Challenge for DVP
John Canal
do...so here's the challange: Ask her to ask VB whether or not he intends on
re-investigating (when he finishes chasing after Bush) the medical evidence
himself to see if he needs to modify his positon re. the head wounds.
Of course you won't do that......for the same reason you won't try to figure out
F8--because you're afraid that what you find out won't please you. But the
challenge stands anyway.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Challenge for DVP --You seem to have good rapport with VB's secretary, right? Yes, of course you do...so here's the challange: Ask her to ask VB whether or not he intends on re-investigating (when he finishes chasing after Bush) the medical evidence himself to see if he needs to modify his positon [sic] re. the head wounds. Of course you won't do that....for the same reason you won't try to figure out F8--because you're afraid that what you find out won't please you. But the challenge stands anyway. /s/ John Canal" <<<
Challenge accepted....and completed (via the e-mail [shown below] that
I sent to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, Rosemary Newton, on the
morning of Sunday, April 19th, 2009):
==========================================================
Subject: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 2:27:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
-------------------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
It's been a few months since I've contacted you. I hope you are doing
well (and Vince B. too).
Over the course of the last couple of years, a JFK researcher (who is
also the author of the 2000 book "Silencing The Lone Assassin"*) named
John Canal and I have occasionally become involved in a debate
concerning JFK's head wounds. And apparently John has been in touch
with Vince Bugliosi about the "head wounds" subject too.
* = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:
On April 18, 2009, John "challenged"** me to try and find out whether
Vince was going to "re-investigate" and possibly "modify his position"
with respect to the topic of President Kennedy's head wounds.
** = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/047d22f03286b2a4
So, I thought I would accept his "challenge" and write this e-mail to
you and ask you that question. (Plus, it also provides me with a good
excuse to write and say "Hi", too.)
My stance on the "head wounds" subject has been made clear to Mr.
Canal via our many Internet forum discussions, with my position being
that Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need to "modify" anything he has written in
his 2007 book ("Reclaiming History"), nor SHOULD he modify anything he
has already placed in that comprehensive publication.
The subject of the head wounds is thoroughly and logically laid out in
very good detail in Mr. Bugliosi's book, in my opinion. But Mr. Canal
has latched on to a couple of very odd theories concerning JFK's head
wounds, with one of his theories being that the autopsy doctors at
Bethesda hesitated to be totally forthright and truthful about the
extent of damage that really existed in the back ("occipital") area of
JFK's head as a result of the bullet that came out of Lee Harvey
Oswald's gun.
But as I've suggested to Mr. Canal on multiple occasions in our
Internet exchanges, his theory about the three autopsists simply
crumbles into a pile of dust (in my own opinion) when we examine the
theory in a reasonable and logical manner, such as in this excerpt of
an Internet post I wrote in 2007:
"Since the autopsy report and doctors are so vivid and ultra-
clear in the description of the ONE AND ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's
head (with that hole being positively consistent with the "Oswald Did
This Alone" scenario, regardless of exactly WHERE the resulting exit
wound were to reside on the President's head)....why would the doctors
feel there was the slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their
descriptions of any "BOH" [Back Of Head] wound (large or small)?
"You [John Canal] said that the [autopsy] doctors feared that by
revealing a large BOH wound they would be opening up the door to
rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front.
"But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
"There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None.
So even WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot
adhere to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a
larger BOH hole.
"Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE
bullet striking JFK's head from the rear...could obviously have been
easily explained by the same doctors as merely the extensive
fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet which
entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after entering
the skull." -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2007 (which was, by the way,
one month before I ever laid eyes on Vincent Bugliosi's book,
"Reclaiming History")
Source Link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
If Vince is interested in more of my long-winded opinions concerning
Mr. Canal's strange theories about JFK's head wounds, I've provided a
link below to an Internet post where I am responding to an earlier
message written by John Canal. This post pretty much sums up my whole
position regarding this matter:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi will have a different opinion on the matter after
digesting John Canal's theories. But in my view, Mr. Canal is grasping
for straws in order to try and reconcile (in his own mind) the
discrepancies regarding JFK's head wounds.
There are, indeed, discrepancies when it comes to the topic of JFK's
head wounds. There's no doubt about that. I just don't think Mr. Canal
has the definitive answer to resolve those discrepancies.
And furthermore, the motive that Canal has attached to the three
autopsy doctors for their wanting to hide the full truth about the
condition of the back of President Kennedy's head is--in my own
considered opinion--simply laughable.
Thank you for your time, Rosemary.
Best regards,
David Von Pein
==========================================================
David Von Pein
Subject: Addendum To My Last E-Mail
Date: 4/19/2009 8:41:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
-------------------------------------
Hi again Rosemary,
Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to include a short (but
important) "Common Sense Addendum" to my last e-mail that I sent you
(regarding the specific subject of the location of the entry wound on
the back of President Kennedy's head).
Researcher John Canal thinks that JFK's scalp is being "stretched"
three or more inches in this autopsy picture linked below (thus
distorting and skewing the true location of the entry wound in
Kennedy's head):
Regarding this particular point, I wrote this message in an Internet
post in early April of 2009 (and these are two very important
questions too, relating to Mr. Canal's "scalp-stretching" theory):
"Why would the [autopsy] 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 [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." --
DVP; April 4, 2009
Source Link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96282f364fca7448
Thank you for allowing me to bother you (and Vince) again.
Regards,
David Von Pein
John Canal
>revealing a large BOH wound they would be opening up the door to
>rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front.
>
> "But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
>described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
>head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
>came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
You of all people should know the answer to your very silly question. The
"ducks-in-a-row" club (that'd be all those, including you, who parrots
what Fisher, the Father of the high-entry and no BOH wound myths, wrote)
dispute Humes' low entry, fragmented BOH, cerebellum siting, and
"stretched scalp to close the large wound" claims....and you have the
nerve to say that all he had to do was say there had been no frontal
entry--even though there was a BOH wound, besides the entry--and everyone
would believe him??????????????????
God God man, think before you write and read the record before you pretend
to be an expert (disgusting....you can't even figure out how to orientate
one of the most important autopsy photos).
And speaking of thinking answer this if you would. You don't think the 6.5
mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment, but Fisher and Baden do,
and it was one of Fisher's (and Baden's) key pieces of evidence. Sooooo do
you think they were lying or incompetent?
John Canal
John Fiorentino
Kudos! It works wonders when you call the bluff. More people should do it.
I did it with Aguilar and blew apart the Spiegelman, et al paper, so it
always pays to stick to your guns.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5020397f-8cbe-496f...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
utter waste of valuable time.'
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gsfpl...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "You of all people should know the answer to your very silly question. .... You...dispute Humes' low entry, fragmented BOH, cerebellum siting, and "stretched scalp to close the large wound" claims....and you have the nerve to say that all he had to do was say there had been no frontal entry--even though there was a BOH wound, besides the entry--and everyone would believe him??????????????????" <<<
The crux of John Canal's entire "BOH/LN" theory (or at least a large
part of the "crux") is that the autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM,
not just Humes, since ALL THREE signed that autopsy report on
11/24/63) feared World War 3 breaking out (or something equally as
silly and overblown) if they were to have revealed the true nature of
all of JFK's head wounds.
Therefore, those autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM, not just Humes)
decided it would be better to bury the fact that there was a whole lot
more damage done to the back of President Kennedy's head than just the
one small wound of entrance.
And those autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM) apparently got together
and decided to "hush up" and/or "cover up" the fact that the right-
rear (occipital) portion of JFK's head was fragmented fairly
extensively (apparently out of concerns that people would
automatically assume that "BOH damage" equalled "Conspiracy") -- EVEN
THOUGH THOSE DOCTORS (ALL THREE OF THEM, NOT JUST HUMES!) KNEW BEYOND
ALL DOUBT THAT THE BOH DAMAGE THEY WERE AGREEING TO "SHUT UP" ABOUT
WAS CAUSED BY THE ONE AND ONLY BULLET THAT ENTERED JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD
IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD (WHICH IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE "NO
CONSPIRACY" CONCLUSION)!
To believe that the autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM) engaged in a
scenario similar to the one that I just laid out above (which is
positively what John A. Canal believes) is akin to believing that the
moon is made out of cream cheese.
In other words, it's totally UNBELIEVABLE.
And to make matters MUCH worse for Mr. Canal's theory about all three
autopsists keeping quiet for decades on end regarding this supposed
BOH damage that Canal thinks existed on JFK's head -- John C. actually
contradicts his whole "The Doctors Were Not Forthright About The BOH
Wounds" theory when he says that the doctors (especially Humes and
Boswell) DIDN'T keep "quiet", after all, about the BOH damage.
Canal cites Humes over and over as having TOLD US, in effect (via
Humes' OWN WORDS to the Warren Commission AND in the autopsy report),
that there WAS, indeed, a big BOH hole in JFK's head....even though
John's whole theory falls apart at this point....because John also
tells us that the doctors were supposedly wanting desperately to HIDE
the fact that any such "Larg BOH" wound existed in JFK's head at all!
I'll ask John Canal again.....
Which way do you want to lean here, John? Were the autopsy doctors
truth-tellers? Or were they attempting to hide the "Large BOH" wound?
I contend that John Canal doesn't know which side of the fence he
wants to reside on with respect to that last question.
David Von Pein
>>> "This will never end David, unless you end it. I had to. It's simply
an utter waste of valuable time." <<<
Oh, yeah, I realize that.
