Question For John Canal
David Von Pein
Simple question for John Canal:
If the bullet that struck President Kennedy's head had really entered
his head where you say it did (near the EOP, instead of near JFK's
cowlick)....then why isn't the COWLICK of Kennedy's head located
several inches ABOVE the physical BULLET HOLE (i.e., the red spot;
which is a red spot that you agree IS the actual bullet hole itself)
in this autopsy photograph:
Regardless of any "stretching" or "undermining" of the scalp of JFK in
the above picture....if there REALLY was a PHYSICAL difference of
several INCHES between where you claim the bullet hole resides on the
back of JFK's head (near the EOP) and the cowlick of JFK's head (which
is certainly located quite a bit higher on the head than is the
EOP)....then why isn't there a good-sized piece of real estate on the
scalp between the physical bullet hole itself and the cowlick?
Did the "stretching"/"undermining" of the scalp somehow ONLY affect
the BULLET HOLE itself....while not "stretching" (i.e., moving
northward) the COWLICK area of that very same scalp?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>Simple question for John Canal:
<TOP POST>
I don't understand why you are so confused, but I'm glad you're evidently
(unless you think you can lure me into a trap with questions like
this...you can't, I assure you because I am right) are trying to get this
sorted out in your mind.....not like McAdams and Fiorentino.
Think about this--(and try to accept, for once, that the autopsy docs were
correct about something they saw): In both the autopsy report and in
Humes' WC testimony it is clearly stated that in the large area where the
skull was blown out the scalp was also blown out, i.e. missing!
We're talking about the area of the head from a little forward of the
cowlick all the way to about a few cm anterior to the coronal suture (into
the frontal bone) mostly on the right side (look at the Dox drawing, HSCA,
F-66--it's not too incorrect regarding that large opening)......it was
"void of scalp and skull". Remember what C. Hill said--he saw a piece of
skull with hair on it---he wasn't hallucinating...there's no way in Hell
(although McAdams has theorized this before) that the skull could have
been blasted out leaving the scalp.....that's just silly...as if the scalp
just moved aside to allow the skull to be blasted out!
My good man, they were preparing the President's body for an open casket
funeral (that plan was aborted later), they ****HAD**** to cover this area
of missing scalp (the missing bone was no problem--plaster of paris).
To accomplish this difficult task, just as the morticians and Humes said,
the scalp was stretched!!!! Talk to any morticians of your choice...like I
did and they'll tell you that by employing a procedure called
"undermining" (I descrbed this process in a little detail before), which
maximizes the amount the scalp can be stretched, they could have stretched
the section of scalp that was still there (that was from the hairline to
just forward of the cowlick) three inches and probably a little more.
Ok, so what happened to the red spot in the scalp as a result of the it
[the scalp] being stretched about three inches is the question. Here's
what happened.
At frame Z-312/313 that red spot was only "about" (very rough estimate
there) four inches above the hairline....with the entry in the skull
directly under it [red spot]. But after the scalp was "undermined" and
stretched (as evidenced by the diminished hair density in the area from
the hairline to "about" four inches above it) the red spot went from being
roughly four inches above the hairline to being "about" seven inches above
it. In other words, the red spot was then (after the scalp was stretched)
no longer over the entry in the skull near the EOP, it was over the
cowlick area of the skull.
Be sure about something--they weren't trying to move that red spot, but
they did and what they did to that red spot was consequential to them
covering that large area of missing scalp.
Again, if you're in doubt about this, just ask yourself, why the scalp
over the area of his head where the skull was blasted out (where the
autopsist has a grip on it) looks undamaged? How could that possibly
be....? The photo wasn't touched up...Hell no, the simple answer is the
scalp was stretched to the max.
Look, David, the guy who started all this crap about the entry being in
the cowlick and there being no BOH wound was Fisher....and he didn't
hardly want to support Garrison's frontal shot claims (Ramsey Clark was
openly critical of Garrison)....that's why he reported the BOH (occipital)
was not severely fragmented (which was evidence Garrson was wrong about
any frontal shot)...even though the autopsy report and Humes' WC testimony
makes it abundantly clear that the occipital was fragmented.
