof of a low/EOP entry hole in JFK's head.
Why?
Because we know that the ONE AND ONLY entry hole in JFK's head was
near the cowlick area.
That's why.
(But I just love that word "opacities", John. And I know you love it
too. You sure use it a lot.)
>>> "9. You find the suggestion of Dr. Joseph Davis, who was a former member of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, that the bullet initially impacted JFK's skull near the EOP ridiculous, even though he had been the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida[,] for decades and had performed hundreds of autopsies on GSW [gunshot wound] victims?" <<<
Yes. Certainly I find such a suggestion by Dr. Davis (or anyone else)
to be "ridiculous". You bet I do.
Here's why (again):
>>> "10. You have told us that you can tell from what you see on the published copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractures are only "surface fractures"?" <<<
Those BOH fractures quite obviously do NOT meet your theory's
requirements at all, John. That's for sure.
You need a whole bunch more of those fracture lines in order for your
BOH theory to gain wings. And you need some of those fracture lines to
MEET UP WITH OTHER BOH FRACTURE LINES/CRACKS....which you do not have
here:
Once again, shouldn't John be saying these things to himself -- Why
aren't some more fracture lines visible on this X-ray (even a multi-
generational copy of the X-ray)? If my theory is correct, I would have
to believe that at least SOME additional COMPLETE FRACTURE LINES in
the BOH would be visible, even if it isn't the "original" X-ray.
>>> "11. Regarding the statement in the autopsy report that reads -- "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput...these vary greatly in length and direction...these result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size" -- you think that they didn't intend on giving the impression that numerous fragments were produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the wound in the occiput evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?" <<<
Yes, that's correct.
And it's quite obvious (via that pesky X-ray once again) that there
could not have possibly been any "fragments" produced by the "complete
fracture lines" that extended into the occipital.
And the verbiage you cited there from the autopsy report is not
totally clear on exactly WHERE any of the specific "fragments" were
located. It doesn't say that any "fragments" were SPECIFICALLY located
in the occipital area of the head.
>>> "12. You have said that you don't care about understanding [the autopsy photograph known as] F8...or words to that effect?" <<<
That statement might not be 100% right, but it's pretty much correct,
John.
As stated before, it's my opinion that the F8 autopsy photo is a
complete and utter mess. It's totally worthless for trying to
determine pretty much anything DEFINITIVE with regard to the location
of JFK's head wounds. (IMHO anyway. YMMV.)
>>> "13. The fact that the edge of the intact skull near the level of the EOP, as seen in F8, is severely jagged doesn't even slightly suggest to you that the pieces of bone above that edge "fell out" (just as Humes said) when they reflected the scalp (as opposed to being cut out with a saw which would not have left such a jagged edge)?" <<<
Well, since you're talking about your wholly-subjective opinion about
what can be seen in "F8", I'll refer you to my answer to #12 again.
IOW -- Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8....because
it's an ink blot test as far as I'm concerned. Totally useless.
In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more
"orientation" features within F8, it would sure be more useful. It's
an incredible picture, though, I must say. I've often wondered just
exactly how (and where) the camera was situated and maneuvered in
order to snap that picture?
>>> "14. The odd shaped piece of skull drawn on Boswell's face sheet that he testified included the top portion of the entry and originally fit on the intact skull near the level of the EOP with the bottom portion of the entry, does not even slightly suggest to you that it was one of the pieces of rear skull that fell out when they reflected the scalp?" <<<
Correct.
No "rear skull" could have fallen out. Period.
>>> "15. You are positively certain that the autopsy photos showing a virtually undamaged BOH were taken before any repair could have been done to the BOH scalp in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<<
No, I'm not "positively certain" of that. But I really don't think it
matters a whole lot...because the scalp of JFK looks to be COMPLETELY
UNDAMAGED in any way in the area (right-rear) where you, John, need
there to be a considerable amount of damage.
That must have been one heck of a suturing/clean-up job on JFK's BOH,
I must say (if we're to believe Mr. John Canal's theory anyway).
>>> "16. You think that you'd be able to tell from the copies of the photos that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or not any repairs to the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<<
Yes. Definitely. Especially considering the massive amount of damage
that you need to have "repaired" in the BOH of JFK's head, in order
for your theory to be correct.
There's no way in Hades that we'd find the back of the President's
head in this condition if Mr. John Canal's BOH/LN theory is an
accurate one. Yes, this pic again:
And, once again, why hasn't John C. asked himself how on Earth the
rear scalp of JFK could look so CLEAN and DAMAGE-FREE if his BOH/LN
theory is to be believed?
It's food for BOH thought anyway....isn't it John?
>>> "17. You have no reasonable explanation whatsoever for why the scalp in the BOH photos is all but undamaged in the area where the bone was blown out (roughly from the cowlick forward into the frontal bone on the right side) into DP [Dealey Plaza] and/or the limo--the area where the autopsists said the scalp and skull were missing?" <<<
My best shot at this one would be -- It's the angle of the photograph,
which is skewing your perception of the scalp/head.
