DVP's style of dancing around questions would make even Fred Astaire...and McAdams proud.
John Canal
this) reminds me of the guy (David Von Pain, I believe) who was on trial
for murder and was asked by the prosecuter, "Given that 35 witnesses saw
you shoot Mr. Jones five times, and that those witnesses were within 10
feet of you and Mr. Jones at the time, will you, Mr. Von Pain, admit that
you killed Mr. Jones?" Mr. Von Pain: "Can you repeat the question?"
Now, again: Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p.
252], and specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone
was blasted into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's,
McA's, Posner's, VB's and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a
little past the coronal suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH
photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear to be pretty much undamaged and in one
piece???????????
If you'll admit that "just possibly" (although I'll allow you to say it
was unlikely) the BOH photos were taken after some repair (not necessarily
in any sinister way) was done to the scalp (perhaps as part of the process
to prepare the body for a possible open-casket funeral), I'll stop
bothering you with this somewhat baiting but, IMO, poignant
question........that is, of course, unless McA sees to it that any further
attempts to ask you this question get rejected.
Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team
AM & DVP), Marsh, utters, because unfortunately he's on my killfile and I
forgot how to remove someone from it once they're on it. Hell, we can have
a contest to see whose answer makes the most sense, yours or his...that is
if you understand the question.
John Canal
thali...@hotmail.com
John, you say that the BOH photos were probably taken after repair was
done, but that this is not "sinister." I agree that repairing someones
injuries if there was going to be an open casket is fine, but not the
taking of official autopsy photos after the repair that could be used in a
court law as evidence. That is corruption, and is VERY sinister.
David Von Pein
>>> "Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252], and specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was blasted into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's, Posner's, VB's and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little past the coronal suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????" <<<
That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE.....the
autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem-- confirm this fact:
There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
The Dox drawing in F-66 (below also) is slightly off on the gaping
exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully
intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the
WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while
much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox
drawings weren't even necessary at all.
The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood. I
guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/
outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that
would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn
artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0128b.htm
>>> "Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team AM & DVP), Marsh...." <<<
Marsh is certainly no "teammate" of mine. I agree with him about 0.81%
of the time (if that).
Perry....your witness. (Or should I send Della Street and Paul Drake
out for some lunch before we resume today's court proceedings?)
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252], and
>>>>specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was blasted
>>>>into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's, Posner's, VB's
>>>>and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little past the coronal
>>>>suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear
>>>>to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????" <<<
>
>
>
>That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE
Nice try..., but it expresses what the HSCA gleened from the real
evidence....and McAdams has always been impressed by that drawing.
>.....the
>autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
>BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem-- confirm this fact:
>
>There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
You're paranoia is showing---I asked you to compare the area just barely
forward of Baden's entry in the Dox drawing to that same area in the BOH
photo...did I mention the BOH?
DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it...your B/S is proof of
that.
>The Dox drawing in F-66 (below also) is slightly off on the gaping
>exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully
>intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
>just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
But the scalp, as seen in the bOH photos, is in one piece just forward of
the entry...are you saying that's because the top/right/front really was
intact EVEN THOUGH ALL THAT BONE WAS BLASTED UT OF HIS HEAD IN THAT
AREA???????
>This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
>drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the
>WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while
>much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox
>drawings weren't even necessary at all.
Ah ha, DVP's explanation is that perhaps McAdams' favorite drawing, HSCA,
F-66 is unreliable. LOL.
Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo (F-7 ?)in the
new thread I started. Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the
same area in the BOH photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped
up in the former and intact in the later. Thanks for your honesty on that.
>The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
>needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood.
If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't agree
with the Dox dwg....not even close?
>I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/
>outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that
>would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn
>artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO).
[deleted a bunch of meaningless characters]
>>>>"Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team AM &
>>>>DVP), Marsh...." <<<
>Marsh is certainly no "teammate" of mine. I agree with him about 0.81%
>of the time (if that).
But you two nicely agree on an important issue--you both say there was no
BOH wound and that dozens of witnesses, including Humes, were wrong about
what they said they saw as far as any damage to the BOH goes.
John Canal
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <d22be4f6-ca6e-4879...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>"Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252], and
>>>>>specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was blasted
>>>>>into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's, Posner's, VB's
>>>>>and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little past the coronal
>>>>>suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear
>>>>>to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????" <<<
>>
>>
>>
>>That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE
>
>Nice try..., but it expresses what the HSCA gleened from the real
>evidence....and McAdams has always been impressed by that drawing.