Soooo, was McMeekin (Rockefeller Commission) and Baden et. al. (HSCA)
going to refute the conclusions of one of this country's most highly
credentialed, respected, and prominent forensic pathologists ......or what
three relatively unknown and somewhat inexperienced military pathologists
reported? It was an easy choice and Fisher's B/S resulted in all the
pathologists who subsequently examined the medical evidence to follow
suit.....with prominent authors, like Posner and VB, assuming they could
trust Baden, describing the head wounds the way they did....a la the
Fisher syndrome.
I realize you weren't looking for such a long-winded rant--this will be
the last time I go to this much trouble.
The bottom line is that if you think the notion that three persons, and I
don't care if they are bricklayers or pathologists, could see a hole in
the skull thast was in the cowlick and think it was near the bony and
easily noticeable prominence in the BOH called the External Occipital
Protuberance is more feasible than the above "stretching" scenario, then
more power to you....IMO, you join the ranks of the Greer did it and no
hits to the BOH theorists.
WhiskyJoe
One question we have to ask ourselves is, if the bullet really did strike
near the cowlick area, why aren't there any good drawings showing the path
of the bullet.
A good "EOP" diagram can be easily produced. Just check out page 210,
Figure 42, of "The JFK Myths").
But showing a good "cowlick" diagram is not so easy. The Dox diagram
(shown on page 191, Figure 42, of "The JFK Myths") shows the bullet
hitting near the cowlick, continuing in a straight line. But this is a
false diagram. We know the bullet was deflected upwards, to hit to hit on
the windshield and frame, as well as the fragment that cleared both.
Typically, CTers use diagrams, that is the diagrams that are easy to
interpret, with the angle from the back too wide, Connally sitting
directly in front of JFK and Connally's torso not turned to his right. The
reason is that CTers have to lie to produce an effective anti-SBT diagram.
They can't just go with the real angles and positions because that caused
the wounds to line up too well.
Similarly, the Dox diagram has a distortion. It shows the bullet fragments
continuing on in a straight line. It dodges the issue of how those
fragments ended up so high on the windshield.
The reason is that an accurate "cowlick" diagram is going to look strange.
The fragments will have to travel an "S" path through the head in order to
exit the head ending slightly upward, toward the top of the windshield.
That is, the fragment will enter the cowlick area, curve downward to get
slightly below the exit point, then curve upward, so they will exit the
proper location, and continue on in a straight line toward the top of the
windshield.
The lack of an honest diagram for the cowlick theory should raise a red
flag.
Question:
Why has no one come up with a good "cowlick" diagram?
John Fiorentino
Don't worry, Canal will have an "answer" for you, even if it makes no
sense.
The scalp can't be stretched in the manner John describes without some
rather gross distortion. There is none. The contour of JFK's head is
intact. John will say they "replaced" the bones.
Of course, IF they did that, then there is absolutely NO way the scalp
could be stretched in the manner John indicates.
Neither is there any lacerated scalp in the area of John's BOH wound.
Sturdivan was also off the beam on this. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but
probably should stick to the ballistics.
I looked into this myself. The approx. absolute max any scalp can be
stretched without laceration is about 1/2 in. and that is stretching it
for most people (pardon the pun)
I had 2 physicians look at the pictures. 1 forensic pathologist and 1
mortician. They all back up what I'm saying.
This whole idea is a fantasy.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d300e276-486a-43d6...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Nice try at sidestepping the very simple question I asked you, John.
I'll repeat it again (even if you don't want to answer; of course, you
cannot possibly answer it in a reasonable and BELIEVABLE fashion, but I'll
ask again anyhow):
If the bullet from Lee Oswald's gun entered President Kennedy's head
very near the level of the EOP, then why isn't there a lot more real
estate on John Kennedy's head visible BETWEEN the cowlick and the bullet's
entry hole (i.e., the red spot) in this autopsy photo?:
Try again, John. Because your last hunk of long-windedness was pretty
pathetic at trying to explain how the EOP suddenly MERGED PERFECTLY WITH
THE COWLICK on John Kennedy's head.
John Canal
>
>David:
>
>Don't worry, Canal will have an "answer" for you, even if it makes no
>sense.
What makes no sense is you concluding the PH docs, the autopsists, and
even the morticians were all lying or hallucinating, (especially
considering they all saw the body)...and that Baden, who you have been
openly critical of, is correct about these issues.
>The scalp can't be stretched in the manner John describes without some
>rather gross distortion.
How do you think they should have prepared the body for an open casket
funeral--use a wig to cover the large top/right/front area of his head
where the bone had been blown out and the scalp was
missing??????????????????????