Quite obviously, if bone and scalp had been "blown out" into Dealey
Plaza or into the limousine, we would not (and COULD NOT) possibly
still see such "blown out" areas of JFK's head in ANY of the
photographs taken by John Stringer at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Therefore, SOME LOGICAL EXPLANATION (probably the angle of the photo
or some photographic anomaly of some type) must exist to explain your
17th inquiry.
But I wonder if John thinks he can explain away the total lack of
photographic support for his unique BOH/LN theory by merely stating
(across the gamut of the various photographic items I've discussed
previously) -- It's probably the angle of the photo or some kind of
"photographic anomaly"?
I doubt very much if he can do that.
>>> "18. (This is a long question, so take a deep breath) You are positively certain that, even though I have told you that morticians have stated that, in their opinion, JFK's rear scalp could have been stretched three inches and possibly even a bit more (as evidenced by the portion of his scalp where the hair is much less dense, as seen in the BOH photos)....AND that Humes testified they "undermined" the scalp, which means to seperate [sic] the scalp from the underlying muscles (primarily the Occipitalis muscle) and is a procedure that is done to enable the scalp to be stretched much more than it could otherwise be stretched....the stretching of the scalp could not be a possible explanation for why, in the BOH photos, there appears to be too much scalp between the hairline and the red spot and the scalp in the area where the bone had been blown out into DP and/or the limo and where Humes said the skull AND SCALP were MISSING, appears to be virtually undamaged?" <<<
I talked about this very early in this book-length post. But it's
worth an instant replay here. Here's what I said (and it applies here
as well):
"Amazingly, John Canal must actually think that in some crazy
and magical way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp
(which John insists is taking place to the scalp in the [autopsy]
picture [showing the red spot on the back of JFK's head]) somehow
resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH THE
COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
head). David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably
couldn't pull off that incredible feat of having an EOP entry hole
climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head."
-- DVP
>>> "19. You don't think that it's important that high entry theorists reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone chips from the skull's beveled out inner table around the entry) seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?" <<<
See my answer to #8.
>>> "20. You are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken (even though Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken)?" <<<
Correct. I'm 100% certain of that.
Why?
Well, you know. I'm sure you can guess (sans any links this time),
right? ;)
>>> "21. You find it preposterous that the metal stirrup upon which the back of JFK's head rested BEFORE the head x-rays were taken helped push any dislodged BOH bone pieces back into place prior to the x-rays being taken and that you find the conclusion that dozens of witnesses, including the autopsists, were wrong about seeing a BOH wound much more feasible?" <<<
The autopsists never once said they saw any large-sized BOH wound. Why
you keep insisting that Humes, Boswell, and Finck are in the "I SAW A
LARGE BOH WOUND" camp is a real mystery to me.
~shrug~
In fact, John, you are completely defeating the underlying MOTIVE for
your entire "BOH/LN" theory when you claim that the autopsists saw any
kind of a large BOH wound. (And I'm assuming that you think that the
"autopsists" [plural] made their observations about the presence of a
large-sized BOH wound known to some people fairly "early on", i.e., in
1963 and 1964....correct?)
But isn't it your theory that the whole reason we really don't know
all of the facts surrounding JFK's "BOH" wounds is because those same
autopsists deliberately failed to tell anybody the whole truth
concerning President Kennedy's "BOH" damage?
But are you now insisting that those same three autopsy physicians
really DID claim to see such BOH damage (and that they DOCUMENTED
their BOH findings either on paper or in front of the Warren
Commission, etc., as well!)??
Which is it? -- Were the doctors truth-tellers or cover-up artists?
Right now, you seem to want to sit on both sides of that particular
fence.
But to answer your #21 question more directly -- Yes, it's
"preposterous".
>>> "22. You are sure that the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH photos is directly over the entry hole in the skull...even though prior to the BOH photos being taken, the scalp had been reflected, pieces of bone came/fell out, the brain was removed, and the scalp held back up? And even though the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) and it has not been disputed by any of the experts that the entry wound was 2.5 cm right of midline?" <<<
The red spot might not be TO-THE-MILLIMETER over the area of the skull
that contains the entry hole. Yes, it's possible (or even probable)
that the scalp was in a somewhat-"loose" state/condition at the time
when Stringer took the "red spot" picture of the President's head.
But this is really largely immaterial and a moot point for the most
part....because you, John, still require a crazy, mobile, and freely-
moving BULLET HOLE (an independent MOVEMENT of the bullet hole ONLY,
that is, in relation to the rest of JFK's scalp, including the
underlying cowlick), in order for your "stretching scalp" and "BOH/LN"
theories to be looked upon as accurate.
Bottom Line -- The "red spot" (the bullet hole itself) is going
THROUGH THE COWLICK OF JOHN KENNEDY in the autopsy picture that I've
posted multiple times already.
Nothing you could say or theorize can change the above immutable fact
regarding the perfect LINING UP of these two things---
1.) The physical bullet (entry) hole in JFK's head.
and
2.) The cowlick in JFK's head.
>>> "23. You prefer to use the photos showing the entry in the BOH SCALP instead of the photo showing the entry in the SKULL to determine where the entry in the SKULL was?" <<<
It's much more difficult to even FIND the exact point of entry on the
X-rays. (And if you're talking about F8 here, I'll pass.)