But I had a little extra time to spend on John Canal's craziness recently,
so I spent it. Plus, John's "challenge" gave me a perfect excuse to e-mail
Rosemary again. (I hadn't contacted her since mid- December.)
David Von Pein
Subject: Re: Addendum To My Last E-Mail
Date: 4/19/2009 5:41:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------------------
Hi David,
It was great hearing from you again. It has been a long time. I faxed
Vince your e-mails and got a reply quickly. First off, Vince asked that I
tell you how much he appreciates your continuing support. Here is his
reply:
"In response to his e-mail you can quote me as saying: John Canal's
theory suggests there was a cover-up by the autopsy doctors in the Kennedy
assassination. If there is anyone who has read my book and still believes
this, there obviously is nothing I can say to him or her to infuse their
mind with common sense. However, in the spirit of scholarship that guided
me while writing Reclaiming History, if it comes out in a second edition,
I will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory, including
Mr. Canal's, that came out subsequent to the publication of the book." [--
Vincent Bugliosi; April 19, 2009]
There you have it! I'll be checking on the internet.
Take care & stay cool,
Rosemary
================================================
Subject: Re: VB And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 10:13:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
-------------------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
Thanks for the quick reply...and my thanks to Vince too for his very
fast reply as well.
Best Regards,
David Von Pein
================================================
John Canal
>This will never end David, unless you end it. I had to. It's simply an
>utter waste of valuable time.'
While it's useless to address this to DVP because, although he is is a
self-profesed expert on JFK's head wounds (he must be considering how much
he argues about those issues), he can't even orientate F8, this is for
you.
Dr. MAdams clearly stated that F8 shows what "I [John Canal] think is the
entry, is deep inside the cranial cavity".
You pointed out to him, shortly thereafter that "what I [John Canal] think
is the entry in F8, ***IS*** the entry.
Dr. McAdams spoke honestly and spontaneously, are you saying his eyesight
is problematic, or what.....?
Tell us the answer to that here and now, please, and stop your blow hard
B/S please.
Furthermore, I claim that you are afraid to replicate F8, like I,
Sturdivan, Seaton, and Hunt did, because that' prove you and the other
believers of the high-entry myth re wrong....and that's also why DVP is
afraid to figure out what F8 reveals.
Prove me wrong, if you dare, by posting the graphics that show a
replication of F8...there's the challenge. Lurkers, if he says one more
time that would be a waste of his valuable time to do that, note that F8
can be replicated in less than an hour.
Now, who's bluffing?
John Canal
John Canal
you--do you have a problem reading or is deception part of your style?
I never even suggested the autopsy docs were trying to hide the true
location of the entry wound! And, your saying that I believe the PH docs
were right when they aid there was a "great-big" hole back there has got
to stop!
If you're going to argue the no-BOH wound and high entry positions, do it
honestly.
Now read for comprehension my take on the photo. I have stated many times
that the autopsy were not calling the shots as far as what picture to take
an when (if you'd read the record, you understand why I said that). Humes
told us (and you) in the autopsy report that the large wound extended into
the occipital and he added to that understanding by testifying to the WC
that they saw cerebellum. Note that the BOH photos do not, I repeat, do
not reflect what he was telling us...because they were obviously not taken
when the body was frst received.
They had to stretch the occipital scalp (starting mostly just below the
entry) to try to cover the approx. 5 x 2.5 inch area of missing/macerated
scalp.....and they obviously had to photograph the entry. Unfortunately,
they photographed the entry after they stretched the scalp. Again, IMO,
they weren't trying deceive anyone on the entry ocation--remember, they,
not only told us where the entry was, but also showed us where it was in
the skull by taking a picture of it--the picture you can't figure
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please don't forget what I wrote here.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "You of all people should know the answer to your very silly
question. .... You...dispute Humes' low entry, fragmented BOH, cerebellum
siting, and "stretched scalp to close the large wound" claims....and you
have the nerve to say that all he had to do was say there had been no
frontal entry--even though there was a BOH wound, besides the entry--and
everyone would believe him??????????????????"<<<
>
>
> The crux of John Canal's entire "BOH/LN" theory (or at least a large
> part of the "crux") is that the autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM,
> not just Humes, since ALL THREE signed that autopsy report on
> 11/24/63) feared World War 3 breaking out (or something equally as
> silly and overblown) if they were to have revealed the true nature of
> all of JFK's head wounds.
>
You assume that Canal is a conspiracy theorist and must secretly have
some theory about a shot from the front. I don't think he does.
I think his only goal is to claim that the autopsy doctors got it right
that night.
John Fiorentino
re: what Canal attributes to McAdams.
1st. .John is mistaken, and what I said and have ALWAYS said, is "IF" what
is shown in F8 is the entry, then it is only several inches down from the
vertex. I never said it "IS" the entry, although I believe it probably is.
As to Canal's "challenge." John C fails to comprehend that I don't need a
physical model in my hands to figure out where I would place the entry. I
already know where I would put it, and can very well visualize that in my
mind, (based on F-8). It would look nothing like what John C has concocted.
John seems to believe that after viewing (and holding in my hands) a model
of a human skull, I would somehow arrive at an epiphany of sorts and realize
the error of my ways. That is simply silly.
Somehow John wants to discount all of the conflicting statements by Humes,
et al re: this wound. He never mentions that Humes at one point even
indicated the small piece of brain matter down by JFK's hairline visible in
one of the BOH photos was the "entry." That spot of course is well "below"
the EOP, not "slightly above" it. So Humes was apparently one rather mixed
up fellow, and amply demonstrated that fact on numerous occasions.
ALL of these analyses by Sturdivan, etc. fail to explain the photos or X-ray
evidence, which shows the entry was higher than Humes, et al indicated.
Sturdivan for his part invokes his expertise in wound ballistics to support
a theory that in fact has no merit, and cannot in fact be either proven or
disproved merely by a reiteration of the way fully jacketed bullets are
supposed to behave after they become disrupted by striking bone at high
velocities. Such inferences can perhaps be supportive, but not conclusive.
The scalp "stretching" referred to by John C and alluded to by Sturdivan is
simply silly when all of the facts are taken into account, and when one
actually views the photo in question.
The facts show, the photos support a higher entry, the X-rays support a
higher entry, the FPP of the HSCA, (not just Baden) concluded the entry was
higher, as did the Clark panel, as did John Lattimer. The forensic
anthropologist enlisted by Canal himself indicated the entry was higher, and
even Humes in his supplemental brain exam puts the course of the missile
through JFK's brain precisely where it would be if the bullet entered high
up on the back of JFK's head, not down by the EOP. The FPP further concluded
there was NO damage in the occipital lobe region of JFK's brain that would
be NECESSARY if a bullet had entered there.
Now, the only defense I can offer to Canal comes from my personal
experience in investigating this case. Quite obviously overall, SOME of the
"experts" who studied various materials, i.e., the dictabelt recording, the
Zapruder film, and yes even some of the autopsy photos were far from expert.
That however, does not impugn the entire investigation.
John would have you set aside ALL of this based on the rather convoluted
testimony of Humes, et al.
I can only say that the readers here should be the judges of what is the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gshdg...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "You assume that Canal is a conspiracy theorist and must secretly have some theory about a shot from the front." <<<
I believe no such thing. And why you would even suggest that I believe
that John Canal secretly believes in a "shot from the front" can only
make me shrug my shoulders incessantly in bewilderment.
I know that John C. is, essentially, an "LNer" (he believes, as I do,
that LHO was the only gunman in Dealey that day).
John, though, is a "cover-up theorist", in that he believes the
autopsy doctors were not forthcoming and/or forthright with all they
knew about the "BOH" of JFK's head.
David Von Pein
>>> "I never even suggested the autopsy docs were trying to hide the true
location of the entry wound!" <<<
~sigh~
John Canal,
I never once said that you think that the autopsy doctors were trying to
"deceive" anybody regarding the LOCATION OF THE ENTRY WOUND SPECIFICALLY.
I worded my post quite carefully on that issue....hence, I couched the
post as two specific QUESTIONS (i.e., I wasn't claiming that you, John
Canal, actually BELIEVED these things; I was merely ASKING YOU if you
believed them). Let's have another replay (for good measure):
"Why would the [autopsy] 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 [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." -- DVP;
April 4, 2009
Those 2 questions are still quite valid, in view of John Canal's beliefs
regarding the location of JFK's head entry wound.
In short -- There's no way that the autopsy doctors COULDN'T have known
that the picture of the entry wound on JFK's head would be TOTALLY
WORTHLESS for the purpose of locating the TRUE location of that entry hole
IF JOHN CANAL'S THEORY IS CORRECT (and if the entry hole had really been
located near the EOP on Kennedy's head....instead of being located, as the
autopsy photograph so obviously suggests, much higher on JFK's head).
And yet the autopsists allowed such a photo to be taken of the entry wound
anyway...huh John? And then ALL THREE autopsy doctors, whenever they
testified about this matter, apparently somehow just FORGOT about this
massive amount of "scalp stretching" that was being done when the picture
was taken of the back of the head. Is that about it, John?
In John Canal's world, it seems that absurdity trumps common sense and
logic every time when it comes to these various "BOH" topics. Curious
indeed.
John Canal
>
>I wasn't going to reply again, but I just want to set the record straight
>re: what Canal attributes to McAdams.