You won't do a replication because you know it'd tell you that you were
wrong about the entry location, but you can at least ask a mortician if by
undermining the scalp they could have stretched it three inches...can't
you? Get off your duff and do some research instead of giving us your
blather.
>There is none. The contour of JFK's head is
>intact. John will say they "replaced" the bones.
Plaster of paris--do some research!
>Of course, IF they did that, then there is absolutely NO way the scalp
>could be stretched in the manner John indicates.
Ask any mortician....and put his name here if you do so we can veriy what
he said.
>Neither is there any lacerated scalp in the area of John's BOH wound.
You think the morticians were lying about suturing closed any scalp
openings. Do you think they'd be so sloppy if they did that that you'd be
able to see their work from a photo? LOL!
>Sturdivan was also off the beam on this. I'm sure he is a nice guy, but
>probably should stick to the ballistics.
HE'S A "WOUND-BALLISTICS" EXPERT, SHERLOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I looked into this myself. The approx. absolute max any scalp can be
>stretched without laceration is about 1/2 in. and that is stretching it
>for most people (pardon the pun)
You maybe good at coming up with puns, but when it come to research you
fail miserably. I'll bet you a $100. that your statement that the max they
can stretch the scalp is wrong...wanna bet??????? Of course not....you
don't want to waste your time.
>I had 2 physicians look at the pictures. 1 forensic pathologist and 1
>mortician. They all back up what I'm saying.
Who is the mortician who said they couldn't stretch the scalp more than a half
inch? I'll tell you name of the morticians who said they could have stretched it
three inches if you'll tell me your mortician's name.
>This whole idea is a fantasy.
Kind of like your book will be?
John Canal
>John F.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>Nice try at sidestepping the very simple question I asked you, John.
I'm afraid you simply aren't reading my explanation for comprehension.
The red spot in the scalp ***IS*** over the cowlick part of JFK's skull in the
photo.
Before the scalp was stretched, however, the red spot was near the EOP on JFK's
skull.
This is not rocket science....if you're confused have one of your children
explain what I just said to you.
What is wacky is you thinking the PH docs, who described a BOH wound, the
autopsists who reported 1) that the large wound extended into the occiput, 2)
that they saw part of the cerebellum, and 3) that the entry was near the EOP,
and even the morticians who said they stretched and sutured the scalp
closed....WERE ALL LYING OR HALLUCINATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW THAT'S WACKY.
John Canal
John Canal
WhiskyJoe says...
<TOP POST>
Well said, Whiskey Joe.
I'd like to add three comments about the drawing [Dox's HSCA, F-66] you refer
to.
First, Baden et. al. agreed the principal exit of the bullet was very roughly
where the drawing shows it was, but Dale Myers computer analysis determined
that, using the cowlick entry, the exit shown in that drawing, and the proper
lean of JFK at the moment he was hit (Z-312), the bullet would have o have been
fired from a spot 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD, but the Dal-Tex
building.
Second, Baden had the gall to testify under oath that the trajectory shown in
that drawing was "fairly accurate." My point is that it's obvious he was prone
to using the deception tool....so why anyone would believe him over, let's say
the likes of Larry Sturdivan, on this issue, is beyond me?
And third, the good Doctor Lattimer knew the HSCA's trajectory drawing was
flawed and that the cowlick entry and principal exit shown in the drawing, just
like you said, could not be reconciled with the windshield damage. Thus, he drew
his own diagram that shows the fragments diverging with some major ones
deflecting up to hit the windshield...but the problem there is, if you have
major fragments deflecting up after entering the cowlick, then they couldn't
possibly have exited where the HSCA agreed the major fragments did exit (without
deflection).
IOW, Lattimer knew the HSCA's cowlick entry trajectory was flawed.
>One question we have to ask ourselves is, if the bullet really did strike
>near the cowlick area, why aren't there any good drawings showing the path
>of the bullet.
Because, like you suggest, they can't conjur up anything that doesn't look
silly.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "This whole [scalp "stretching"] idea [of John Canal's] is a fantasy." <<<
Indeed it is.
And even if the "stretching" theory of John Canal's were
correct....John still would have a huge problem (as I mentioned
several times previously).
I.E.,
Because even if JFK's scalp was being stretched all to hell in the BOH
autopsy picture, we can still see that the BULLET HOLE (red spot) is
still penetrating the area on JFK's head known as the "cowlick".