This seems like a good time to interject a quote from Vincent
Bugliosi:
"Not only do the autopsy photos AND X-RAYS [DVP's added
emphasis] definitively show that the entrance wound is in the upper
part of the president's skull, but they show a bullet track..."only in
the upper portion of the skull" [1 HSCA 304, Testimony of Dr. Michael
Baden before HSCA on September 7, 1978]. ....
"The autopsy photographs and X-rays DO locate the [entrance]
wound precisely, though, to Dr. Humes's chagrin, not where the autopsy
report says." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 395-396 OF "RECLAIMING
HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)
>>> "24. Even though you have been invited to explain why Dale Myers' computer analysis showed that any bullet that hit JFK in the cowlick and exited where the HSCA said the "principal" exit was would have had to have been fired from approximately 124 feet above, not the book depository, but the Dal-Tex Building, you have not attempted to do so....but continue, nonetheless, to insist the bullet hit him in the cowlick?" <<<
You should have quoted the remainder of what Dale Myers concluded with
respect to the trajectory of the shot that struck JFK in the head:
"Since the position of JFK's head used in the computer
recreation closely matches Zapruder frame 312...and a trajectory line
based on the HSCA's outshoot wound tracks to an impossible firing
source located 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex Building, it
is concluded that the OUTSHOOT WOUND [DVP's emphasis] used by the HSCA
to calculate a trajectory path was NOT the result of a straight line
trajectory (i.e., the bullet was deflected after making contact with
the skull). ....
"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from
the available evidence, due to the possibility that the bullet
fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and the likelihood that
the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull." -- DALE K.
MYERS; VIA THE WEBPAGE LINKED BELOW
www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
I'll also add the following observation here -- Dale Myers fully
supports the HIGH ON THE HEAD (cowlick) entry location. And the
animated photo on the webpage linked above verifies that fact (the
second picture from the bottom).
So Dale is saying, in essence, that the House Select Committee GOT IT
RIGHT when it comes to the high location of the entry wound in JFK's
head. He further states (via his computer animation study of the
trajectories involved) that a definitive declaration regarding the
exact trajectory the head-shot bullet took "cannot be calculated".
But based on Myers' website and his sample computer images, he
certainly does NOT believe the entry wound in Kennedy's head was
located "low" on the head near the EOP. He thinks it was very HIGH on
the head, as his sample images illustrate fully.
>>> "25. You believe FBI Agents O'Neill and Siebert, as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?" <<<
Yes. Absolutely.
>>> "26. You believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken when he recollected seeing a right rear gaping wound...even though he said he held the President's head in his hands?" <<<
Yes. Absolutely. No such "right rear gaping wound" existed. Nor COULD
it have existed, given the existing photographic evidence.
>>> "27. You find at best preposterous the theory that Ramsey Clark, who openly criticized Jim Garrison's investigation, tasked Dr. Fisher to examine the autopsy x-rays and photographs (that were unavailable to Garrison) and report that the nature of the head wounds entirely disproved Garrison's Grassy Knoll Shooter theory as well as any suggestions there had been a shot from the rear at near ground level...resulting in Fisher refuting the autopsists' findings that the entry was low and there had been damage to the BOH that, while chiefly parietal on the right side, extended into the temporal and occipital?" <<<
Some of this question seems to be speculation on your part. ("Tasked
Dr. Fisher"?)
Anyway....since there was no large BOH wound (ever), Dr. Fisher and
the Clark Panel could not possibly have seen any "large BOH" wound (or
evidence thereof).
And the entry wound IS where it IS -- in the cowlick. Nothing's going
to change that fact.
>>> "28. You find ridiculous, if not laughable, the notion that "experts" from the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA endorsed Fisher's cowlick entry and "No-BOH-Wound" conclusions, even though they knew the autopsists were correct about those wounds, either in order not to embarrass one of the most credentialed and prominent forensic pathologists in the country [Fisher] or to prevent the rather awkward situation where government panels (Rockefeller Commission and HSCA) would refute the conclusions of an earlier government investigation (Clark Panel) which had already refuted the findings published by an even earlier government investigation (Warren Commission)?" <<<
So, you think that the pathologists who served on the Rockefeller
Commission and the HSCA "knew" that the cowlick entry conclusion was
full of shit -- but they decided to endorse it in their respective
reports anyway....right, John?
In a word -- Nonsense.
Also -- See my answer to #27.
>>> "29. Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi understandably and rightfully accepted much of the information that Dr. Michael Baden provided them or testified to probably because they trusted him and the members of his panel?" <<<
Yes. Absolutely.
Is there any particular reason (or reasons) why Posner and Bugliosi
should NOT have trusted Dr. Baden and the HSCA's Forensic Pathology
Panel (other than the HSCA's ridiculous "upward trajectory" findings
with respect to JFK's upper-back and throat injuries, which are
findings that can be debunked by taking just one look at the photo
linked below)?
=====================
[End Quiz. Finally.]
[John Canal will give me his usual "F" grade sometime soon, I'm quite
sure.]
=====================
Closing DVP Comments:
I'm still perplexed by a few things relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy....with the biggest head-scratcher for me (by far)
being the various witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who insisted
there was a great-big hole in the back of JFK's head.
