John Canal on the entry wound

[Dave Reitzes]

John Canal has been arguing for years that the President's fatal entry
wound was located where the autopsy pathologists placed it, not where the
Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel placed it on the basis of
the autopsy photos and X-rays.

I've never been persuaded by Canal's arguments in the past, but he has
been quietly gaining support from some credible experts (including a key
consultant to both the Warren Commission and the HSCA), and his new
article is definitely worth a look:

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html

I'm not convinced by his thesis (specifically, why he thinks the BOH
photos misrepresent the location of the entry wound), but he's gotten my
attention regarding the PREMISE for his hypothesis (that there may be
credible evidence that the autopsy pathologists were right about the
location of the wound all along).

Dave

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8bddf55e-eea6-4f27...@googlegroups.com...

One of the main ( and perhaps best) argument against the eop entry comes
from Dr. Earl Rose who stated emphatically for himself and the FPP that
there was no damage to the brain in the area it would have to be if the
bullet entered down by the eop.

Canal is simply mistaken, but certainly entitled to his opinion.


John F.

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8bddf55e-eea6-4f27...@googlegroups.com...

Oh, I found the cit., so let me post it.

(310) One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the
majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on
the inferior surface of the brain offers INCONTROVERTIBLE (emphasis mine)
evidence that the wound in the President's head is NOT (emphasis mine) in
the location described in the autopsy report.

HSCA Vol. VII pg. 115

John F.

[David Von Pein]

DAVID REITZES SAID:

I'm not convinced by his thesis (specifically, why he thinks the BOH
photos misrepresent the location of the entry wound), but he's gotten my
attention regarding the PREMISE for his hypothesis (that there may be
credible evidence that the autopsy pathologists were right about the
location of the wound all along).

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Virtually impossible, IMO.

Why?

Because the hole in JFK's SKULL and the hole in JFK's SCALP perfectly
overlay each other (per the HSCA's FPP and per the Clark Panel).

Here's what the Clark Panel said:

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring
approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as
much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile
approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance.

[...]

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the
midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound
corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2."
-- Via Clark Panel Report

What an incredible coincidence it would be if such a "corresponding"
lining up of the SKULL and SCALP wounds could have been achieved by the
Clark Panel if, as John Canal insists, BOTH of those holes in JFK's head
are really located much lower on the head than the "100 mm. above the EOP"
that was measured by the Clark boys.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2013 5:40 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> John Canal has been arguing for years that the President's fatal entry
> wound was located where the autopsy pathologists placed it, not where the
> Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel placed it on the basis of
> the autopsy photos and X-rays.
>
> I've never been persuaded by Canal's arguments in the past, but he has
> been quietly gaining support from some credible experts (including a key
> consultant to both the Warren Commission and the HSCA), and his new
> article is definitely worth a look:
>
> http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html
>

Just more nonsense. His entire theory rests on an impossibility. You can
not stretch the scalp 5 inches.

> I'm not convinced by his thesis (specifically, why he thinks the BOH
> photos misrepresent the location of the entry wound), but he's gotten my
> attention regarding the PREMISE for his hypothesis (that there may be
> credible evidence that the autopsy pathologists were right about the
> location of the wound all along).
>

Nonsense. They were incompetent and confused.
Humes thought the dab of fat was the entrance wound. IN THE HAIRLINE.
Not 4 inches above he EOP.

> Dave
>

[David Von Pein]

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

One of the main (and perhaps best) argument against the eop entry comes

from Dr. Earl Rose who stated emphatically for himself and the FPP that
there was no damage to the brain in the area it would have to be if the
bullet entered down by the eop.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. And Dr. Petty repeated the same thing in 1986.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q4LUF9aH6Y

[BT George]

Without reprising comments I have made elsewhere here recently regarding
this topic, the ONLY thing I seriously question about Canal's attempts to
explain the troubling discrepancy are the conspiratorial notions he has
DEFINATELY concluded underlie various aspects of the autopsy and follow up
FP reviews and I need some REAL proof that his scalp undermining theories
are feasible for a 3 inch discrepancy.

That having been said he and two other LN's who's opinions I generally
respect (Chad Z. & Larry S.) have advanced some STRONG arguments, posted
some convincing illustrations, and pointed out some troubling observations
that make "blowing off" the notion of the lower entry point very unwise
IMHO. I FULLY support his efforts to have a final review performed by
forensic experts who are truly independent of both the Federal government
(as I believe the majority of the prior specialists were) and who have no
close professional connections with any of the prior reviewers of the
evidence (which was clearly NOT so much the case between the Clark,
Rockefeller, and HSCA Panels).

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/2/2013 11:21 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>
> One of the main (and perhaps best) argument against the eop entry comes
> from Dr. Earl Rose who stated emphatically for himself and the FPP that
> there was no damage to the brain in the area it would have to be if the
> bullet entered down by the eop.
>

We think we know what he meant by that, no damage to the cerebellum.
But some doctors thought they had seen damage to the cerebellum.
But they were wrong and most admitted it. And the photos of the brain
show no damage to the cerebellum.