>
It's the best *interpretation* of the evidence available.
And it's also, with a couple of trivial exceptions, consistent with
the actual evidence.
>>.....the
>>autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
>>BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem-- confirm this fact:
>>
>>There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
>
>You're paranoia is showing---I asked you to compare the area just barely
>forward of Baden's entry in the Dox drawing to that same area in the BOH
>photo...did I mention the BOH?
>
John, when the bone blew out anterior to the cowlick entry wound, it
tore open the scalp, but it didn't make the scalp in that area
disappear.
But blew it back, and the BOH photos shows a blown-back piece of scalp
held up to highlight the entry wound.
Do you deny that that's the entry wound in the cowlock area?
>DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it...your B/S is proof of
>that.
>
>>The Dox drawing in F-66 (below also) is slightly off on the gaping
>>exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully
>>intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
>>just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
>
>But the scalp, as seen in the bOH photos, is in one piece just forward of
>the entry...are you saying that's because the top/right/front really was
>intact EVEN THOUGH ALL THAT BONE WAS BLASTED UT OF HIS HEAD IN THAT
>AREA???????
>
Blasting bone out doesn't make scalp disappear. It tears it open.
>>This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
>>drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the
>>WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while
>>much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox
>>drawings weren't even necessary at all.
>
>Ah ha, DVP's explanation is that perhaps McAdams' favorite drawing, HSCA,
>F-66 is unreliable. LOL.
>
No, it's way more reliable than any wacky theory from somebody like
you.
>Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo (F-7 ?)in the
>new thread I started. Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the
>same area in the BOH photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped
>up in the former and intact in the later. Thanks for your honesty on that.
>
>>The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
>>needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood.
>
>If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't agree
>with the Dox dwg....not even close?
>
Well . . . he can think what he wants, but I note that when you
claimed to find an inshoot deep in the cranial cavity, you involed
people like Chad on your side, but they in fact identified a
*different* spot as the entry.
>>I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/
>>outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that
>>would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn
>>artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO).
>
>[deleted a bunch of meaningless characters]
>
>>>>>"Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team AM &
>>>>>DVP), Marsh...." <<<
>
>>Marsh is certainly no "teammate" of mine. I agree with him about 0.81%
>>of the time (if that).
>
>But you two nicely agree on an important issue--you both say there was no
>BOH wound and that dozens of witnesses, including Humes, were wrong about
>what they said they saw as far as any damage to the BOH goes.
>
You are wrong in your interpretation of Humes.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252],
and specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was
blasted into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's,
Posner's, VB's and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little
past the coronal suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN
THAT SAME AREA, appear to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????"
<<<
>
>
>
> That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE.....the
> autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
> BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem-- confirm this fact:
>
> There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
>
> The Dox drawing in F-66 (below also) is slightly off on the gaping
> exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully
> intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
> just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
>
> This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
> drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the
> WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while
> much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox
> drawings weren't even necessary at all.
>
> The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
> needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood. I
Two reasons. To mislead the autopsy doctors. And to mislead the public.
John Canal
>
>On 12 Jul 2008 17:10:08 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <d22be4f6-ca6e-4879...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>David Von Pein says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>"Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252], and
>>>>>>specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was blasted
>>>>>>into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's, Posner's, VB's
>>>>>>and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little past the coronal
>>>>>>suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear
>>>>>>to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????" <<<
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE
>>
>>Nice try..., but it expresses what the HSCA gleened from the real
>>evidence....and McAdams has always been impressed by that drawing.
>>
>
>It's the best *interpretation* of the evidence available.
>
>And it's also, with a couple of trivial exceptions, consistent with
>the actual evidence.
Well, I'm not the one who just suggested the Dox dwg was pretty much
worthless (that was Von Pein)...although I do think it's a Hell of lot
more inaccurate than you do.
>>>.....the
>>>autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
>>>BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem-- confirm this fact:
>>>
>>>There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
>>
>>You're paranoia is showing---I asked you to compare the area just barely
>>forward of Baden's entry in the Dox drawing to that same area in the BOH
>>photo...did I mention the BOH?