I still am completely stumped by why none of the Parkland witnesses
could see any sign (at all!) of the large exit wound that was located
where we all KNOW it was located -- at the right/frontal part of
Kennedy's head.
And as far as I am aware, there wasn't a single witness who said they
saw TWO separate head wounds (i.e., a big, gaping wound at the right-
rear of the head AND a large wound at the right-front of Kennedy's
head).
Very strange indeed.
But, faced with this predicament, I do think that both Michael Baden
and Vincent Bugliosi have endorsed the most logical explanation for
how to resolve (at least for the most part) the vast discrepancy that
exists between the Parkland Hospital witnesses and the verified photos
of JFK's body that totally contradict those witnesses.
The Bethesda "BOH" witnesses, however, are a different "head-
scratcher" altogether. Why some of the Bethesda people claimed to see
something that was never there is another layer to this enduring
mystery surrounding the eyewitnesses.
Quoting from Bugliosi's JFK book:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs,
and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of
hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the
hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he
was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and
brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound
was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and
photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit
wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or
wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
the upper right part of the head." [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 407 and 408 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
-------------------
John Canal should now get busy inventing his explanation for how a
bullet hole that obviously penetrated John Kennedy's cowlick can
actually be a bullet hole that penetrated John Kennedy's "EOP".
That "Mobile EOP" essay of John's ought to be a doozy.
I'm also always interested in hearing more of John Canal's cockeyed
theory about how the autopsy doctors were afraid to simply explain the
WHOLE TRUTH about JFK's wounds (for fear that somebody would
incorrectly think that any "BOH" skull damage to JFK's head would
automatically mean that there was a frontal gunman and, hence, a
conspiracy to murder President Kennedy).
Incredibly, per Mr. Canal, the autopsy doctors (who knew beyond all
doubt that only ONE bullet had entered JFK's head, and it entered FROM
BEHIND) elected to hide information concerning the totality of the
"BOH" damage that was done to JFK's head (or the doctors just simply
weren't forthcoming with ALL of the information they had about the
head damage), rather than just simply tell the WHOLE truth about the
wounds they saw in President Kennedy's head -- which would have been
truth that FULLY SUPPORTED THE LONE-ASSASSIN CONCLUSION.
Now just exactly WHY the three autopsists would have wanted to play
such a silly "BOH" game is a bigger mystery to me than Bigfoot.
David Von Pein
April 1, 2009
David Von Pein
>>> "I hope Vincent [Bugliosi] reverses his position on the location of the entry wound in the back of the head (to near the EOP)." <<<
Why on Earth would Mr. Bugliosi want to do a silly thing like that?
There's not a chance in the world that Vince would have any desire to
change his already-correct stance on the location of President
Kennedy's head entry wound.
Why?
Because, as can easily be determined by this autopsy photograph, the
ONLY THING that could POSSIBLY be deemed a "bullet hole" on the back
of JFK's head in this picture is the red spot near the cowlick:
And John Canal's weird "they stretched the scalp" theory doesn't fly
either. Because even WITH some degree of scalp "stretching", the
actual HOLE (red spot) through John Kennedy's scalp is STILL
PENETRATING THE AREA OF THE COWLICK.
Therefore, regardless of ANY scalp "stretching" that John Canal has
invented to accommodate his oddball BOH/LN theory....the bullet hole
in the back of JFK's head is STILL GOING THROUGH THE AREA OF PRESIDENT
KENNEDY'S COWLICK -- which means (by definition): the entry hole for
Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet was located HIGH on the back of John F.
Kennedy's head.*
* = Unless some inventive theorist now wants to pretend that JFK's
cowlick was located LOW on the back of his head. I doubt anyone wants
to claim that, however.
Or does John Canal perhaps believe that by "stretching" the scalp of
JFK, the entry hole itself (which John insists is located in an area
of JFK's head that is much LOWER than the cowlick area) somehow
magically CLIMBED UP the head of President Kennedy, in order to appear
to be merging with the COWLICK area of the President's head?
There's no possible way that John Canal can logically and reasonably
answer that last question....because there is no logical or reasonable
answer to that question that would support John's "Low/EOP" theory.
Plus:
As I've mentioned in previous posts on this subject (after having had
this forehead-slapping revelation brought to my attention by Dr.
Michael Baden, via his March 12, 1978, tape recorded discussion with
Dr. Pierre Finck, which is linked below)....the autopsy photo linked
above not only depicts just ONE single solitary "thing" that could
conceivably be determined to be a "bullet hole" (the red spot in the
cowlick area of JFK's head), but the MAIN FOCAL POINT of that picture
is quite obviously the RED SPOT near the CENTER of the photograph.
That couldn't be more obvious. (Although, as I said, I never once
thought of using that particular argument to support the "cowlick"
entry until I listened to Baden's very astute comments on the matter
during his 03/12/78 interview with Dr. Finck.)
But it's certainly quite obvious that photographer John Stringer is
NOT centering his camera lens on the HAIRLINE area of President
Kennedy's head in that picture. Stringer is centering his attention on
the red spot in the cowlick area of JFK's head (i.e., the only
possible artifact in the photo that looks anything at all like a
bullet hole).