>
>1st. .John is mistaken, and what I said and have ALWAYS said, is "IF" what
>is shown in F8 is the entry, then it is only several inches down from the
>vertex. I never said it "IS" the entry, although I believe it probably is.
1st, why is .john mistaken? Is it because you used your eyeballs to
analyze F8 and conclude the defect that I, Sturdivan, Hunt, and so many
others call the entry is not where .john thinks it is? Seems to me that
for you to accuse .john of having a depth perception or other eyesight
problem you'd need more than a "trust my eyeballs" basis for doing so? Now
if you'd simply superimpose a photo of a model skull over JFK's skull in
F8, like I, Seaton, Hunt, and Sturdivan have done, you'd see that .john is
correct and that it is you who is wrong.
>As to Canal's "challenge." John C fails to comprehend that I don't need a
>physical model in my hands to figure out where I would place the entry. I
>already know where I would put it, and can very well visualize that in my
>mind, (based on F-8). It would look nothing like what John C has concocted.
>
>John seems to believe that after viewing (and holding in my hands) a model
>of a human skull, I would somehow arrive at an epiphany of sorts and realize
>the error of my ways. That is simply silly.
You actually believe that your visualization analysis of F8 can determine
more accurately where the entry is than the photo replications done by
myself, Hunt, Seaton, and Sturdivan? If so, your belief ranks right up
there in credibility with Linton's Greer shot JFK theory.
>Somehow John wants to discount all of the conflicting statements by Humes,
>et al re: this wound. He never mentions that Humes at one point even
>indicated the small piece of brain matter down by JFK's hairline visible in
>one of the BOH photos was the "entry." That spot of course is well "below"
>the EOP, not "slightly above" it. So Humes was apparently one rather mixed
>up fellow, and amply demonstrated that fact on numerous occasions.
First, you are dead wrong when you blather about me not mentioning the
fact that Humes once said that the white spot was where the bullet
entered...I have explained it many times. Humes knew from where he saw the
entry in the skull that the photos of the BOH scalp and entry in it didn't
seem to comport with his slightly above the EOP recollection of the entry.
But, they kept pressing him to show them on the photo of the scalp where
the entry was...and, Humes not realizing that the scalp had been worked on
and the photo was not taken just after the body arrived, struggled to find
in the BOH scal an entry like defect. Of course he struggled--because
there where only two choices: 1) the red splotch, which Humes could see
appeared to be too high, and 2) the white spot, which he knew was at least
closer to the EOP than the red splotch...so he picked the white spot...and
you high entry myth believers have exploited his error over and over
again. Now, what you never mention is that to JAMA and later to the ARRB,
he corrected himself and said unambiguously that the entry was slightly
above the EOP--he even said that he had been confused looking at the photo
the HSCA showed him. Sadly, that wasn't good enough for the likes of
you...desperate to make a csae for an entry in the cowlick that never
existed.
>ALL of these analyses by Sturdivan, etc. fail to explain the photos or X-ray
>evidence, which shows the entry was higher than Humes, et al indicated.
Blathering again? What evidence in the x-rays and photos are you talking
about? F8 is the most definitive evidence for determining where the bullet
entered (aside from the autopsy report), because it shows the entry in the
skull. The X-rays show a defect at the high site that the HSCA's own
radiologist, Dr. Seaman, said was inconclusive as far as whether or not it
was an entry. Note that he also said that there was no evidence of an
entry at the low site either. That said, that begs the question, "Why
didn't he say something about the trail of opacities that the FPP's Dr.
Joe Davis, Dr. Zimmerman, and Sturdivan saw on the original lateral
extending from near the EOP?"
>Sturdivan for his part invokes his expertise in wound ballistics to support
>a theory that in fact has no merit, and cannot in fact be either proven or
>disproved merely by a reiteration of the way fully jacketed bullets are
>supposed to behave after they become disrupted by striking bone at high
>velocities. Such inferences can perhaps be supportive, but not conclusive.
Sooo, you're saying that Sturdivan'r replication of F8 and his explanation
of the opacities seen near the EOP on the lateral film, not to mention
that his knowledge of ballistics has told him it is virtually impossible
that a cross section of a FMJ bullet sheered off such a round as it
entered JFK's rear skull--proposterous, and the fact that that opacity
became part of the evidence for the high entry should raise a few red
flags for you.
>The scalp "stretching" referred to by John C and alluded to by Sturdivan is
>simply silly when all of the facts are taken into account, and when one
>actually views the photo in question.
Would these facts that you took into account include the testimony and
statements Humes and the morticians...who said they stretched the scalp?
>The facts show, the photos support a higher entry,
The photo of the entry in the skull (F8) supports the low entry, the photo
of the entry in the scalp (F3) that had been taken well after the autopsy
began and the scalp had been cleaned, reflected, etc. etc. is irrelevant
compared to F8.
>the X-rays support a
>higher entry,
See above, and please stop your B/S ing.
>the FPP of the HSCA, (not just Baden) concluded the entry was
>higher, as did the Clark panel, as did John Lattimer.
The FPP had a choice, i.e. agree with the Clark panel or Humes. If they
agreed with Humes that would have constituted a situation where one
government inquiry (HSCA) was refuting the conclusions of a different
government inquiry (the Clark Panel) that had already refuted what the
Warren Commission published regarding the entry......meaning there would
have been a historically monumental case of musical entry wounds. That was
obviously unacceptable...so the HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel, who
mistakenly assumed the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment,
and concluded that Humes et. al. were hallucinating when they said they
saw and measured the entry to be slightly above the EOP.
>The forensic
>anthropologist enlisted by Canal himself indicated the entry was higher,
Right, but he was so pompously over-confident in his abilities, he, like
you used the super-scientific, high-tech method of analyzing F8--he
e"yeballed" it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's why, like you, he's
analyzed it wrong. All you have to do is to take that welder's mask off
and look at how the photo of the model skull fits on JFK's skull in F8 and
proves the entry was near the EOP--look on page 4 of this article. Of
course you won't but, if there are any lurkers who haven't become so sick
and tired of these repetitive discussions that they have ignored them and
have read this, look for yourself...seeing is believing, as they say.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
>and
>even Humes in his supplemental brain exam puts the course of the missile
>through JFK's brain precisely where it would be if the bullet entered high
>up on the back of JFK's head, not down by the EOP.
Gee, I hope there is at least one lurker reading this. The measurement
that was done during the Supplementry Autopsy (on the brain) that
Fiorentino keeps flaunting, because he thinks (incorrectly) it supports
his high entry myth, is the 4.5 cm one that Humes recorded for the "depth"
(measured from the top down to the laceration) of the longitudinal
laceration through the brain (basically, that was the bullet track). But,
what JF (undoubtedly intentionally) left out is the fact that, while the
measurement was made with the brain on the table, the laceration was made
with the brain in JFK's head--IOW, the shape of the brain was different
meaning that any measurements like that would have to be taken with a
grain of salt.
Also, and more importantly, the laceration described by the autopsy
doctors channelled its way through the Corpus Callosum, from the genu to
its tail, exposing the right lateral and third ventricle as well as the
Thalamus. All of that is typically about nine cm below the vertex of the
brain, NOT 4.5 cm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What JF also leaves out is the fact that the autopsists reported that the
laceration began 2.5 cm right of midline at the "tip" of the occipital
lobe (remember the high entry was supposedly in the parietal lobe) and
ended at the tip of the frontal lobe......meaning if you'd draw that track
using the irrelevant 4.5 cm measurement on a MRI of an in-life brain you'd
see a line that started low and peaked near midbrain and then came back
down to exit. Bullets just don't track through the brain like the track of
a roller coaster.
>The FPP further concluded
>there was NO damage in the occipital lobe region of JFK's brain that would
>be NECESSARY if a bullet had entered there.
And, of course, they determined the autopsists were wrong about what they
saw on the brain itself based on their photos of the brain...that figures.
LOL! Anyway, how could they see a puncture like wound that went through
the occipital lobe from looking at a photo from above or below that lobe?
You do know, of course, that the disruption caused by a bullet passing
through the brain magnifies as it gets further from the entry because it
begins to yaw and because it takes time (in microseconds) for the bullet
to fragment, not to mention yaw--(time, perhaps 200-300 usec, is needed
for the pieces to seperate, and during that time the entire bullet has
passed a few inches intact...causing less damage). Dr. Martin Fackler
describes that phenomenon in his book on terminal ballistics.
>Now, the only defense I can offer to Canal
The very last thing I need on earth is your defense!
>comes from my personal
>experience in investigating this case.
Which, IMHO, is a worthless analysis of the evidence pertaining to this
issue.
>Quite obviously overall, SOME of the
>"experts" who studied various materials, i.e., the dictabelt recording, the
>Zapruder film, and yes even some of the autopsy photos were far from expert.
>That however, does not impugn the entire investigation.
>
>John would have you set aside ALL of this based on the rather convoluted
>testimony of Humes, et al.
That, let me interject, was based on their observations of the body, not
on their examination of photos and x-rays.
>I can only say that the readers here should be the judges of what is the
>overwhelming weight of the evidence.
My heartfelt thoughts as well.
John Canal
John Canal
>"Why would the [autopsy] 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?