>>
>
>John, when the bone blew out anterior to the cowlick entry wound, >it
We almost agree--I say it blew out anterior to where Baden, you and
several others "think" the entry was.
>tore open the scalp, but it didn't make the scalp in that area
>disappear.
Interesting, .john. Not that you believe much, if any of what Humes wrote
in the AR or said in his WC testimony, but he did say the scalp and bone
were pretty much absent in that area (the large defect--the location of we
pretty much agree on). Now, I think he may have exaggerated a bit (can't
be sure) when he said the scalp was "missing" in that area, but the scalp
"must" have been badly torn at least with "SOME" missing.
>But blew it back, and the BOH photos shows a blown-back piece of scalp
>held up to highlight the entry wound.
I can see you're not backing off...Humes' description of the scalp in the
area of the large defect doesn't even remotely resemble the scalp in the
BOH photos. That's my position and, I'll bet, if you ask your students
when classes are back in session, they'll agree with me...suggesting some
repair was done to the scalp there pre-BOH photos.
>Do you deny that that's the entry wound in the cowlock area?
Why are we going there? Ok, I'll bite---of course I do...in fact you
helped me win my argument here that it was NOT in the cowlick, when you
blurted out (with the degree of spontaneity one would only expect from
someone speaking from his heart), that the semicircular defect I showed
you in F8 was "deep inside the cranium". When I told you that you were
100% correct, you then said that semicirclar defect that I had pointed out
in F8 was NOT the entry. When you wrote that, Fiorentino, who was lurking,
stepped in and said you were wrong--agreeing with me that it was the
entry.
So, .john, sorry to disappoint you but, you've been one of my best
witnesses that the entry was not in the cowlick...glad to have you aboard.
:-)
>>DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it...your B/S is proof of
>>that.
>>
>>>The Dox drawing in F-66 (below also) is slightly off on the gaping
>>>exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully
>>>intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
>>>just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
>>
>>But the scalp, as seen in the bOH photos, is in one piece just forward of
>>the entry...are you saying that's because the top/right/front really was
>>intact EVEN THOUGH ALL THAT BONE WAS BLASTED UT OF HIS HEAD IN THAT
>>AREA???????
>>
>
>Blasting bone out doesn't make scalp disappear. It tears it open.
Is your field Political Science or Forensic Pathology?
So where's the "tear" that you admit was there, .john?....that piece
they're holding up looks untorn to me.
>>>This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
>>>drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the
>>>WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while
>>>much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox
>>>drawings weren't even necessary at all.
>>
>>Ah ha, DVP's explanation is that perhaps McAdams' favorite drawing, HSCA,
>>F-66 is unreliable. LOL.
>>
>
>No, it's way more reliable than any wacky theory from somebody like
>you.
Ah ha, when cornered, he lashes out with near insults.
>>Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo (F-7 ?)in the
>>new thread I started. Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the
>>same area in the BOH photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped
>>up in the former and intact in the later. Thanks for your honesty on that.
>>
>>>The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
>>>needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood.
>>
>>If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't agree
>>with the Dox dwg....not even close?
>>
>
>Well . . . he can think what he wants, but I note that when you
>claimed to find an inshoot deep in the cranial cavity, you involed
>people like Chad on your side, but they in fact identified a
>*different* spot as the entry.
No, .john, not quite. Pardon me while I take a laugh break. Ok, I'm back.
Listen up please. Chad and I (and Sturdivan and Hunt) totally agree with
Baden et. al. that the semicircular defect in F8 is the entry...it's just
that he and Larry say it's about one inch above the EOP (Baden says it's
four inches above it) and Hunt and I say it's only "slightly" above it
(more specifically, according to my replications of F8--and Hunt's, I
believe--it's only about 3 mm above the EOP). That means we (Chad, I, Hunt
and Sturdivan) are less than an inch from agreeing--for me that's within a
reasonable margin of error....because they can't be 100% certain and
neither can Hunt and I. That said, we all are certain the entry was far
from the cowlick...and I promise you that Baden knew it too. He led a
bunch of you guys astray...I understand how you could have been duped,
though--you should have been able to trust him.
And I told you in a private email that one of the FPP members has some
serious doubts about the high entry. He won't go public with this for
obvious reasons, but I'm confident that if he ever had to testify, he'd
say the autopsists were spot on with the entry location. He seemed to
blame HIS mistake on a "lack of sharing of information among the panel
members".