FINCK & BADEN (MARCH 12, 1978):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
>>> "But I do predict that if Vincent [Bugliosi] reverses his position, David [Von Pein] will reverse his position." <<<
Not a chance.
But, then too, there's not even the slightest chance that Mr. Bugliosi
will change his mind about the obviously-true "high"/"cowlick"
location of the entry wound in JFK's head, which is a location that
Bugliosi fully endorses in his book "Reclaiming History".
And there's a very good reason why Vincent endorses such a cowlick
entry location, and that reason is -- because it's so obviously the
correct location for that wound:
"The precise location of this [head] entrance wound as stated by
the autopsy surgeons in the autopsy report,...however, has been
established as being incorrect by every pathologist who has
subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and X-rays. ....
"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show
that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull,
but they show a bullet track..."only in the upper portion of the
skull" [1 HSCA 304, Testimony of Dr. Michael Baden before HSCA on
September 7, 1978]. ....
"The autopsy photographs and X-rays DO locate the [entrance]
wound precisely, though, to Dr. Humes's chagrin, not where the autopsy
report says." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 395-396 OF "RECLAIMING
HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)
===============
"Error" Addendum:
Vince, though, needs to re-think his stance on the HSCA's "upward
trajectory" through JFK's body for the SBT bullet. He resides,
incredibly, on BOTH sides of the fence (at the same time!) on that
strange issue:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/821069a8ca1e2fcd
And Vince is also wrong about some of the stuff he has said about Dr.
Gregory and the Connally wrist fragments:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
So you see, WhiskyJoe, I'm not always in complete agreement with
Vincent Bugliosi. (Just MOST of the time; but not 100% of the
time.) ;)
John Canal
>
>It's not that you didn't need to John. The idea isn't bad, it's just that
>you're wrong in your design.
>
>Your model doesn't "prove" anything of the kind.
That would be the opinion of someone [you] who hasn't replicated F8.
You ought to know Sturdivan's backround...he replicated F8 using the same
technique I did, but with a different model. Hunt and Seaton aren't the
dumbest guys on the block either and they also replicated F8 coming up
with the same results...my good man do you know what the odds would be for
all of us independently and incorrectly replicating that photo and coming
up with the same results...pretty long against that happening.
You say our design was wrong, can you, for a change be more specific?
JC
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"I hope Vincent [Bugliosi] reverses his position on the location of
the entry
>>>>wound in the back of the head (to near the EOP)." <<<
>
>
>Why on Earth would Mr. Bugliosi want to do a silly thing like that?
>
>There's not a chance in the world that Vince would have any desire to
>change his already-correct stance on the location of President
>Kennedy's head entry wound.
>
>Why?
>
>Because, as can easily be determined by this autopsy photograph, the
>ONLY THING that could POSSIBLY be deemed a "bullet hole" on the back
>of JFK's head in this picture is the red spot near the cowlick:
Whiskey Joe, this desperate repeated attempt by DVP to justify the failed
cowlick entry theory has been addressed....without him offering any reason
why the exlanation isn't sound.
For about the fifth time, the reason the red spot appears higher on the
head than one would think it would be if the entry was near the EOP IS THE
SAME REASON THAT THE SCALP FROM THE COWLICK FORWARD TO A LITTLE PAST THE
CORONAL SUTURE (MOSTLY ON THE RIGHT SIDE), WHICH WAS SHREDED AND/OR
MISSING AFTER Z-313 (BECAUSE THE SKULL WAS BLOWN OUT INTO DP AND/OR THE
LIMO)....IS ***PRESENT*** AND ALL BUT UNDAMAGED IN THE PHOTO. And that
reason is for that is they "undermined" the scalp.....a technique
morticians use when the have to strech the scalp to the maximum. David can
ask any experienced mortician if he wants if I'm correct about that
procedure, but he's stuck reading RH.
And it makes all the sense in the world that would have stretched the
scalp to the max--Hell that was our President and they couldn't hardly
have an open casket funeral (in the end that plan was aborted) with a huge
top/right/front area of scalp missing...COULD THEY DAVID????????????
So when they stretched the scalp to cover that huge top/right/front area
of missing scalp, they coincidently caused the amount of scalp between the
red spot and the hairline to be extended. Anyone can see the effect of
that stretching...look at the sparce hair density from the EOP to the
hairline. Also, that white spot probably resulted from them accidently
cutting through the lower scalp when they seperated the scalp from the
occipitalis (the largest muscle that connects the scalp in that area to
the nuchal lines (ridges on the skull that the connecting muscles attach
to).
This is not rocket science...that's what they did. Unfortunately, good and
very smart people like VB simply trusted Baden and really didn't do the
proper research to try to resolve this controversy...I trusted Baden as
far as I could have thrown him, which is why I did the extra digging.
Like I said before, Whiskey Joe, VB has a passion for the truth and, if I
know him, he'll reverse his opinion on this issue....whenever he can
manage the time.
JC
[...]