There's no denying this (although John Canal apparently does want to
deny this ironclad fact).
If John C. didn't believe that the "red spot" was the actual entry
hole, then his theory wouldn't be so incredible silly. But John C.
DOES believe the red spot is the entry hole.
And at what point on JFK's scalp is that bullet hole PENETRATING
Kennedy's head ("stretched" scalp or otherwise)?
Answer:
In the COWLICK region of JFK's head...that's where.
I guess perhaps John C. wants to believe that when the autopsists
"stretched"/"undermined" Kennedy's scalp, the cowlick (which IS part
of and ATTACHED TO the "scalp" the last time I heard) didn't "stretch"
northward along with the actual bullet hole.
Apparently only the bullet hole itself moved up JFK's scalp to appear
to be "too high" via John's "stretching" theory. Incredibly, however,
the cowlick evidently remained exactly where it's supposed to be on
the unstretched scalp of John Kennedy.
Is that correct, John Canal?
David Von Pein
"Stretched Scalp" Addendum:
If we just do the simple math here, it would seem to me (via John
Canal's "stretching" theory) that the cowlick of JFK's head/scalp
(which John insists is NOT the area where the bullet entered JFK's
head) should be located SEVERAL INCHES above the location of the
bullet hole (the red spot) in the autopsy picture linked below.
In fact, the cowlick (per John's "stretched scalp" theory) should
probably be about EIGHT full inches above the bullet hole, because
John already believes that the bullet hole is about FOUR inches below
the cowlick on the UNSTRETCHED scalp of JFK. And when taking into
account the four-inch "stretch" to the north on Kennedy's head that
John says is occurring here, that makes 8 inches total (4 "misleading"
inches due to the "stretching" plus 4 "real" inches):
Instead, we find the cowlick (even if the scalp is being stretched by
the doctors) to be right AT the level of the bullet hole (red spot) in
the above photograph.
Go figure.
Anthony Marsh
>
> One question we have to ask ourselves is, if the bullet really did strike
> near the cowlick area, why aren't there any good drawings showing the path
> of the bullet.
>
> A good "EOP" diagram can be easily produced. Just check out page 210,
> Figure 42, of "The JFK Myths").
>
> But showing a good "cowlick" diagram is not so easy. The Dox diagram
> (shown on page 191, Figure 42, of "The JFK Myths") shows the bullet
> hitting near the cowlick, continuing in a straight line. But this is a
> false diagram. We know the bullet was deflected upwards, to hit to hit on
> the windshield and frame, as well as the fragment that cleared both.
>
No, we don't. You just assume that. It could have been a different
bullet which hit the chrome topping.
And you can't line up the exit of the HSCA's bullet to go both through
the hole they picked and ALSO through the semi-circular defect in the
frontal bone without having the bullet break up into two pieces. And the
piece exiting the semi-circular defect on a downward path would go
where? Hit what?
> Typically, CTers use diagrams, that is the diagrams that are easy to
> interpret, with the angle from the back too wide, Connally sitting
> directly in front of JFK and Connally's torso not turned to his right. The
> reason is that CTers have to lie to produce an effective anti-SBT diagram.
> They can't just go with the real angles and positions because that caused
> the wounds to line up too well.
>
The WC lied in its SBT.
> Similarly, the Dox diagram has a distortion. It shows the bullet fragments
> continuing on in a straight line. It dodges the issue of how those
> fragments ended up so high on the windshield.
>
One of its major flaws.
And you dodge issues also.
> The reason is that an accurate "cowlick" diagram is going to look strange.
> The fragments will have to travel an "S" path through the head in order to
> exit the head ending slightly upward, toward the top of the windshield.
>
The HSCA failed to consider that their bullet would break up in the head
and cause multiple exit wounds. That would not allow them to point a
trajectory back to the sniper's nest.
> That is, the fragment will enter the cowlick area, curve downward to get
> slightly below the exit point, then curve upward, so they will exit the
> proper location, and continue on in a straight line toward the top of the
> windshield.
>
You have a vivid imagination and no facts about your curving paths.
> The lack of an honest diagram for the cowlick theory should raise a red
> flag.
>
> Question:
>
> Why has no one come up with a good "cowlick" diagram?