>>>I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/
>>>outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that
>>>would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn
>>>artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO).
>>
>>[deleted a bunch of meaningless characters]
>>
>>>>>>"Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team AM &
>>>>>>DVP), Marsh...." <<<
>>
>>>Marsh is certainly no "teammate" of mine. I agree with him about 0.81%
>>>of the time (if that).
>>
>>But you two nicely agree on an important issue--you both say there was no
>>BOH wound and that dozens of witnesses, including Humes, were wrong about
>>what they said they saw as far as any damage to the BOH goes.
>>
>
>You are wrong in your interpretation of Humes.
If you had to write down everything Humes wrote or said that you thought
was true you could fit it in this space__....or is that too big?
John Canal
John Canal
>wrote:
>
>>In article <d22be4f6-ca6e-4879...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>David Von Pein says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>"Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252], and
>>>>>>specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was blasted
>>>>>>into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's, Posner's, VB's
>>>>>>and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little past the coronal
>>>>>>suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear
>>>>>>to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????" <<<
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE
>>
>>Nice try..., but it expresses what the HSCA gleened from the real
>>evidence....and McAdams has always been impressed by that drawing.
>>
>
>It's the best *interpretation* of the evidence available.
>
>And it's also, with a couple of trivial exceptions, consistent with
>the actual evidence.
Well, I'm not the one who just suggested the Dox dwg was pretty much
worthless (that was Von Pein)...although I do think it's a Hell of lot
more inaccurate than you do.
>>>.....the
>>>autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
>>>BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem-- confirm this fact:
>>>
>>>There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
>>
>>You're paranoia is showing---I asked you to compare the area just barely
>>forward of Baden's entry in the Dox drawing to that same area in the BOH
>>photo...did I mention the BOH?
>>
>
>John, when the bone blew out anterior to the cowlick entry wound, >it
We almost agree--I say it blew out anterior to where Baden, you and
several others "think" the entry was.
>tore open the scalp, but it didn't make the scalp in that area
>disappear.
Interesting, .john. Not that you believe much, if any of what Humes wrote
in the AR or said in his WC testimony, but he did say the scalp and bone
were pretty much absent in that area (the large defect--the location of we
pretty much agree on). Now, I think he may have exaggerated a bit (can't
be sure) when he said the scalp was "missing" in that area, but the scalp
"must" have been badly torn at least with "SOME" missing.
>But blew it back, and the BOH photos shows a blown-back piece of scalp
>held up to highlight the entry wound.
I can see you're not backing off...Humes' description of the scalp in the
area of the large defect doesn't even remotely resemble the scalp in the
BOH photos. That's my position and, I'll bet, if you ask your students
when classes are back in session, they'll agree with me...suggesting some
repair was done to the scalp there pre-BOH photos.
>Do you deny that that's the entry wound in the cowlock area?
Why are we going there? Ok, I'll bite---of course I do...in fact you
helped me win my argument here that it was NOT in the cowlick, when you
blurted out (with the degree of spontaneity one would only expect from
someone speaking from his heart), that the semicircular defect I showed
you in F8 was "deep inside the cranium". When I told you that you were
100% correct, you then said that semicirclar defect that I had pointed out
in F8 was NOT the entry. When you wrote that, Fiorentino, who was lurking,
stepped in and said you were wrong--agreeing with me that it was the
entry.
So, .john, sorry to disappoint you but, you've been one of my best
witnesses that the entry was not in the cowlick...glad to have you aboard.
:-)
>>DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it...your B/S is proof of
>>that.
>>
>>>The Dox drawing in F-66 (below also) is slightly off on the gaping
>>>exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully
>>>intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
>>>just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
>>
>>But the scalp, as seen in the bOH photos, is in one piece just forward of
>>the entry...are you saying that's because the top/right/front really was
>>intact EVEN THOUGH ALL THAT BONE WAS BLASTED UT OF HIS HEAD IN THAT
>>AREA???????
>>
>
>Blasting bone out doesn't make scalp disappear. It tears it open.
Is your field Political Science or Forensic Pathology?
So where's the "tear" that you admit was there, .john?....that piece
they're holding up looks untorn to me.
>>>This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
>>>drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the
>>>WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while
>>>much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox
>>>drawings weren't even necessary at all.
>>
>>Ah ha, DVP's explanation is that perhaps McAdams' favorite drawing, HSCA,
>>F-66 is unreliable. LOL.