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>>>> "David, I'm going to let Vince [Bugliosi] know that you're announcing t=
>o the JFK research community that you're able to predict with virtual certa=
>inty whether or not he will reverse his position ("gobs of stuff") regardin=
>g the nature of the head wounds after having another look at the applicable=
> evidence...if he has an opportunity to do so. This is what you wrote: "The=
>re isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a complete abo=
>ut-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy, thus totally negati=
>ng gobs of stuff he has already written in his impeccably-researched "book =
>for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not a chance." " <<<
>
>
>Good, John. Please do send that quote of mine to Mr. Bugliosi. It's a
>very good quote too, IMO. And I was, indeed, very careful about the
>way I worded that message before I posted it yesterday on both the aaj
>and acj forums.
I'm glad you aprove.
>Hence, the words "impeccably-researched book for the ages" were
>included by me in my original 3/31/09 quote (linked below), indicating
>my belief that Bugliosi has already arrived at the truth regarding
>this matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print in such an "impeccably-
>researched book for the ages".
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cc5f6aabfdfda3d6
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Frankly, I believe that Vince has a passion for the truth and, when he=
> can manage the time, will re-investigate the controversies surrounding the=
> head wounds. That said, I'm confident that, if he determines what I have t=
>old him about those wounds is correct, and that Baden fed him and the natio=
>n a crock of B/S, he will not hesitate to correct himself." <<<
>
>
>John Canal must think that, incredibly (and magically, it would seem),
>the bullet ENTRY HOLE ITSELF on the back of President Kennedy's head
>(i.e., the red spot in the autopsy photograph linked below) was
>somehow able to FALSELY APPEAR to be high on JFK's head, i.e., in the
>area of the COWLICK, even though that HOLE ITSELF is really (per John
>Canal) located much lower on JFK's unstretched scalp.
>
>Amazingly, John C. must actually think that in some crazy and magical
>way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp (which John C.
>insists is taking place to the scalp in the picture linked below)
>somehow resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH
>THE COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
>head).
I just wrote the explanation for why that photo appears to show the red
spot too high in a reply to your post to Whiskey Joe. If I thought you had
the sense to grasp it, I'd write it gain here for you...but: :-(
>David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably couldn't
>pull off that incredible illusionary feat of having an EOP entry hole
>climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
>that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head:
The bottom line is that David doesn't care to learn how to decipher a
photo of the entry in the skull (F8), so he'd rather use a photo of the
entry in a scalp that's been worked on to determine where the entry in the
skull was. LOL...na, I'm not laughing because it's sad to see someone
embarrass theselves over and over like David does on these issues.
[...]
David doesn't have explanations..so he just keeps inserting the photo
that's been explained.
>>>> "I thought I'd also send him your answers to the 29 questions listed be=
>low....that is if you have the marbles to answer them. Note that you had an=
>swered questions that are similar to some of these before--most, though, ha=
>ve been updated and several new ones have been added. .... Here are the que=
>stions. Note that I'm prefacing each question with, 'Isn't it true that...?=
>' " <<<
>
>Okay, shoot. This should be fun.
>
>(I guess Mr. Canal doesn't care how many times his silly theory
>deservedly gets dragged through the mud. It's kind of like a baseball
>player yelling to the pitcher of the opposing team: "Come on, strike
>me out again! I dare ya!")
Come back to earth.
>~shrug~
>
>But, anyway...here we go (yet again)....
>
>
>>>> "1. You cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of =
>doctors who tried to save JFK's life at PH [Parkland Hospital], or on the a=
>utopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<<
>
>
>All three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) definitely
>described the location of JFK's head wounds fairly accurately--in the
>AUTOPSY REPORT, that is.
Huh?????????? In the auopsy report (AR) they said the entry was near the
EOP and that the large wound extended into the occiput! Are you now saying
that's accurate???????? have you read the AR???????
>The later testimony of the autopsy doctors regarding the entry wound
>in JFK's head is wrong...that's true (except for Dr. Humes' HSCA
>session in 1978, when he decided to use his brains and change his mind
>and endorse the cowlick entry location; of course, he decided to
>change back to the "white dab of tissue" entry location later on, for
>some silly reason that only he could explain).
Fist, his WC testimony matches what he said in the AR. Years later he was
confused--AND SAID SO-- when he testified to the HSCA...later to JAMA and
to the ARRB he straightened that out.
>So, as far as the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT is concerned (the autopsy
>report), the locations of JFK's head wounds are reported fairly
>accurately.
Well, if Humes was confused in 1978, DVP is now confused here...put away
RH for cripe's sake and read it [the AR].
>The autopsy report should have measured the head entry wound from the
>top of the head, but for some reason the doctors didn't do that at
>JFK's autopsy.
Good grief...this comic relief gets funnier an funnier. The entry was
almost at the level of the EOP..so they used that as a referrence.
I should have asked you to answer yes or no so I wouldnt have to read your
nonsensical blabber.
>So we must be content with this non-exacting
>terminology found in the autopsy report -- "slightly above the
>external occipital protuberance".
>But even that non-exacting description is good enough to prove that
>all of the people who love the "low" entry location are 100% wrong.
>Because "slightly above" the EOP does not equal LOW ON THE HEAD or AT
>THE LEVEL OF THE EOP. Period.
??????????????? Someone translate this jibberish for me.