>
Maybe because there was no wound in the cowlick?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>Simple question for John Canal:
>
>If the bullet that struck President Kennedy's head had really entered
>his head where you say it did (near the EOP, instead of near JFK's
>cowlick)....then why isn't the COWLICK of Kennedy's head located
>several inches ABOVE the physical BULLET HOLE (i.e., the red spot;
>which is a red spot that you agree IS the actual bullet hole itself)
I just had a friend of mine explain your question to me. and this is what
I wrote back to him:
Canal to friend: "Ah thank you. I've been studying the BOH photos now for
about 8 years and this is the first time I've heard that argument...the
shock must have made me not understand his point.
The counter argument is what he thinks is the cowlick is not JFK's
cowlick.
Here's Gunn and Boswell on that:
Q. "If I understood you correctly, were you saying that that marking we've
been pointng to that is near the top of the ruler and somewhat to the
right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration in the
scalp?"
Boswell: "Yes. That's occurring from beneath with the explosion of the
bullet."
[Boswell, ARRB de., p. 163]
Thanks again.
I still stand by my previous explanation. Now see how you do on the
question I asked you, Fiorntino, and McAdams.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
Ok, I went and figured out (actually a friend had to put your question in
different words) what you tryng to sell.
See my "New answer to Qustion for John Canal" post.
John Canal
John Fiorentino
that we believe that John is really open to a discussion. Or, that what he
discusses makes any sense.
He isn't and it doesn't.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:88384131-fe80-417d...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
comments really aren't worthy of a response.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gr461...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "The red spot in the scalp ***IS*** over the cowlick part of JFK's
skull in the photo." <<<
And the red spoot is over the cowlick in the SCALP in the autopsy photo
too....which is something you cannot explain. Because, per your theory,
the cowlick in the SCALP should be many inches ABOVE that red spot in the
scalp photo. But it isn't. Hence, the bullet hole is penetrating the
cowlick area of JFK's scalp.
Simple as that.
>>> "Before the scalp was stretched, however, the red spot was near the
EOP on JFK's skull." <<<
Impossible.
Why is it impossible?
Because the red spot is penetrating the COWLICK of JFK's head in the
autopsy photo.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "This whole [scalp "stretching"] idea [of John Canal's] is a fantasy."<<<
>
> Indeed it is.
>
> And even if the "stretching" theory of John Canal's were
> correct....John still would have a huge problem (as I mentioned
> several times previously).
>
> I.E.,
>
> Because even if JFK's scalp was being stretched all to hell in the BOH
> autopsy picture, we can still see that the BULLET HOLE (red spot) is
> still penetrating the area on JFK's head known as the "cowlick".
>
> There's no denying this (although John Canal apparently does want to
> deny this ironclad fact).
>
Wait a second there. Maybe you didn't read between the lines. John Canal
sees that red spot, but he thinks it is the entrance wound near the EOP.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<9a468f57-93fe-4cc7...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> WhiskyJoe says...
>
> <TOP POST>
>
> Well said, Whiskey Joe.
>
> I'd like to add three comments about the drawing [Dox's HSCA, F-66] you refer
> to.
>
> First, Baden et. al. agreed the principal exit of the bullet was very roughly
> where the drawing shows it was, but Dale Myers computer analysis determined
> that, using the cowlick entry, the exit shown in that drawing, and the proper
> lean of JFK at the moment he was hit (Z-312), the bullet would have o have been
> fired from a spot 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD, but the Dal-Tex
> building.
>
> Second, Baden had the gall to testify under oath that the trajectory shown in
> that drawing was "fairly accurate." My point is that it's obvious he was prone
> to using the deception tool....so why anyone would believe him over, let's say
> the likes of Larry Sturdivan, on this issue, is beyond me?
>
In fact Baden worked it backwards and chose the exit so that a straight
line would point back to the sniper's nest.
> And third, the good Doctor Lattimer knew the HSCA's trajectory drawing was
> flawed and that the cowlick entry and principal exit shown in the drawing, just
> like you said, could not be reconciled with the windshield damage. Thus, he drew
> his own diagram that shows the fragments diverging with some major ones
> deflecting up to hit the windshield...but the problem there is, if you have
> major fragments deflecting up after entering the cowlick, then they couldn't
> possibly have exited where the HSCA agreed the major fragments did exit (without
> deflection).