I think it's telling, that instead of asking me questions about the
evidence, e.g. why would there be a trail of opacities on the lateral near
the EOP, if the bullet entered four inches higher, etc., you keep asking
me questions that require my getting into the heads of, not only the
autopsists, but Burkley, who you'd know, if you had researched the medical
ev. thoroughly, was really calling the shots that night. But I speculate,
as I have been all along re. such questions in order to try my best to
answer each and every one of them, soooo I don't think they thought their
finding on the entry location would ever be questioned.
It [the entry] was not like the BOH wound where I think they understated
it and didn't photograph it because they (probably moreso the paranoid,
CT-for-life, Burkley han anyone else) thought many would incorrectly
assume such a wound had been caused by a frontal shot...regardless of what
they said. No, the entry location probably didn't seem as problematic to
them as the BOH wound might be.
Sooo, I think they had a difficult task to do, i.e. cover that big
top/right/front hole (with hair, not just plaster of paris and
rubber)...and they concentrated on stretching the scalp to "try" to get
that done...and simply didn't consider the consequences of stretching the
scalp before they photographed the entry in it [the scalp]. Now, I've been
trying to drum home to you the importance of the fact that they
photographed [F8] the damn entry in the skull and probably didn't think
all you guys would rush to use a photo of the entry in the scalp (just
because it's easier to orientate) to determine precisely where the entry
was. Good gravy, were they ever wrong....and did they ever pay the price
for that error.
> "Were the autopsy doctors deliberately TRYING to hide the true
>location of the entry hole by "stretching" the scalp in absurd ways
Stop! What's absurd is thinking they'd allow the President of the United
States to be viewed in a casket with a good-sized chunck of rubber showing
in the top/right/front of his head!!!!!!!!! That's off-the-charts absurd!
>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)?
F8 and the autopsy report tell unambiguously (if you'd ever try to figure
out F8), and infinitely more accurately than the BOH photos do, where the
entry really was.
> "Come now, John [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." -- DVP;
>April 4, 2009
>
>
>Those 2 questions are still quite valid, in view of John Canal's beliefs
>regarding the location of JFK's head entry wound.
>
>In short -- There's no way that the autopsy doctors COULDN'T have known
>that the picture of the entry wound on JFK's head would be TOTALLY
>WORTHLESS for the purpose of locating the TRUE location of that entry hole
>IF JOHN CANAL'S THEORY IS CORRECT (and if the entry hole had really been
>located near the EOP on Kennedy's head....instead of being located, as the
>autopsy photograph so obviously suggests, much higher on JFK's head).
>
>And yet the autopsists allowed such a photo to be taken of the entry wound
>anyway...huh John? And then ALL THREE autopsy doctors, whenever they
>testified about this matter, apparently somehow just FORGOT about this
>massive amount of "scalp stretching" that was being done when the picture
>was taken of the back of the head. Is that about it, John?
They relied on their observation of the body...they didn't think
photographs would trump such observations in evidentiary value. Yes, I
think they did forget, at least until the ARRB, that they stretched the
scalp. Cripes, give them a break---and don't forget, the HSCA, curiously,
gave them only 48 hours advance notice regarding the time they were
required to testify, etc.....almost as if the HSCA wanted to catch them
off guard because they planned ahead of time to refute what they said?
Nah, the government would never conspire like that, would they?....I
retract those evil thoughts.
Now that you brought up the question (whether they forgot or not, by the
time of the HSCA, the autopsists' memory wasn't all that good. Humes, for
instance, had told the WC that they saw cerebellum but didn't mention
anything about a damaged cerebellum to the HSCA...and even told the the
ARRB the cerebellum wasn't damaged....in spite of saying it was to the WC
and putting it in their report [that it was "disrupted"]. Also, during the
HSCA, Boswell said a piece of skull that arrived late from Dallas fit on
the entry in the occipital...but the pieces of skull that arrived late
were either parietal or frontal bone. And the most glaring example of
their bad memory is their claiming [not remembering] that the red splotch
in the BOH photos was the entry!!!!
Don't exploit their failings...just try to figure out what happend from
the evidence and you can get a pretty good idea what did happen.
>In John Canal's world, it seems that absurdity trumps common sense and
>logic every time when it comes to these various "BOH" topics. Curious
>indeed.
Some day you'll realize how wrong you were to say that....come on VB, get
to "the bottom of this"!
John Canal
David Von Pein
JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>>> "Somehow John wants to discount all of the conflicting statements by Humes, et al re: this wound. He never mentions that Humes at one point even indicated the small piece of brain matter down by JFK's hairline visible in one of the BOH photos was the "entry." That spot of course is well "below" the EOP, not "slightly above" it. So Humes was apparently one rather mixed up fellow, and amply demonstrated that fact on numerous occasions. .... The scalp "stretching" referred to by John C and alluded to by Sturdivan is simply silly when all of the facts are taken into account, and when one actually views the photo in question. The facts show, the photos support a higher entry, the X-rays support a higher entry, the FPP of the HSCA, (not just Baden) concluded the entry was higher, as did the Clark panel, as did John Lattimer. .... I can only say that the readers here should be the judges of what is the overwhelming weight of the evidence." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Well said, John Fiorentino. Excellent.
And you brought up another great point that I think I have failed to
mention in my past wranglings with John Canal -- and that is the fact
that even Humes (et al), at one time or another, actually thought the
"white dab of brain tissue" near JFK's hairline in the autopsy photo
represented the area where the bullet hole actually resided.
Hence, when an observation like that one (where the white splotch
equates to the level of the entry wound) is taken into account, John
Canal's theory makes even less sense and becomes much less plausible,
because it has Humes and company placing the wound very low on what
John Canal insists is a scalp that is being "stretched" northward by
"three inches or more". And yet we're to believe that all of the
autopsists didn't know (or realize) that the scalp was being
manipulated in such a manner at the time of that photo session?
If Mr. Canal's "stretched scalp" theory is correct, then why on this
Earth wouldn't Humes, Finck, and/or Boswell have EVER testified (or
stated in private interviews) that the obvious reason for the bullet
hole being TOO HIGH in the famous autopsy photo in question is due to
the fact that the scalp was, indeed, being stretched and/or some
"undermining" had been done to the scalp, as John C. insists was done,
BEFORE the photo had been taken?
If such "undermining"/"scalp stretching" had actually occurred before
that picture was taken (and that picture is, as I mentioned before,
obviously a photo that was taken for one solitary main purpose--to
show where the ENTRY WOUND was located on the back of the President's
head), then why in the world wouldn't that fact have come out in the
testimony and statements of people like Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and
even John Stringer too).
Did all of these people just FORGET that the scalp had been
manipulated and stretched to a large degree BEFORE a very important
autopsy photo was taken to illustrate where the bullet entered JFK's
head?
That's just silly.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b097cd87a5519d9c
>>> "I've been trying to drum home to you the importance of the fact that they photographed [F8] the damn entry in the skull and probably didn't think all you guys would rush to use a photo of the entry in the scalp (just because it's easier to orientate) to determine precisely where the entry was." <<<
LOL.
Yeah, why would I (or anybody else!) ever be caught dead relying on a
much-better and much-clearer and much-easier-to-orient photo like the
BOH color photo to try and determine where the bullet hole was located
on JFK's head....vs. relying more heavily on that mess known as "F8"?
El-Oh-El!!
You're a howl, John C.
Footnote:
John C. has to believe that Michael Baden was a big fat "liar". In
fact, Canal has actually called Baden a "liar" recently on this very
newsgroup, with John claiming that Baden "lied several times" [Canal
quote from his 4/18/09 post linked below]:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/becff2f0676c496c
And John C. also has to believe that EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST (even
conspiracy theorist Cyril Wecht) who examined the autopsy photos and X-
rays for the HSCA and the Clark Panel was either a liar too, or each
of those pathologists who agreed that the entry wound was "10
centimeters [4 inches] above the EOP" was simply too incompetent and
brain-dead to make such a determination after reviewing the original
autopsy materials.
I guess perhaps Mr. Canal thinks that over a dozen trained
pathologists would be willing to sell their integrity just in order to
not "rock the boat" (so to speak). Over ONE DOZEN pathologists did
this, according to John A. Canal! Incredible.
And the whole purpose of having the various pathologists for the Clark
Panel and the HSCA examine the autopsy photos and X-rays in the first
place was, quite obviously, so that those pathologists could clarify
the facts surrounding the locations of JFK's head wounds as much as
possible.
But if we're to believe John Canal, the exact OPPOSITE was apparently
the goal of those pathologists (more than A DOZEN of them in total!)
-- because evidently the pathologists didn't give a damn about the
TRUTH regarding the specific location of the entry wound in Kennedy's
head. Those doctors were only interested in NOT ROCKING THE BOAT.
Therefore, the muddy waters just got a lot muddier.
Right, John Canal?
As I said....John C. is a "howl".
======================================
INSTANT REPLAY FROM APRIL 19, 2009:
"John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the
autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who
has read my book ["Reclaiming History"] and still believes this, there
obviously is nothing I can say to him or her to infuse their mind with
common sense. However, in the spirit of scholarship that guided me
while writing Reclaiming History, if it comes out in a second edition,
I will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory,
including Mr. Canal's, that came out subsequent to the publication of
the book." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 04/19/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/686e167d7a8d41bc
=======================================
John Canal
I'd give you a big (I'm 6'5" and 310 lbs) hug if I could---something in one of
your recent posts has triggered (of course, it's not that foolish comment you
made below) what promises to be a re-examination of the medical evidence
pertaining to the controversies over the head wounds. Indeed, I've been spinning
my wheels for a few years now trying to get this done...and, ironically, like a
knight in shining armor, DVP saves the day.