>Plus:
>
>It seems to me that I, myself, could have asked you (John Canal) your
>first question (with respect to the Parkland doctors anyway)? Because
>YOU really don't have ANY Parkland doctors whom you can really say
>"GOT IT 100% RIGHT" with respect to locating the head wounds of JFK
>accurately.
Most of them said the wound was right-rear or occipital-parietal...which
is reasonable consistency. As you recall they didn't wash the gore off
from his head (no time) and didn't spend a lot of time examining the
wounds because they were trying to save his life. Only you would expect
all of those witnesses to describe the wound exactly the same.
>None of the Parkland people got it right. Not one. Because there's not
>a single Parkland witness (to my knowledge) who claimed to see the
>large wound of exit on JFK's head (i.e., the wound that we all KNOW
>was definitely there...in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP of the head). Nobody
>that I am aware of claimed to see that RIGHT-FRONT hole in Kennedy's
Have you read their early testimony? Bad question--sorry--of course you
havcen't. Several said it was occipital-parietal!
>head on November 22, 1963.
>
>Yes, a few doctors later changed their minds and said the wound was
>located in the "parietal" (right-front) region. Dr. Carrico comes to
>mind as one such Parkland witness.
>
>But on 11/22/63, I doubt that we could find a single witness who
>claimed to see that wound. And it's a huge 13-centimeter wound that we
>KNOW beyond all doubt WAS THERE in the head of JFK when he was at
>Parkland. So why nobody saw it remains one of the biggest unsolvable
>mysteries of this case (IMHO).
>
>Anyway, you're off to a very poor start with your "Let's Make DVP Look
>Bad" test that you're conducting here. Because even you, yourself,
>would be hard-pressed to come up with a single Parkland witness who
>saw the President's wounds in ALL of the places (including the RIGHT/
>FRONT/TOP) where YOU think they were located on JFK's head on
>11/22/63.
See above. :-(
>
>>>> "2. You cannot name ONE SINGLE PERSON who saw JFK's wounds while he was=
> still clinging to life or after he died who said early on that there was n=
>o open "back of the head" (BOH) wound?" <<<
>
>
>Sure, I can name three such persons -- Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr.
>Finck.
Read the AR!!!!!!!!!! ...and Humes' WC testimony!!!
>Those three men performed the post-mortem exam on President Kennedy's
>body, and each of those three men signed the official autopsy report
>(on 11/24/63, which is still certainly to be considered "early on").
>And none of those three men said that there was any kind of a large
>"open back-of-the-head wound".
They said the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital and
temporal...and Humes testified to the WC that they saw part of the
cerebellum--which would have been a good trick if there wasn't any BOH
wound...even you would know that much!
>And you're going to be hard-pressed (again) to prove me wrong here,
>John. Because I'm not wrong. And the autopsy report proves it. And the
>"somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" language that does,
>indeed, appear in the autopsy report doesn't mean I'm wrong about this
>point either.
>
>That "somewhat" ambiguous language certainly does not mean that all
>three autopsy doctors saw any kind of a large wound (or missing skull)
>at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head. And you NEED to have a large-
>sized hole present at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR (occipital) of JFK's head in
>order for your fantastic BOH/LN theory to have a chance of being true.
But Humes elaborated on that somewhat when he said they saw part of the
cerebellum...or was he mistaken about that too?
>Now, let's just have a look at the exact "somewhat" verbiage that
>exists in JFK's autopsy report, and let's see if these words add up to
>the kind of large, gaping wound in the OCCIPITAL area of President
>Kennedy's head that all of the Parkland doctors said they observed:
>
>
> "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. In this region there is an actual
>absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
But now that you mentioned that, look at your favorite photo...do you see
any damage whatsoever to the occipital??? Of course you don't...which
means, if you agree that they were correct in the AR, then you must agree
they repaired [closed up] an opening in the occipital....or didn't you
mean what you said?
>www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>
>
>Now, does any reasonable person actually believe that the above
>verbiage that appears in the autopsy report could possibly translate
>to this location for the massive exit wound that existed in JFK's head
>(the drawing below is an illustration that was endorsed by Dr. Robert
>McClelland of Parkland Hospital)?:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif
Some witnesses described a smaller wound..some described one that extended
further up, but lmost every one said early on the BOH was damaged.
>>>> "3. You believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wo=
>und extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<
>
>
>The skull FRACTURES (i.e., radiating cracks) certainly extended into
>the "occipital",
Let me interject something. Even though you said cracks, which is wrong
(they were complete fractures all the way through the bone), you disagree
with the "Father of the high entry and no-BOH-wound theories", Dr. Fisher,
who said the severe fragmentation extended only back to near the
occipital-parietal junction.
>yes. No doubt about that. The X-rays prove that fact.
>But the X-rays also prove that there was not (and could not have been)
>any kind of a large ABSENCE OF SKULL BONE in the occipital region of
>JFK's head.
You haven't been paying attention..the rear bone was all there--some
pieces were dislodged, that's all.
>I think this might be merely a matter of semantics (similar to the
>"neck vs. back" controversy with respect to JFK's upper-back wound,
>with that wound many times referred to as residing in the "neck" or
>"back of the neck"; while at other times, the more-accurate word
>"back" was used by Warren Commission counsel members).