>>
>
>No, it's way more reliable than any wacky theory from somebody like
>you.
Ah ha, when cornered, he lashes out with near insults.
>>Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo (F-7 ?)in the
>>new thread I started. Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the
>>same area in the BOH photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped
>>up in the former and intact in the later. Thanks for your honesty on that.
>>
>>>The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
>>>needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood.
>>
>>If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't agree
>>with the Dox dwg....not even close?
>>
>
>Well . . . he can think what he wants, but I note that when you
>claimed to find an inshoot deep in the cranial cavity, you involed
>people like Chad on your side, but they in fact identified a
>*different* spot as the entry.
No, .john, not quite. Pardon me while I take a laugh break. Ok, I'm back. Listen
up please. Chad and I (and Sturdivan and Hunt) totally agree with Baden et. al.
that the semicircular defect in F8 is the entry...it's just that he and Larry
say it's about one inch above the EOP (Baden says it's four inches above it) and
Hunt and I say it's only "slightly" above it (more specifically, according to my
replications of F8--and Hunt's, I believe--it's only about 3 mm above the EOP).
That means we (Chad, I, Hunt and Sturdivan) are less than an inch from
agreeing--for me that's within a reasonable margin of error....because they
can't be 100% certain and neither can Hunt and I. That said, we all are certain
the entry was far from the cowlick...and I promise you that Baden knew it too.
He led a bunch of you guys astray...I understand how you could have been duped,
though--you should have been able to trust him.
And I told you in a private email that one of the FPP members has some serious
doubts about the high entry. He won't go public with this for obvious reasons,
but I'm confident that if he ever had to testify, he'd say the autopsists were
spot on with the entry location. He seemed to blame HIS mistake on a "lack of
sharing of information among the panel members".
>>>I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/
>>>outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that
>>>would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn
>>>artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO).
>>
>>[deleted a bunch of meaningless characters]
>>
>>>>>>"Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team AM &
>>>>>>DVP), Marsh...." <<<
>>
>>>Marsh is certainly no "teammate" of mine. I agree with him about 0.81%
>>>of the time (if that).
>>
>>But you two nicely agree on an important issue--you both say there was no
>>BOH wound and that dozens of witnesses, including Humes, were wrong about
>>what they said they saw as far as any damage to the BOH goes.
>>
>
>You are wrong in your interpretation of Humes.
If you had to write down everything Humes wrote or said that you thought was
true you could fit it in this space__....or is that too big?
John Canal
>.John
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Nice try." <<<
Thanks.
>>> "DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it?" <<<
You would probably know the answer to that question better than I.
>>> "Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo. ....
Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the same area in the BOH
photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped up in the former and
intact in the lat[t]er. Thanks for your honesty on that." <<<
You think that the two photos below are depicting the exact same area of
President Kennedy's head, eh? That's a curious notion.
Plus: the top-of-the-photo obviously depicts the head in a completely-
different "state" than does the BOH color photo (which has an autopsist
holding JFK's scalp in place so that John Stringer could photograph the
entry wound in the BOH). The top-of-head photo doesn't have anyone holding
the scalp of the President, and gravity is obviously playing a major part
in what we're seeing in that picture (just as gravity also MUST have
played a major part in what the Parkland witnesses erroneously thought
they were seeing with respect to the location of the large exit wound in
JFK's cranium while he was in the Parkland ER):
http://jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE6_HI.JPG
In short, those two photos linked above don't provide the information that
you need to make this broad determination that you made a minute ago (one
that you seem to consider to be an ironclad fact):
"Explain why the scalp there is ripped up in the former [autopsy
photo] and intact in the latter. Thanks for your honesty on that." <<<
>>> "If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't
agree with the Dox drawing....not even close?" <<<
Where did I say that I think the Dox illustration is "not even close"? To
the contrary, I specifically said this in my prior post:
"The Dox drawing in F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound."
Key words there being: "slightly off".