I can't tell you anymore than this, because someone's getting an exclusive
story. It's not VB, regrettably, he's missed out....too busy chasing
Bush....George, that is, of course.
Now, let's turn our attention to that stuid comment you made below.
DVP steps on his____again by uttering:
<Quote On>
>Yeah, why would I (or anybody else!) ever be caught dead relying on a
>much-better and much-clearer and much-easier-to-orient photo like the
>BOH color photo to try and determine where the bullet hole was located
>on JFK's head....vs. relying more heavily on that mess known as "F8"?
>
>El-Oh-El!!
<Quote Off>
Sure, the pictures of the BOH scalp are easy to orientate, but so isn't the Mona
Lisa and both are equally useful for determining where the entry was in JFK'S
skull....just to remind you that the photo you find so easy to orientate was NOT
taken when the body was first received and shows only the entry in a scalp that
has been cleaned, reflected, put back, etc. etc. That said, it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out that a photo of the wound in the skull (F8),
which a fifth grader can understand, is the best way (aside from reading the
autopsy report) to determine where the entry was in the
skull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what we're trying to determine, right?
Again, thanks so much David.
John Canal
John Canal
including Mr. Canal's,.." VB
Of course, DVP hopes like hell, VB doesn't examine Canal's theory.
John Canal
front) top/right/front area of JFK's head where only macerated scalp was
left.......with rubber...FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL?
Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting memory of her husband, eh,
David?
God help us all.
"...I will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory,
including Mr. Canal's..." Vincent Bugliosi
"I can't drop everything I'm doing right now to get to the bottom of this"
Vincent Bugliosi, 1-22-09
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>> "Why would the [autopsy] 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?
>
> I think it's telling, that instead of asking me questions about the
> evidence, e.g. why would there be a trail of opacities on the lateral near
It's telling that you never answer my questions.
It's also telling that you never back up your wacky ideas with any facts.
Like your bizarre idea that the scalp could be stretched 3 or 4 inches.
John Fiorentino
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gsmmb...@drn.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Would you [DVP] really have simply covered up that roughly five-inch
(back to front) top/right/front area of JFK's head...with rubber...FOR AN
OP EN CASKET FUNERAL? Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting
memory of her husband, eh, David? God help us all." <<<
I would have done whatever it was that morticians did to make a banged- up
head look as presentable as possible....via fake "head material" (whatever
they used for this purpose)....and surely they could also place some fake
hair in there too.
Earth to John Canal! --- Wigs and toupees (i.e., artificial hair) DID
exist in November of 1963.
But John C. thinks it makes more sense to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the very back part
of JFK's scalp to ridiculous lengths in order to cover the right- front
part of Kennedy's head.
I guess John C. thinks that having JFK's COWLICK appearing at the
FRONT-RIGHT part of his head (via this stretching act that John imagines
was taking place) would have looked much better than just merely placing a
toupee on Kennedy's head. ~shrug~
After all, most people have their cowlicks at the very front of their
head...right, John C.? Who's gonna notice...right?
REPLAY:
>>> "Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting memory of her
husband, eh, David?" <<<
Of course, John Canal no doubt already knows that one of Jackie's last
looks at JFK after he died was certainly far from being one of
satisfaction. Jackie wasn't pleased with the way her husband looked in his
casket at all....and neither was RFK.
Hence, the decision was made by RFK to close the casket for the funeral.
(And this, btw, was JFK's appearance after he had supposedly been
prettied-up via John's proposed "scalp-stretching" activity. A lot of good
that did, huh John?)
After snipping off a lock of the dead JFK's hair in the East Room of the
White House, Jackie was quoted as having said: "It isn't Jack".
I just recently saw something at another JFK forum, where a conspiracist
was mangling that particular "It isn't Jack" statement by Jackie all out
of proportion (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists, of
course)....with the CTer hinting that Jackie might have been speaking
LITERALLY when she said "It isn't Jack", conjuring up the Lifton-esque
image in the CTer's mind that the body in the casket wasn't the real John
F. Kennedy at all, but an imposter instead.
Of course, as any reasonable person knows, Jacqueline Kennedy's "It isn't
Jack" comment was not meant to be taken literally. She merely meant that
her husband looked like a wax dummy as he lay in his casket. And RFK
thought the same thing as well.
But, as we all know, it doesn't take much to get a conspiracy theorist to
believe in the craziest of things -- like a "JFK Double In The Casket"
theory....or the "Scalp Was Stretched Like A Rubber Band And Made The
Entry Wound Appear Way Too High On JFK's Head Even Though Every Single
Pathologist Who Looked Into This Matter For The HSCA And The Clark Panel
Agreed That The Entry Wound Was Located Four Inches Above The EOP" theory.
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP hopes like hell VB doesn't examine Canal's theory." <<<
On the contrary....I hope Vince does examine your theories (plural;
both the "Stretched Scalp/EOP" theory and your impossible-to-believe
"There Was A Large-ish BOH Hole" theory).
Because in the final analysis, after examining those two theories, Mr.
Bugliosi will undoubtedly be doing two things:
1.) Laughing himself silly.
and
2.) Wondering why in the world he even wasted time "examining" such
incredible foolishness like those two theories of John Canal's.
You do realize, don't you John C., that if Vincent endorses your
"Stretched Scalp/Wound Is At The EOP" theory, then Vince will have no
choice but to call EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST who examined the original
autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller
Commission, and the House Select Committee either outright LIARS and/
or COVER-UP OPERATIVES of some kind (which I kind of doubt Mr.
Bugliosi is going to do)....
....Or: Vince B. will have to say, in essence, that all of those
pathologists who said the entry wound was located 10 centimeters above
the EOP (numbering more than a dozen doctors in total) were totally
incompetent and/or that EVERY ONE OF THEM blew it big-time when they
said what they said in their various reports for THREE different
Government investigations.
In other words, Vincent T. Bugliosi would have to actually come out
and say (in essence) that John Canal is right and over a dozen trained
medical professionals who examined the autopsy photographs and X-rays
are dead wrong.
Likely? Or not?
And as far as the "BOH" theory of yours is concerned....you, John C.,
don't have a leg to stand on there either, largely due to the fact
that your whole theory explodes in your face when we take a look at
the main REASON that you think we don't today know the whole truth
regarding the "BOH" situation -- i.e., your impossible-to-prove theory
about how the autopsy doctors (and Dr. Burkley too; might as well
throw him into the pot too) were afraid to reveal to the world that
there was ANY kind of a large-ish wound in the back of JFK's head for
fears that any type of large BOH wound would make people think
"conspiracy".
I guess Dr. Humes blew it, though, when you say that he DID tell us
that there WAS a (large-ish) hole in the back of Kennedy's head in
BOTH the autopsy report and in front of the Warren Commission. Oops!
Looks like John's theory just suffered another blow in the "logic"
department.
Plus there's the fact that you possess absolutely no photographic
evidence to support your "BOH" theory whatsoever. In fact, ALL of the
photographic evidence (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the
Zapruder Film) are proving that your theory is complete bunk.
But John, amazingly, thinks that ALL of those photographic items are
NOT TELLING US THE REAL STORY ABOUT JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS. All of
them! And IN UNISON they are not telling the whole story about the
head wounds! That's called "wishful thinking", folks. No two ways
around it.
So, I'd then ask -- Why even HAVE any photos or X-rays taken at all?!
They apparently are showing us exactly the OPPOSITE of the truth (per
John Canal). So why even bother with them at all? The pictures and X-
rays (and the Z-Film too, to a certain extent) are merely clouding the
truth (per John C.).
Right, John?
Anyway, I look forward to VB ripping John Canal's theories (plural) to
shreds. But I doubt that will ever happen (in print form), however.
Because I doubt that a "Second Edition" of "Reclaiming History" will
ever see the light of day.
I hope I'm wrong about that last statement. Because I'd like for a few
of the small errors that appear in the current First Edition of "RH"
to some day be corrected in a future version of the book.
But even if a Second Edition is never published, Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" will probably always remain the most
comprehensive and (overall) accurate book ever released concerning the
assassination of John F. Kennedy.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP, I [John Canal] would give you a big (I'm 6'5" and 310 lbs) hug if I could---something in one of your recent posts has triggered...what promises to be a re-examination of the medical evidence pertaining to the controversies over the head wounds. Indeed, I've been spinning my wheels for a few years now trying to get this done...and, ironically, like a knight in shining armor, DVP saves the day. I can't tell you anymore than this, because someone's getting an exclusive story. It's not VB, regrettably, he's missed out....too busy chasing Bush....George, that is, of course." <<<
You mean "Fantasy Island" is back on the air after all these years!! I had
no idea! Looks like John's "exclusive" belongs to "Tattoo". Congrats!