>
You are misrepresenting historical facts to push your wacky theories. The
HSCA did not have MAJOR FRAGMENTS. They show an intact bullet exiting in
only one place. And its trajectory could not possibly hit the chrome
topping or windshield. That is why the HSCA did not even mention or
consider those points of damage. They could not account for them. Neither
could the WC, so Rowley lied and said the dent of the chrome topping
happened years earlier. Cover-up.
David Von Pein
>>> "The counter argument is what he thinks is the cowlick is not JFK's
cowlick." <<<
LOL. That's rich. Denial at its best.
And I'm curious as to why a "friend" had to explain it to you? My point
(in my own words) couldn't have been any clearer.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "The red spot in the scalp ***IS*** over the cowlick part of JFK's
>skull in the photo." <<<
Yes, because the scalp was stretched.
>And the red spoot is over the cowlick in the SCALP in the autopsy photo
>too.
You're wrong about the red spot being in the cowlick area of the scalp in
the photo...unless you have proof? If you do, I might mitigate that
statement...but let's hear the proof first. But before you offer your
"proof" read my other post which includes what Boswell testified to, re.
the "red spot".
John Canal
John Canal
>
>You're getting very shrill John. I'll conclude my participation, as your
>comments really aren't worthy of a response.
You make a comment like this: "Don't worry, Canal will have an "answer"
for you, even if it makes no sense".....and I'm the one that's getting
shrill?????
Me thinks you're just looking for an excuse not to answer my
question...because you can't come up with one that fits the high entry
myth.
Bye.
john Canal
John Canal
>
>The problem here David, and I'll put myself in the same category......Is
>that we believe that John is really open to a discussion. Or, that what he
>discusses makes any sense.
>
>He isn't and it doesn't.
I've tried, really tried to address each and every one of the questions or
issues that any of the no-BOH-wound and high-entry theorists have asked
me. If you think my answers don't make sense, that's no surprise...you're
certainly not going to admit I make sense because that would be admitting
you were wrong and no one here has ever done that re. a significant
issue...and you certainly wouldn't be the one to start such a trend.
But you people dance around many of the questions I've asked you....just
like the one I asked you, DVP, and McAdams. I suspect McA will find an
excuse not to answer that like you...I'm too rude...wait that was Walker's
excuse for not answeing my questions.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>>>> "The counter argument is what he thinks is the cowlick is not JFK's
>cowlick." <<<
>
>LOL. That's rich. Denial at its best.
How have you determined that the red spot is in the cowlick area of JFK's
saclp......as Canal is fully and nervously aware of DVP's wonderous abilities to
tell things from photos (except F8--he's miffed about that one) that most can't
see, e.g. he told us he could tell from the scans of the lateral x-ray that the
fractures were "complete" [all the way through the bone creating fragments].
>And I'm curious as to why a "friend" had to explain it to you? My point
>(in my own words) couldn't have been any clearer.
Like I said in the other thread, because in the about eight years that I've been
studying these issues to include, of course, the BOH photos, no one, yes, not
one single person--until you did yesterday-- has ever had the gall to say that
from the photo they could tell that the red spot was in the cowlick area of
JFK's scalp....so, I guess I was in a state of shock at that revelation..and it
didn't sink in what you were proposing. Thankfully, my friend wasn't shocked (by
anything you say), so he was able to explain to me what your point was. From now
on I'll be more prepared to read even the craziest ideas you propose--I promise.
It's kind of like, if a neighbor announced to you that aliens landed in his
backyard...you might be a little stunned and stop listening to further details.
Now, back to the business at hand--1) can you answer the question that I
addressed to you, Fiorentino, and McAdams?, and 2) what is your proof that the
red spot is in the cowlick...can you tell us how you think you're able to unlock
the secrets these photos hold (except, perhaps one of the most important--that'd
be F8)?
Thanks, I think.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "The red spot in the scalp ***IS*** over the cowlick part of JFK's
>skull in the photo." <<<
Yes, you're correct on that...but it's over the cowlick part of his head because
the scalp was stretched to put it there.
>And the red spoot is over the cowlick in the SCALP in the autopsy photo
>too....which is something you cannot explain.
Wrongo! The red spoot (sic) is not in the cowlick...what you probably think is a
part in his hair is a laceration-type defect that resulted from the bullet
entering [red spot] at the end of it--which should have given you a hint as to
what caused that defect..