>
>With respect to the head-wound terminology utilized by Dr. Humes in
>the autopsy report, the word "occipital" does appear (after the
>important word "somewhat", of course), which has (IMO) falsely led
>some conspiracists to believe the incorrect notion that the area of
>MISSING skull and scalp extended all the way to the outer-most BACK
>portions of JFK's head.
I'm not going to try to figure out what you're trying to say
there...although Im sure it would contribute to this discussion...not.
>But this autopsy X-ray should cause a reasonable person looking at it
>to conclude that there was no HOLE in ANY part of the BACK of
>President Kennedy's head at any time on November 22, 1963:
Gaps between moved pieces of skull, that's all...get it?
>>>> "4. You believe Humes was wrong when he testified under oath to the War=
>ren Commission they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?=
>Funny, though, isn't it, that the actual word "CEREBELLUM" doesn't
>appear ONCE in Dr. James J. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony?
>Not once:
The cerebellum has many parts..flocculus is one.
>Could it be that perhaps John Canal is mixed up about what Humes
>thought was "part of the cerebellum"?
>
>~shrug~
If I thought shrugging would help wake you up, I'd encourage you to do
more of it.
>>>> "5. You believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified th=
>e location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head because they were r=
>ushed and/or inexperienced and/or for other reasons?" <<<
>
>
>Those three doctors certainly did NOT "grossly misidentify" the
>location of Kennedy's head entry wound in the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT.
Slightly above the EOP is not 4 inches above it...and they had Rydberg
draw the wound to clarify what they meant by slightly above!!!!
YOU JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH FOR ME TO EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER THESE
QUESTIONS...IF YOUR ANSWERS DON'T GET ANY BETTER, I'LL JUST SEND VB YOUR
ASSESSMENT OF HIS MINDSET ON THIS STUFF AND THE B/S YOU'VE SPEWED OUT
ABOVE.
>The language used to describe the location of the entry wound in JFK's
>head certainly could have been more precise and exacting--that's true.
>I cannot deny that.
Look at Rydberg's drawing!
>And, as mentioned earlier, the doctors probably
>should have measured the distance of the wound from the very top of
>JFK's head, as Dr. Cyril Wecht says he always does with wounds in the
>autopsies he has performed.
>
>But I don't think the wound location is "grossly" inaccurate in the
>autopsy report itself. The report gives the location as being "2.5
>centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above the external
>occipital protuberance".
I'm getting frustrated with your lack of understanding of the medical
evidence. If there was any doubt whatsoever about what they meant by
slightly above they cleared that up with the Rydberg drawing.
>Now, yes, the three doctors (all of them, incredibly) decided to give
>their good sense a breather when they testified in front of the
>various U.S. Government investigative bodies (except for Dr. Humes'
>HSCA session), and they went off half-crocked and said the wound was
>located way down near the hairline -- which is just flat-out silly.
>
>Is the white piece of brain tissue near JFK's hairline supposed to be
>"slightly above" the EOP? ~shrug~
Hume said he was confused by the photo..he probably didn't remember it was
taken after they stretched the scalp. Then to JAMA and the ARRB he was
more lucid and gave a description of the entry location that was
consistent with the AR and his WC testimony.
>That's just crazy. But, for some reason, all three autopsists decided
>to be silly whenever talking about the precise location of the entry
>wound (save the one time Humes regained his common sense in front of
>the HSCA in '78).
He regained his common sense????? He said he was confused!!!!!!! Can't you
read????????
This was a bad idea...you refuse to wake up and listen...I'm wasting my
time. I'll just send VB the above.
JC
[...]
David Von Pein
Is it your contention then, John, that this "undermining" of the scalp
means that the bullet hole that you say is near the EOP suddenly MOVED
NORTH to actually PENETRATE the area of the COWLICK (which is much
higher on JFK's head than the EOP)?
And there's no doubt in the world that THE ACTUAL BULLET HOLE through
JFK's scalp IS penetrating the COWLICK area of his head. Can you
possibly deny that the HOLE ITSELF is penetrating the cowlick area of
JFK's head?
You somehow think that the HOLE and the COWLICK "merged" in some crazy
fashion due to the proverbial "undermining" of the scalp?
It's the MST (the "MAGIC SCALP THEORY").
Incredible.
David Von Pein
>>> "This was a bad idea...you refuse to wake up and listen...I'm wasting
my time." <<<
Thank God you pulled the plug early on this tedium. I was getting tired
(already) of wading through your silly replies to the very good post of
mine from April 1st, 2009 (linked below):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
>>> "I'll just send VB the above." <<<
And make sure to also send him all of the details regarding your "MST"
(Magic Scalp Theory)...which is a theory that (incredibly) has the
physical bullet HOLE through John F. Kennedy's scalp moving itself UP
SEVERAL INCHES on JFK's head in order to (incredibly) merge perfectly with
the COWLICK of JFK's head....even though John Canal insists that that VERY
SAME BULLET HOLE is really PENETRATING the scalp of JFK at the level of
the EOP!
Make sure you don't forget to send Vince those MST details, John. OK?
Or, better still, just send him a copy of this post. It succinctly
explains your wackiness regarding the location of the head entry wound.