And as an addendum to this post, I think that the following two comments
fit together fairly nicely. But your mileage, John, might vary on that (as
usual):
======================================
"The Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE -- the autopsy pictures,
the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the BEST EVIDENCE. .... The
Dox drawing in F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound....quite
obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully intact (i.e., not
blasted completely away) in the area of the head just a little forward and
right of the cowlick entry wound. This just proves that it's silly to rely
too heavily on only the drawings, [...] which only serve to confuse more
than clarify. And Dox's, while much better than Rydberg's, are still off a
little." -- David Von Pein
~~~~~~
"When the bone blew out anterior to the cowlick entry wound, it tore
open the scalp, but it didn't make the scalp in that area disappear. But
blew it back, and the BOH photo shows a blown-back piece of scalp held up
to highlight the entry wound." -- John McAdams
======================================
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
======================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>>>> "Nice try." <<<
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>>>> "DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it?" <<<
>
>
>
>You would probably know the answer to that question better than I.
>
>
>>>> "Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo. ....
>Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the same area in the BOH
>photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped up in the former and
>intact in the lat[t]er. Thanks for your honesty on that." <<<
>
>
>You think that the two photos below are depicting the exact same area of
>President Kennedy's head, eh? That's a curious notion.
Are you denying that the scalp in the area just barely forward of where you
think the entry was is shown in both photos? Not even some of it?
Can you not see then that at least some of the scalp that is untorn in the BOH
photos is obviously torn in the top of the head photo?
Can you see the difference in the condition of the scalp from one photo to the
other?
Can you see period?
>Plus: the top-of-the-photo obviously depicts the head in a completely-
>different "state" than does the BOH color photo (which has an autopsist
>holding JFK's scalp in place so that John Stringer could photograph the
>entry wound in the BOH). The top-of-head photo doesn't have anyone holding
>the scalp of the President, and gravity
Huh? Are you saying "gravity" is part of the reason a torn scalp is shown in the
top of the head photo but an untorn scalp is shown in the BOH potos? Now that's
what I call a "curous" deduction.
>is obviously playing a major part
>in what we're seeing in that picture (just as gravity also MUST have
>played a major part in what the Parkland witnesses erroneously thought
>they were seeing with respect to the location of the large exit wound in
>JFK's cranium while he was in the Parkland ER):
You keep implying that it was just the PH docs who said they saw a BOH wound.
Are you aflicted with Alzheimer's? How many times have you been reminded that
several Bethesda witnesses said they saw a BOH wound as well? Evidently you've
forgotten how many times.
>In short, those two photos linked above don't provide the information that
>you need to make this broad determination that you made a minute ago (one
>that you seem to consider to be an ironclad fact):
>
> "Explain why the scalp there is ripped up in the former [autopsy
>photo] and intact in the latter. Thanks for your honesty on that." >
>>>> "If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't
>agree with the Dox drawing....not even close?" <<<
>
>
>Where did I say that I think the Dox illustration is "not even close"? To
>the contrary, I specifically said this in my prior post:
>
> "The Dox drawing in F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound."
>
>Key words there being: "slightly off".
Did you not say that you didn't understand why they used such a drawing...or
something close to that?
>And as an addendum to this post, I think that the following two comments
>fit together fairly nicely. But your mileage, John, might vary on that (as
>usual):
> "The Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE -- the autopsy pictures,
>the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the BEST EVIDENCE. .... The
>Dox drawing in F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound....quite
>obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully intact (i.e., not
>blasted completely away) in the area of the head just a little forward and
>right of the cowlick entry wound. This just proves that it's silly to rely
>too heavily on only the drawings, [...] which only serve to confuse more
>than clarify. And Dox's, while much better than Rydberg's, are still off a
>little." -- David Von Pein
> "When the bone blew out anterior to the cowlick entry wound, it tore
>open the scalp, but it didn't make the scalp in that area disappear. But
>blew it back, and the BOH photo shows a blown-back piece of scalp held up
>to highlight the entry wound." -- John McAdams
See if I've got this right. You are now onboard with .john with the notion that
all that top/front/right bone blasted out of his head only pushing the scalp out
of the way as it left his head? IOW the bone left his head leaving a flap of
untorn scalp behind...that they held back in place for the BOH photos.
Please please verify that I've understood you two correctly with that
statement--if I've got it wrong please make the necessary corrections as I want
to print the statement out and refer to it as necessary in the future.
Thanks.
John Canal
David Von Pein
John Canal,
Point out the specific "scalp tears" in this picture that you feel aid
your incredible theory about JFK's head:
http://jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE6_HI.JPG
>>> "Several Bethesda witnesses said they saw a BOH wound as well?" <<<
They were obviously wrong, too.
Why?
Here's why (double the "No Large BOH Wound" proof):