>Because, per your theory,
>the cowlick in the SCALP should be many inches ABOVE that red spot in the
>scalp photo. But it isn't. Hence, the bullet hole is penetrating the
>cowlick area of JFK's scalp.
Truthfully, where JFK's cowlick was in his scalp was probably macerated and at
least partially missing due to the bone that was blown out from his head near
there.
But, you see in the photos that the part of his scalp that's over the cowlick
part of his head (due to the scalp being stretched) is almost totally
undamaged....and that's beacuse that part of his scalp used to be (prior to the
scalp being stretched) from the occipital area, where the scalp was only torn
(and that was sutured closed).
david, try to think clearly--you recall the top of the head photos, right? Good,
well from that state they had one hell of a lot of work to do on his head
(mostly the scalp) to get presentable for an open-casket funeral--undermining
the scalp, stretching and suturing it, and much later even sliding it forward to
cover that very large area where the missing/macerated scalp was.
>Simple as that.
Yes, this isn't rocket science--it's common sense!
>>>> "Before the scalp was stretched, however, the red spot was near the
>EOP on JFK's skull." <<<
>
>Impossible.
>
>Why is it impossible?
Now that is right up there in wackiness with the "Greer shot JFK", "there were
no hits to JFK's BOH", and "aliens landed in my neighbor's backyard"
revelations.
>Because the red spot is penetrating the COWLICK of JFK's head in the
>autopsy photo.
>
>Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Waht's so hard for me to comprehend is how you're able to determine from copies
of the photos (except F8, of course, which juuuust happens to show the entry in
the skull) what other people can't see.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "You're wrong about the red spot being in the cowlick area of the
scalp in the photo...unless you have proof? If you do, I might mitigate
that statement...but let's hear the proof first." <<<
Come now, John Canal, let's be reasonable here.
Are you going to sit there and tell me that you really think that this red
spot on the back of JFK's head is **NOT** GOING THROUGH the COWLICK of
Kennedy's SCALP?:
Bottom Line (which Baden and the HSCA's FPP agree with, of course):
That red spot is penetrating President Kennedy's SCALP at the area of the
scalp where JFK's hair starts to "diverge" or "go in different directions"
(for lack of better terms to describe the "cowlick" on a person's head).
Therefore, how can you possibly say that the red spot actually PENETRATED
the "EOP" on John Kennedy's SCALP, when we can see the red spot merging
with the "diverging" hair (aka: the "cowlick") on Kennedy's SCALP?
If you want to continue to think the red spot really started out at the
EOP, then you've got one "magical floating red spot" there,
John....because that bullet hole ended up GOING THROUGH THE COWLICK when
John Stringer took the above photograph.
John, you'd be better off theorizing that the above picture is a "fake",
like almost all conspiracy theorists like to think.
Because if that photo is not a fake (and, of course, it's not; the HSCA
proved that as well), then the bullet hole penetrated JFK's cowlick region
and not the EOP.
~Mark VII~
David Von Pein
>>> "How have you determined that the red spot is in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp[?]" <<<
By looking at the autopsy photo that I've posted a thousand times,
John. That's how.
And it couldn't BE more obvious that the area of Kennedy's SCALP known
as "the cowlick" is at the exact same place where the "red
spot" (i.e., the bullet hole) is also located.
For Pete sake, what was the purpose of taking that photograph AT ALL
if it wasn't to document the location of the ENTRY WOUND on the back
of John Kennedy's head/scalp?
In addition, I ask this:
Why would the doctors have had a desire to document the TRUE location
of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head by STRETCHING his scalp
in such an extreme manner (per John Canal's theory) that the doctors
and photographer John Stringer certainly must have KNOWN on 11/22/63
that such a photograph would NOT be depicting the TRUE and ACCURATE
location of the entry wound?
Were the autopsy doctors deliberately TRYING to hide the true location
of the entry hole by "stretching" the scalp in absurd ways before
having a picture taken of the wound (i.e., a picture that was taken
for the specific reason of showing WHERE on Kennedy's head the entry
wound was located)?
Come now, John....let's be reasonable about this.
>>> "Canal is fully and nervously aware of DVP's wonderous abilities to tell things from photos...that most can't see." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake, John....even the HSCA identified the red spot as
being in THE COWLICK. Therefore, the HSCA obviously saw the light and
used some common sense when they determined that the red spot IS IN
THE COWLICK AREA OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S SCALP.