>>> "Now, let's turn our attention to that stu[p]id comment you made below. DVP steps on his [man gland] again by uttering: <Quote On> 'Yeah, why would I (or anybody else!) ever be caught dead relying on a much-better and much-clearer and much-easier-to-orient photo like the BOH color photo to try and determine where the bullet hole was located on JFK's head....vs. relying more heavily on that mess known as "F8"?' <Quote Off> Sure, the pictures of the BOH scalp are easy to orientate, but so isn't the Mona Lisa and both are equally useful for determining where the entry was in JFK'S skull....just to remind you that the photo you find so easy to orientate was NOT taken when the body was first received and shows only the entry in a scalp that has been cleaned, reflected, put back, etc. etc. That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a photo of the wound in the skull (F8), which a fifth grader can understand, is the best way (aside from reading the autopsy report) to determine where the entry was in the skull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what we're trying to determine, right? Again, thanks so much David." <<<
John C. likes to totally dismiss and brush aside the fact that the
horrible photo known as "F8" has been the subject of much controversy over
the years -- i.e., there are MANY different interpretations of what that
picture is showing us. Lots of people say one thing; while a lot of
different people say something else concerning F8. In short, it's not a
reliable source of VERIFIABLE INFORMATION when trying to determine where
the specific wounds are located in John F. Kennedy's head.
But, John, if you want to scoop up F8 (and your interpretation of it) and
race toward the "EOP Endzone" -- more power to you. But I'll pass on
EVERYTHING related to F8, thanks. In my opinion, that photo is pretty much
totally worthless for definitively proving anything. But if you think
otherwise, good for you.
>>> "Again, thanks so much David." <<<
No problem, John. Always glad to help. And please let me know when
"Tattoo" shows up on Fantasy Island with your "exclusive story" in
hand. I look forward to seeing how your exclusive story explains away
the verified "cowlick" entry location that was agreed upon by more
than a dozen different trained pathologists in the 1960s and 1970s.
That should be an "exclusive" riot.
John Canal
>No problem, John. Always glad to help. And please let me know when
>"Tattoo" shows up on Fantasy Island with your "exclusive story" in
>hand. I look forward to seeing how your exclusive story explains away
>the verified "cowlick" entry location that was agreed upon by more
>than a dozen different trained pathologists in the 1960s and 1970s.
>That should be an "exclusive" riot.
You should have read the medical evidence and figured out F8, instead of
spending most of your JFK time reading RH...unfortunately, Vince & Posner
trusted Baden and did not dig into the record the way they should have. You,
however, have had Baden's deception waved in your face over and over
again....and continue to duck under it--you sir have no excuses.
VB knows there's something he'd like to "get to the bottom of" (if he had
tme)....and he's heard only a little of my case for a low entry and BOH wound.
If this gets exposed the way I know it will you'll have enough egg on your face
to feed an army.
Now, I need to ask you again, "Would you really have had JFK lay in an open
casket with a big chunck of rubber showing in the top/right/front of his head?"
Tell me you were only making a sick joke.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>>>> "DVP hopes like hell VB doesn't examine Canal's theory." <<<
>
>
>On the contrary....I hope Vince does examine your theories
What else would you say?
>(plural;
>both the "Stretched Scalp/EOP" theory and your impossible-to-believe
>"There Was A Large-ish BOH Hole" theory).
>
>Because in the final analysis, after examining those two theories, Mr.
>Bugliosi will undoubtedly be doing two things:
>
>1.) Laughing himself silly.
Write Rosemary again and have her ask VB if he was laughing during the three
phone calls he made to me. He even exposed how skimpy his research was re. these
two issues.....he told me there were only three or four cerebellum witnesses,
and, when I told them there were 11 (faxing him the citations), he was lost for
words...and that doesn't happen too often.
Get some substance to your arguments---I'm tired of your silly rhetoric.
[...]
John Canal
John Canal
>
>You will remember, it was a closed casket funeral.
Typical irrelevant statement from you.
They "prepared" the body for an open-casket funeral! Read, man, read.
John Canal
>John F.
John Canal
>
>
>
>>>> "Would you [DVP] really have simply covered up that roughly five-inch
>(back to front) top/right/front area of JFK's head...with rubber...FOR AN
>
>
>I would have done whatever it was that morticians did to make a banged- up
>head look as presentable as possible....via fake "head material" (whatever
>they used for this purpose)....and surely they could also place some fake
>hair in there too.
So now you're backing off your earlier statement that you would have used a
fake/rubber/plastic/whatever, like Tom Robinson said?
Do you think the morticians and Humes were lying when they said they stretched
the scalp to cover the wound? Why on God's green earth would they lie about
something like that?
>Earth to John Canal! --- Wigs and toupees (i.e., artificial hair) DID
>exist in November of 1963.
Don't you think if they could have used his own hair that would have been
better? No, I guess you don't. Hums an the moticians lied...you're right
again....NOT!
At least you've gone from fake/rubber/plastic/whatever to artificial hair. You
learn, albeit slowly. You ought to learn from Fiorentino---he let's you embarass
yourself while he mostly sputters out one liners or rhetoric.
>But John C. thinks it makes more sense to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the very back part
>of JFK's scalp to ridiculous lengths in order to cover the right- front
>part of Kennedy's head.
I've got five morticians that said the scalp from the EOP to the hairline could
possibly have been stretched three inches. More liars, right?
>I guess John C. thinks that having JFK's COWLICK appearing at the
>FRONT-RIGHT part of his head (via this stretching act that John imagines
>was taking place) would have looked much better than just merely placing a
>toupee on Kennedy's head. ~shrug~
Earth to DVP look at the Dox drawing that shows where the bone was blown out
from his head....very little of the cowlick area of his scalp was stll there and
whatever was left was macerated. Look at the top of the head photo and see if
you can see JFK's cowlick.
Again, I get tired of you calling every body liars--the morticians and Humes
said they stretched the scalp to close the wound--what part of that did you not
understand?
[...]
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. They WANTED to, TRIED to.
> John Canal
>
>> John F.
>
>
WhiskyJoe
> David Von Pein:
> And John C. also has to believe that
> EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST (even
> conspiracy theorist Cyril Wecht) who
> examined the autopsy photos and X-rays
> for the HSCA and the Clark Panel was
> either a liar too, or each of those
> pathologists who agreed that the entry
> wound was "10 centimeters [4 inches]
> above the EOP" was simply too
> incompetent and brain-dead to make
> such a determination after reviewing
> the original autopsy materials.
I think David Von Pein and John Fiorentino
made some very good points.
I have and still, lean toward the EOP
entrance. Of course, the theory the
autopsy doctors did some sort of
a cover-up, I completely disagree
with.
No cover-up makes sense without the
Zapruder film. Without it, how do they
know which direction JFK was facing
when shot in the head? He could have
been shot while facing backwards,
toward the shooter, as far as they
knew.
I do not believe the autopsy doctors
had immediate access to any of the
film. They would have been crazy if
they overhead the talk by the Secret
Service and acted on that basis.
Eyewitness testimony is dubious.
On can easily imagine a murder where
the witnesses all say the victim was
facing forward, only to discover from
film that the victim turned to look
backwards, but the witnesses where
too preoccupied to notice this.
But on the narrow question of EOP
vs. Cowlick, I think it's EOP.
***************************************
I am very biased against CTers because
of the false Anti-SBT diagrams that
they used. The ones by Wecht for the
HSCA and the mock trial in England.
The one in the book "High Treason".
The one in the movie "JFK".
When one side uses a false diagram,
they are really getting me biased
against them.
To convince me after I know about
this lie, the CTers would need
some killer argument.
Like if it was proven that a bullet
can't be pristine, even if it hits
nothing but soft tissue, I might be
inclined to believe their overall
theory. But it really would have to
be iron clad solid proof to overcome
a stupid blunder of making use of
a known lie, particularly when they
have a good iron clad argument.
But, of course, they have no such
iron clad argument. Not even close.
***************************************
But my overall philosophy is that if
one side uses a lie, and I find out
about it, they lose.
I will not accept "Both sides lie."
That's just what the side that lies
wants me to believe. If I accept this
premise, they can lie to me in the
future. If I don't find the lie,
it works against me. If I do find it,
they just say "Both sides lie". They
have nothing to risk by lying.
***************************************
I am heavily biased against the cowlick
theory. The Dox diagrams:
; JFK Exhibit F-65
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/77/Photo_hsca_ex_65.jpg
; JFK Exhibit F-66
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5a/Photo_hsca_ex_66.jpg
are obviously false.
They have a problem. With the high cowlick
theory, the bullet has to curve downward,
then curve upward, to exit where it did
and continue toward the top of the windshield.
This problem was not dealt with honestly.
They just show the bullet continuing
on a downward course, relying on the
observer to be ignorant of where the
bullet fragments ended up.
This is way too reminiscent of the
Anti-SBT diagrams. If the geometry if
off, lie.
Also, according to Sturdivan's experience,
this double curve should not happen, at
least within 8 inches.
Combined with the photographs and X-Rays
not being definitive, at least experts
can disagree with, and I can't make heads
or tails of F8 or of the "scalp" diagram
shows a "bullet" hole, a "bullet fragment"
hole, or a "bone fragment" hole or just
a stretched scalp, I have to go with my
instincts.
They lied in the Dox diagrams for a
good reason.
At the very least, I expect to see
some sort of "corrected" Dox diagram,
so I can get a good idea of what
a plausible path would look like.
I understand some a diagram would be
speculation. I just want to know if
it's even possible to come up with
a plausible and honest diagram, showing
the path of the bullet and it's fragments.
John Canal
WhiskyJoe says...
If I was unclear before, I want to correct that here and now.
The autopsy docs DID NOT cover up the head wounds. Humes said there was a
BOH wound and there was. He said they saw cerebellum and they, like 10
other witnesses, certainly did.