[Dave Reitzes]

David, no disrespect intended, but have you read John's article? He
addresses your point.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

I agree with pretty much all of what you say here, and have said as much
to John C. via email. I also asked him if he was looking into getting his
findings published in a peer-reviewed medical journals, and he says he is
indeed working on it.

Dave

[mainframetech]

The article starts with the kill shot entering the rear of the head.
That was all for me.

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

"BT George" <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bb19f5a-b2b8-4ef5...@googlegroups.com...

The evidence is overwhelming that Canal is mistaken. There was no motive
to "move" the entry............that is simply flapdoodle.

And a good viewing of F8 shows the entry to be only about 2 inches or less
down from the vertex.

Which BTW, is where Humes himself indicated it was in the Supplementary
autopsy of JFK's brain.


John F.

[David Von Pein]

DAVE REITZES SAID:

David, no disrespect intended, but have you read John's article? He
addresses your point.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I have read John Canal's article. It's very well-written. And I
enjoyed reading it. (And I will admit, I only read it AFTER writing my
previous post in this thread.)

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html

But there's nothing in John's above-linked article that I haven't seen or
argued personally with John C. at this forum.

And while John does talk about why he thinks the Clark Panel is wrong
about the placement of the entry hole in the "red spot" photo, I don't
think he really discusses the amazing amount of COINCIDENCE it would take
to accept his EOP theory and toss out the findings and measurements of the
Clark Panel. The key being: the specific "100 mm. above the EOP"
measurement that the Clark Panel reached for the hole in the SKULL (via
X-ray #2).

Since the SKULL of JFK certainly cannot be "stretched" or "undermined",
then how on Earth can John Canal get around that very specific measurement
arrived at by the Clark Panel? I guess John thinks the Clark people just
MADE UP the 100mm. SKULL measurement, because it's fairly obvious that
John C. doesn't think the Clark Panel saw ANY bullet hole high on JFK's
skull when they looked at X-ray #2 in 1968.

Most of my "BOH" debates with John C. are archived here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:fdc96a19-519c-4c0c...@googlegroups.com...

Canal uses what might fit his theory, rejects solid medical findings and
then embellishes the rest to make his fairy tale seem real.

The facts say, there was no damage to the brain in the area where it MUST
have been, if the bullet penetrated down near the eop.

F8 shows the entry on the inside of the skull (if that is indeed an entry)
located only several inches down from the vertex.

Cmdr Humes own Supplemental Brain examine puts the bullet path where it
would correspond with an entry near the top of the back of JFK's head.
(Read Lattimer's description in Kennedy and Lincoln)

At one point Humes thought the small piece of fatty tissue down by JFK's
hairline was the entry.

John's "scalp stretching" idea is nonsense..........YES they do use a
technique of scalp stretching for baldness. But the process takes weeks
and sometimes months. Stretching in just a few hours as indicated by Canal
is simply not possible. The scalp would tear.

The autopsy photos show the entry up near the "cowlick."

The X-rays, though admittedly not as clear tend to support the higher
entry.

John presents no medical evidence just conjecture and then ties it to some
sinister (whatever).................at which point in time (time of the
autopsy) would have been and wasn't determined yet.

His idea that a wound down by the eop destroys any "trajectory analysis"
is simply flapdoodle.

But you can't reason with him, so here we are.

John F.

[Anthony Marsh]

He thinks the bullet can enter the scalp, travel up and then enter the
skull.

[BT George]

If you have a good viewing of F8 you'd like to present for our perusal,
please do so. I've seen several threads on this in the NG Archives and
I've seen where it was being referred to that you did one, but I've never
seen it.

I only know that, even using the lousy version of F8 in the public domain,
Canal's illustration appears pretty convincing. Moroever, Sturdivan and
Zimmerman---though disagreeing SLIGHTLY on the exact placement---came back
from the NA agreeing on the lower entry. Also, Sturdivan did his own
rendering after his NA viewing and it definately supported his new-found
lower entry beliefs. (Sturdivan's renderings are linked in John C.'s
article shown here:
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html)


Upon their return they also said stuff like:

a) The F8 original color (and B&W) versions are VERY clear contra-the
Clark Panel's declaration and suprisingly detailed.

b) The originals are DEFINITELY not supportive of the Cowlick entry, but
rather something much closer to the EOP.

c) The original lateral X-ray shows what appears to be a clear trail of
opacities (probably chipped bone) coming up from the EOP. It also shows a
horizontal pencil line from it through the front of the skull and one from
the same entry point through the massive hole in the head, presumably to
measure the angle of inclination from the horizontal.

>
> Which BTW, is where Humes himself indicated it was in the Supplementary
>
> autopsy of JFK's brain.
>
>

Yes. I've seen threads where you debate this with Canal. I am not saying
I agree that John is right. I *am* saying there is enough "smoke" in this
situation that I am not comfortable just ignoring it all and would rather
an independent team look to resolve this *once and for all*.

BT George