Maybe John C. should listen to Michael Baden at the beginning of the
following taped interview with Dr. Finck in March of 1978:
www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
Quoting Baden from that taped interview:
"In reading your autopsy report, you specifically say that the
entrance perforation that you're looking at is 15 by 6 millimeters,
which is the precise measurement of that area IN THE COWLICK [DVP's
emphasis] when we measure it out. And that area...is in the central
portion of the picture, as if that's what's being looked at by the
camera." -- DR. MICHAEL BADEN; 03/12/78
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
>>> "He [DVP] told us he could tell from the scans of the lateral x-ray that the fractures were "complete" [all the way through the bone creating fragments]." <<<
A "complete fracture line" does not have to result in "fragments"
coming loose from JFK's skull. Why do you think that, John?
You need some "complete fracture lines" that MEET UP with other
"complete fracture lines" in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head....and
you don't have that in the lateral X-ray. Period. Not even close to
it, in fact.
Are you going to sit there and try to convince me that due to the fact
that the above autopsy X-rays are not the National Archives
"originals", this means that ALL of the OTHER "complete fracture
lines" that you say are REALLY present in the occipital area of JFK's
skull in the "original" first-generation lateral X-ray are
(incredibly) completely invisible to the naked eye in the above copies
of that X-ray?
Come now, John, let's be reasonable about this. And we're talking
about "complete" fractures too, keep in mind....which would equal VERY
DARK lines on the X-ray. How could so many OTHER "complete fracture
lines" become invisible--even in the "copies" of the X-ray linked
above?
>>> "In the about eight years that I've been studying these issues to include, of course, the BOH photos, no one, yes, not one single person--until you did yesterday--has ever had the gall to say that from the photo they could tell that the red spot was in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp....so, I guess I was in a state of shock at that revelation..and it didn't sink in what you were proposing." <<<
You must be kidding, John! You HAVE to be kidding here!
Michael Baden and the HSCA in 1978 determined that the red spot was
located in the cowlick.
Via the above words spoken by Dr. Baden (the ones I printed out
verbatim above), it couldn't be more obvious that Baden believes that
the "red spot" is, indeed, located in the "cowlick" of JFK's SCALP --
because he's referring to (and undoubtedly also looking at!) the BOH
autopsy photo when he's questioning Dr. Finck in that taped interview.
Plus: author Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History",
undoubtedly believes that the autopsy photo in question is depicting
the red spot as being in the location on JFK's head known as "the
cowlick". How can there be ANY doubt at all as to VB's beliefs in this
regard?
You're in an "EOP" dream world, John.
>>> "Thankfully, my friend wasn't shocked (by anything you say), so he was able to explain to me what your point was." <<<
Which is just plain silly...because my previous posts on this matter
couldn't possibly have been any clearer as to "what [my] point was".
=====================
ADDENDUM FROM ANOTHER POST:
JOHN CANAL SAID THIS RECENTLY (EVEN THOUGH, FOR SOME REASON, HE THINKS
IT WAS I WHO SAID IT):
>>> "The red spot in the scalp ***IS*** over the cowlick part of JFK's skull in the photo." <<<
JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>> "Yes, you're correct on that...but it's over the cowlick part of his head because the scalp was stretched to put it there." <<<
You're answering yourself, John. I didn't make that first
statement...you did.
But it is a correct statement too, IMO, although we cannot actually
see any of the underlying skull bone in the photo, of course.
But this discussion about the entry wound in JFK's head is more about
the SCALP of JFK, instead of the underlying SKULL/BONE.
And in order for John Canal's theory to hold water, the cowlick of JFK
must certainly be located about 4 to 8 inches (when taking into
account John's "stretch" theory) NORTH of the actual bullet hole in
President Kennedy's SCALP.
Simple Question:
Is John Kennedy's "cowlick" located 4 to 8 INCHES above the red spot
(i.e., the thing even YOU admit IS the "bullet hole") in the photo
below, John? (If your answer is "yes", I suggest you trade in your
current eyeballs for ones that work a little better):
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Too many threads--I just replied to the same B/S you've written here in the
thread titled, ARGUING ABOUT THE HEAD WOUNDS (YET AGAIN)
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
I've already replied to this same B/S in the thread, ARGUING ABOUT THE HEAD
WOUNDS (YET AGAIN). Let's give the moderators a break and finish this up in that
one thread.
John Canal