He said the entry was 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP and
that's precisely where it was--and they did photograph the entry in the
SKULL. My replication of that photo [F8], as well as the F8 replications
by Sturdivan, Hunt, and Seaton scientifically and irrefutably confirm
Humes' entry location--see pages 4-5 in the article linked here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
Note that the existence of a trail of opacities seen on the original
lateral x-ray extending from near the EOP is evidence the bullet entered
there. Dr. Joe Davis stated exactly that on the record [7HSCA, p. 254],
but was cut off from continuing that discussion.
That being said, I think they "understated" the extent of the BOH wound in
the report, by saying it extended "somewhat" into the occipital--in
actuality, it extended ll the way to near the EOP---and Humes' testimony
that they saw cerebellum confirms the BOH wound extended that far
posteriorly. F8 also shows how far down the fragmented bone extended to
(near the EOP).
I Think it was Admiral Burkley's decision [he was the one really calling
the shots during the autopsy] not to take a photograph of the BOH when the
body was first received because such a photo would have shown a BOH wound
and Burkley, being over cautious, if not paranoid, didn't want to take a
chance on whoever viewed the photos misinterpreting a BOH wound as
evidence of a frontal shot.
I don't care if DVP is confused about my position, but when others are it
bothers me.
John Canal
WhiskyJoe
> WhiskyJoe says...
> If I was unclear before, I want to
> correct that here and now.
> The autopsy docs DID NOT cover up the
> head wounds. Humes said there was a
> BOH wound and there was. He said they
> saw cerebellum and they, like 10
> other witnesses, certainly did.
> I don't care if DVP is confused about
> my position, but when others are it
> bothers me.
> John Canal
It's been a while since I read about
your theory and I was just going with
my memory with what your theory is
and I had some details off.
But, it seems surprising that they
would not report the results
accurately. If they take a guess
about what the autopsy should
reveal, based on how they believe
how the head was oriented, and
miss report the autopsy, this can
obviously backfire when film of the
assassination show the true position
of the body is consistent with what
they observed, but not with the
autopsy report that they submitted.
So I don't understand why they would
miss report the extent of fractures.
Why couldn't an exit would near the
front of the head cause fractures that
run clear to the back? Why would they
miss report this?
I don't know why they would report the
cerebellum was not damage. After all,
they reported the bullet struck near
the EOP. Bullets will curve after they
fragment. I can't see why a bullet from
Oswald could not have dipped down that
low. Particularly, without careful
study of the Zapruder film, I don't see
why they would conclude that damage to
the cerebellum was improbable, and it's
best not to report it. The Zapruder film
might have shown the head was tilted back
so one would expect the cerebellum to
back damaged, perhaps.
I don't see why they would miss report the
autopsy, without first making a careful
study of the Zapruder film, of individual
slides from the film. Only with a very
careful study of the film, could they
conclude that miss reporting the autopsy
is required.
John Canal
WhiskyJoe says...
>
>
>> WhiskyJoe says...
>
>> If I was unclear before, I want to
>> correct that here and now.
>
>> The autopsy docs DID NOT cover up the
>> head wounds. Humes said there was a
>> BOH wound and there was. He said they
>> saw cerebellum and they, like 10
>> other witnesses, certainly did.
>
>> I don't care if DVP is confused about
>> my position, but when others are it
>> bothers me.
>
>> John Canal
>
>It's been a while since I read about
>your theory and I was just going with
>my memory with what your theory is
>and I had some details off.
>
>But, it seems surprising that they
>would not report the results
>accurately.
The autopsists reported the entry wound location precisely where it was.
They only "understated" the extent of the damage to the BOH--in three
ways. 1) the word, "somewhat" was not totally accurate, as the damage
(albeit collateral) extended all the way down to the EOP, 2) they didn't
photograph the BOH when the body was first received...waiting instead
until later that night to take such photographs, and 3), while Humes
finally testfied a few months later to the WC that they saw cerebellum,
that should have been in their report (note that they did note a
hemorraged and disrupted cerebellum in the Supplementry Report, just not
one that was exposed when the body arrived--big difference, IMO).
I believe if it was left up to HB&F themselves there would have been no
ambiguity in their descriptions of the wounds and photographs of the BOH
when the body was received. Unfortunately, all that was undoubtedly
decided by Burkley, who was far superior in Naval rank than H & B, the 1st
family's personal physician, and a conspiracy believer--evidently from
11-22-63 until he died.
>If they take a guess
>about what the autopsy should
>reveal, based on how they believe
>how the head was oriented, and
>miss report the autopsy, this can
>obviously backfire when film of the
>assassination show the true position
>of the body is consistent with what
>they observed, but not with the
>autopsy report that they submitted.
Are you talking abut Humes misreporting the forward lean of JFK or the
HSCA? They both did. Humes did it (CE-388) to reconcile his low entry with
a shot from six floors up because he didn't realize the bullet deflected
(Larry says curved-we disagree, but that's not a big deal) up as it
penetrated the rear skull. The HSCA did it because they knew, if they
didn't grossly fudge on the lean, a line connecting their mythical cowlick
entry with the principal exit would point back to a firing point well away
from the SN.
Now as far as both of them misrepresenting the lean and doing so even
though they both must have guessed that sooner or later the Z-film would
cause their little trickery to backfire, I just think they thought what
they reported would never be questioned....and, as far as the HSCA goes
most of the hardline LNers, including Posner and Bugliosi, haven't
questioned hardly anything Baden said, much less Fisher of the Clark
Panel....shockingly, they all question the only doctors who saw the body.
Go figure!
>So I don't understand why they would
>miss report the extent of fractures.
>Why couldn't an exit would near the
>front of the head cause fractures that
>run clear to the back? Why would they
>miss report this?
First, and I'm not trying to be nitpicky, undobtedly the bullet entering
near the EOP and deflecting up as it penetrated fragmented the rear
skull...then the exiting large bullet fragments fragmented the
top/right/front skull...with the force caused by the temporary cavity
helping blow out the bone in that later area.
Burkley was too cautious, if not paranoid....just worried a BOH wound,
even if it was reported as collateral damage from the bullet fired by LHO,
might be misinterpreted by too many people as evidence of a frontal
shot....and with LHO's Communist connections, Burkley decided to
understate and not photograph the BOH damage. That's speculation--but I
think it makes sense (not to the DVPs of course).
>I don't know why they would report the
>cerebellum was not damage. After all,
>they reported the bullet struck near
>the EOP. Bullets will curve after they
>fragment. I can't see why a bullet from
>Oswald could not have dipped down that
>low. Particularly, without careful
>study of the Zapruder film, I don't see
>why they would conclude that damage to
>the cerebellum was improbable, and it's
>best not to report it. The Zapruder film
>might have shown the head was tilted back
>so one would expect the cerebellum to
>back damaged, perhaps.
To say they saw cerebellum in their report would be the same as saying the
BOH was damaged...and, again, I think Burkley feared such damage could be
misinterpeted as a shot from the front. In any case, I believe, and I
think Larry agrees, that the bullet skirted along the top of the tentorium
bruising it due to the concussion--IOW, the bullet didn't tear through the
cerebellum. That said, I'm certain that all those witnesses, including
Humes, weren't wrong when they said they saw cerebellum--IOW, it was
exposed due to a scalp tear and a couple of pieces of those rear bone
fragments being dislodged.
>I don't see why they would miss report the
>autopsy, without first making a careful
>study of the Zapruder film, of individual
>slides from the film.
I don't think anyone really had time to reconcile the autopsy report with
the Z-film, at least regarding the precise nature of the head wounds.
>Only with a very
>careful study of the film, could they
>conclude that miss reporting the autopsy
>is required.
Well, I disagree..I don't think the Z-film proves anything, one way or the
other, regarding the existence or the precise nature of any BOH collateral
damage. I say that because no rear bone was blown out (we would have seen
that type of damage in the film)...pieces of the bone were just dislodged,
creating an opening through which blood and gore gravitated and then
exuded out beginning as soon as he was prone...which was a soon as he was
transferred from the limo to the gurney.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>
>> WhiskyJoe says...
>
>> If I was unclear before, I want to
>> correct that here and now.
>
>> The autopsy docs DID NOT cover up the
>> head wounds. Humes said there was a
>> BOH wound and there was. He said they
>> saw cerebellum and they, like 10
>> other witnesses, certainly did.
>
>> I don't care if DVP is confused about
>> my position, but when others are it
>> bothers me.
>
>> John Canal
>
> It's been a while since I read about
> your theory and I was just going with
> my memory with what your theory is
> and I had some details off.
>
> But, it seems surprising that they
> would not report the results
> accurately. If they take a guess
Not surprising. They were incompetent.
And under military orders. Humes was ordered to rewrite the autopsy report.
> about what the autopsy should
> reveal, based on how they believe
> how the head was oriented, and
> miss report the autopsy, this can
> obviously backfire when film of the
> assassination show the true position
> of the body is consistent with what
> they observed, but not with the
> autopsy report that they submitted.
>
I don't see that as a realistic objection.
They knew they would cover up the autopsy photographs, X-rays and
Zapruder film so that no one would ever be able to see the lies.
> So I don't understand why they would
> miss report the extent of fractures.
> Why couldn't an exit would near the
> front of the head cause fractures that
> run clear to the back? Why would they
> miss report this?
>
Indeed, the correct term is antipodal focusing.
Caused by an entrance wound in the front of the head.
> I don't know why they would report the
> cerebellum was not damage. After all,
> they reported the bullet struck near
> the EOP. Bullets will curve after they
> fragment. I can't see why a bullet from
Don't you realize that when a bullet fragments the several fragments
diverge and exit in various locations? Canal does not seem to have
figured that out yet.
> Oswald could not have dipped down that
> low. Particularly, without careful
You are not trying hard enough. Canal thinks the bullet can hit near the
EOP after coming down at 15 degrees and then magically curve up by 30
degrees.
> study of the Zapruder film, I don't see
> why they would conclude that damage to
> the cerebellum was improbable, and it's
> best not to report it. The Zapruder film
> might have shown the head was tilted back
> so one would expect the cerebellum to
> back damaged, perhaps.
>
> I don't see why they would miss report the
> autopsy, without first making a careful
> study of the Zapruder film, of individual
Oh please. They did not have the Zapruder film then.
> slides from the film. Only with a very
> careful study of the film, could they
> conclude that miss reporting the autopsy
> is required.
>
You are suggesting that they delay the autopsy report by years while
rumors of conspiracy and a frontal shot swirl around.
Anthony Marsh
Because they were TOLD that he was shot from behind. Any shot from the
front means conspiracy and thus WWIII.
> I do not believe the autopsy doctors
> had immediate access to any of the
> film. They would have been crazy if
> they overhead the talk by the Secret
> Service and acted on that basis.
> Eyewitness testimony is dubious.
>
> On can easily imagine a murder where
> the witnesses all say the victim was
> facing forward, only to discover from
> film that the victim turned to look
> backwards, but the witnesses where
> too preoccupied to notice this.
>
> But on the narrow question of EOP
> vs. Cowlick, I think it's EOP.
>
> ***************************************
>
> I am very biased against CTers because
> of the false Anti-SBT diagrams that
> they used. The ones by Wecht for the
> HSCA and the mock trial in England.
> The one in the book "High Treason".
> The one in the movie "JFK".
>
> When one side uses a false diagram,
> they are really getting me biased
> against them.
>
I don't see you complaining about the false WC defender diagrams.
> To convince me after I know about
> this lie, the CTers would need
> some killer argument.
>
You seem to swallow the WC lies easily enough.
> Like if it was proven that a bullet
> can't be pristine, even if it hits
> nothing but soft tissue, I might be
> inclined to believe their overall
> theory. But it really would have to
> be iron clad solid proof to overcome
> a stupid blunder of making use of
> a known lie, particularly when they
> have a good iron clad argument.
>
> But, of course, they have no such
> iron clad argument. Not even close.
>
> ***************************************
>
> But my overall philosophy is that if
> one side uses a lie, and I find out
> about it, they lose.
>
Never. Ford lied. Boswell lied. You give them a pass.
David Von Pein
>>> "I get tired of you calling everybody liars." <<<
You should learn to read (and comprehend) better, John C., because I've
never once called anyone relating to these "BOH" issues a "liar". Never.
And you can't cite even ONE TIME where I have called anyone a "liar" when
it comes to the specific topics relating to John Kennedy's head wounds. A
lot of people were wrong. But they weren't "lying" (i.e., attempting to
deceive). They were just....wrong.
But John Canal, on the other hand, hasn't hesitated whatsoever in calling
Dr. Michael Baden a liar ("he [Baden] lied several times" -- John C.;
04/18/2009).
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/becff2f0676c496c
And John Canal also doesn't seem to mind (or blush) when he, in essence,
calls over one dozen trained pathologists liars too (since ALL of those
pathologists said that the entry wound was 10 cm. above the EOP).
Pot....meet Kettle.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "I get tired of you calling everybody liars." <<<
>
>You should learn to read (and comprehend) better, John C., because I've
>never once called anyone relating to these "BOH" issues a "liar". Never.
When witneses say definitively and with absolute certainty that they saw a BOH
wound or a near-EOP entry and you still say they're mistaken, well, you might as
well have called them liars....which is better than calling them hallucinators.
Anyway:
DVP evidently thinks, based on the conclusions of experts who never saw the body
(only x-rays and photos), that the doctors and other witnesses who saw and/or
treated JFK (while he was clinging to life) or saw and/or examined his body
and/or prepared his body for an open-casket funeral, were lying or hallucinating
when they said:
they saw a BOH wound (20+ witnesses).
they saw cerebellum (11 witnesses).
they saw an entry wound near the EOP.
that the occipital bone was severely fragmented.
they stretched the scalp in an attempt to cover, with his own hair[scalp], the
large area in the top/right/front of his head where the scalp was missing and/or
macerated.
DVP also evidently believes that a significant portion of the evidence for a
high entry (a so-called bullet fragment seen on the AP film supposedly imbedded
in the outer table of JFK�s skull in the cowlick), is not evidentiary at all
because the opacity doesn�t represent a real bullet fragment. This assertion
[correct], not only impugns the credibility and competency, if not the agenda,
of the high-entry, no-BOH wound experts, but also questions an important part of
their basis for concluding the bullet entered in the cowlick.
DVP fails to explain how on God�s green earth a NASA Engineer, Thomas Canning,
could somehow factor in the grossly wrong figure (appx. 11 deg.) for JFK�s
forward lean at the moment he was hit (appx. 27 deg.) while he [Canning] was
calculating the cowlick entry trajectory.
DVP also fails to explain why the highly credentialed and credible, Dale Myers,
determined via computer analysis that the cowlick entry trajectory pointed back
124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD, but the Dal-Tex building.
DVP also fails to explain why Dr. Michael Baden would testify under oath that
the trajectory diagramed in the Dox drawing [HSCA, F-66] is �fairly accurate�
when only the grossly miscalculated trajectory of Thomas Canning enabled it
[that trajectory] to point �back� anywhere near the SN��.and when the trajectory
arrow points �forward� in a direction not reconcilable with the windshield
damage�..and to where no bullet fragments of any size were found.
DVP also fails to explain why a trail of tiny opacities can be seen on the
original lateral extending from near the EOP, and why none can been seen
extending from the cowlick�.when the opacities were deemed to have represented
the beveled out inner table of bone around the entry.
DVP also fails to explain why the high entry experts reported there was �NO�
lower brain damage consistent with a low-entering bullet, when the autopsists
reported that a channel-like laceration began at the tip of the occipital lobe
and when 11 witnesses, including Humes, said they saw cerebellum.
DVP also fails to offer any reasonable explanation whatsoever for Dr. Michael
Baden testifying under oath that all the consulting radiologists conclusively
agreed that the x-rays showed evidence of a high entry�when one of the
consulting radiologists, Dr. William Seaman, clearly reported that there was no
conclusive evidence for a high entry on the x-rays.
DVP also has offered no reasonable explanation why, during the discussions
(among the members of his panel of experts and the autopsists) when the highly
credentialed, Dr. Joseph Davis, stated on the record that there was evidence on
the lateral x-ray for a bullet entering near the EOP, the panel, not only went
rather abruptly off-the-record, but also talked about a different issue when
they came back on-the-record.
DVP also has stated over and over that he thinks, because it is easy to
orientate, the best photo for determining the location of the entry in the SKULL
is a photo of the entry in a SCALP (that was taken later in the autopsy after
the scalp had been cleaned and reflected, pieces of skull had come loose, the
brain had been removed, the scalp put back, etc. etc.)�.when there is a photo of
the entry in the SKULL, F8, (the orientation of which has been understood by
many, including Dr. McAdams, and even Fiorentino), that has been replicated
independently by four researchers or authors revealing the precise location of
the entry wound IN THE SKULL�slightly above the EOP. That being said, I implore
DVP to try to learn how to orientate and interpret F8. He can even ask Dr.
McAdams or Fiorentino to help�or he can look at page 4 of my article that Dr.
McAdams was nice enough to add to his website (see the link below). It�s my
guess, though, that DVP doesn�t want to understand F8, because he�d be staring
at irrefutable evidence that the entry was where Humes said it was�.so, like
Dracula avoids looking at crucifixes, DVP will avoid looking at F8.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Misinterpreted.pdf
DVP also has concluded that perhaps the most qualified JFK researcher ever, Dr.
Kenneth Rahn, is wrong about his conclusion that the autopsy doctors correctly
identified the location of the entry wound in the SKULL.
And DVP has the gall to call my low-entry, no-BOH-wound, and scalp stretching
theories crazy. Go figure.
Attention DVP. I�m tired of your rhetoric and you not addressing the evidence
so, from now on, when you attack me I�ll reply by including the above
information.
>But John Canal, on the other hand, hasn't hesitated whatsoever in calling
>Dr. Michael Baden a liar ("he [Baden] lied several times" -- John C.;
>04/18/2009).
Anyone with a third grade education o who can properly orientate F8 could read
his testimony and realize he was lying....I still say he was. Moreover, I'd
challenge him to a public debate and cite the several examples of where I think
he lied.....and let an audience judge for themselves if he was--if they say I
was wrong, I'd offer a public apology. Of course, that'd never happen--DVP
thinks that's because he wouldn't lower himself to debate me, but I guarantee he
wouldn't do it becaue his lying would be more exposed than it already is.
>And John Canal also doesn't seem to mind (or blush) when he, in essence,
>calls over one dozen trained pathologists liars too (since ALL of those
>pathologists said that the entry wound was 10 cm. above the EOP).
They parroted Fisher....just like you do.
John Canal