For David VP, with a question for Chad, re. when the BOH photos were taken
John Canal
You asked earlier, more or less, why I thought the BOH photos were taken
after the brain was removed. I answered in that other thread, but was kind
of on the run. This should be a better answer.
Chad, hopefully you'll provide your opinion on this issue, if you've got
time.
Here are my reasons for opining that way:
1. The scalp is obviously being held up in the BOH photos and that is,
IMO, very telling re. this issue. It's important to accept that it's [the
scalp] being held up because it had been reflected....which leads us to
the steps taken to remove the brain, which are, basically, 1) reflect the
scalp, 2) saw or remove whatever amount of the skull necessary to access
the brain, and, 3) lastly, remove the brain.
IMO, it would have made little sense for them to accomplish step one and
then stop for photos...before proceding to step two. However, it makes
good sense, IMO, that they would have completed all three steps and then,
after securing the brain for a later exam, take the BOH photos....which
would have required holding the scalp up.
2. Boswell testified under oath that the bone was missing behind the scalp
all the way down to the base of the ear....and that's consistent with the
above scenario.
3. If you look closely at the uncropped copies of the BOH photo, near the
autopsist's thumb, you can see an empty space to the inside of the skull
there. IMO, that means the brain was out when the photos were taken
4. Here's J. Hunt, who, IMO, knows the medical evidence, down to the
minutest detail, as well as anyone in a post on March 28, 2005:
<Hunt on>
John, in the less cropped version, you can see the scalp fold over the
bone edge. That photo proves that bone was missing low in the head.
<Hunt off>
5. Here's P. Seaton in an email to me (when he was still talking to me):
<Seaton on>
...in fact all the back & boh piks were (IMHO) taken at more or less the
same time. After the brain was out.
<Seaton off>
There you go...this stuff is a little like golf....you usually get more
opinions than you want or need.
:-)
John Canal
David Von Pein
Question --- Why do you think Dr. Boswell was so willing to come forward
with such shocking information about rear skull fragments in 1996....after
having remained dead-silent on this issue for 33 years?
And seeing as how Boswell (per your theory) knew full well that what he
was saying to the ARRB panel in '96 would be pounced on by people after
the transcripts were released, why (under these "I'll Now Tell The Truth"
type of circumstances) didn't Boswell fully reveal to the ARRB something
along these lines....
"Yes, gentlemen, we screwed up at Bethesda in '63. We were very worried
about WW3 and all that, and we were concerned that a big wound in the BOH
would set off alarm bells, even though we KNEW there was just ONE entry
hole in JFK's head, and that entry wound was positively in the back of the
head. So I'd like to fully clear up the issue now by stating that we DID
see a larger BOH wound and replaced some fragments in the BACK of the
President's head."
WHY, in other words, would Boswell elect to say stuff ON THE RECORD that
(per your interpretation) would easily show the autopsy team to be either
outright liars or (at least) "misrepresenters" of the facts in some
fashion...and yet still Boswell elects to NOT say something DEFINITIVE in
nature like my simulated paragraph above, which would have cleared up the
whole matter once and for all?
Instead, Boswell (per your interpretation) elects to muddy stuff up even
more and add to the overall confusion by saying some things about BOH
skull pieces, but not saying anything of a definitive nature in
conjunction with this amazing "BOH" revelation in order to thoroughly to
clean the skirts of himself, Humes, and Finck.
I just am trying to figure out WHY he would go HALF-ASSED into presenting
the truth 33 years later?
Any ideas as to why Dr. Boswell decided to take the half-baked, half-
assed, and non-definitive route in 1996?
Thank you.
DVP
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>To John Canal,
>
>Question --- Why do you think Dr. Boswell was so willing to come forward
>with such shocking information about rear skull fragments in 1996....after
>having remained dead-silent on this issue for 33 years?
>
>And seeing as how Boswell (per your theory) knew full well that what he
>was saying to the ARRB panel in '96 would be pounced on by people after
>the transcripts were released, why (under these "I'll Now Tell The Truth"
>type of circumstances) didn't Boswell fully reveal to the ARRB something
>along these lines....
>
>"Yes, gentlemen, we screwed up at Bethesda in '63. We were very worried
>about WW3 and all that, and we were concerned that a big wound in the BOH
>would set off alarm bells, even though we KNEW there was just ONE entry
>hole in JFK's head, and that entry wound was positively in the back of the
>head. So I'd like to fully clear up the issue now by stating that we DID
>see a larger BOH wound and replaced some fragments in the BACK of the
>President's head."
Well, you asked for my opinion...so that's what you'll get....FWIW.
"We were worried about WW3, etc...." ***MAY*** have been the truth, but
admitting that, even some 33 years later, would amount to suggestions that
he, Humes, Finck, and undoubtedly some superiors broke the law.
I talked to him right after I wrote my book. I think the guy wanted to get
all this off his chest, but, like I said, didn't want to be a "rat", so to
speak.
Therefore, 33 years after the fact, he subtly says these things, e.g. he
replaced rear pieces of skull before the x-rays, there's no bone behind
the scalp in the BOH photos, the piece of bone I drew on my face sheet
with the little half circle in it represented a piece of the skull that
fell out when we reflected the scalp, etc., like they were no big
deal...perhaps hoping that no one would connect the dots...and that they
wouldn't lead to anyone being accused of covering up a portion of an
investigation....even if that cover-up was thought to be in the best
interests of the nation at the time it was effected.
Note that, IMHO, it was not nly what they said or didn't say that was part
of all this. As I said before, logic demanded that they take a photo of
the BOH from the rear with the scalp reflected...they didn't....not to
mention one of the BOH when the body was first received....none there
either.
>WHY, in other words, would Boswell elect to say stuff ON THE RECORD that
>(per your interpretation) would easily show the autopsy team to be either
>outright liars or (at least) "misrepresenters" of the facts in some
>fashion...and yet still Boswell elects to NOT say something DEFINITIVE in
>nature like my simulated paragraph above, which would have cleared up the
>whole matter once and for all?
To definitively, in effect, say something that would place a cloud of
conspiracy (even if it was a mini-one, and one that was well intended)
over his colleagues, especially those who were dead, would be something I
don't think, after talking with the man, he could stomach....and I don't
blame him.
>Instead, Boswell (per your interpretation) elects to muddy stuff up even
>more and add to the overall confusion by saying some things about BOH
>skull pieces, but not saying anything of a definitive nature in
>conjunction with this amazing "BOH" revelation in order to thoroughly to
>clean the skirts of himself, Humes, and Finck.
Why not...if it weren't for wierd, obsessed clowns like me (Barb's not
obsessed, she's just smart), maybe the truth about any shady deeds by him
and Humes would have gone unnoticed and he would still have gotten it off
his chest....mision accomplished.
>I just am trying to figure out WHY he would go HALF-ASSED into presenting
>the truth 33 years later?
I doubt if what I've said has shed any light on your wondering...but I'm
flatered that you asked.
>Any ideas as to why Dr. Boswell decided to take the half-baked, half-
>assed, and non-definitive route in 1996?
See above.
My pleasure.
John Canal
David Von Pein
eca...@tx.rr.com
the entry hole, there was a visible larger BOH wound."
CANAL:
"It wasn't "large" as compared to the top/right/front blow-
out wound. Rather it was most likely no bigger than a small
fist and perhaps as small as a quarter....no one can ever
be certain."
CANAL:
"And, turn that around, if there wasn't any BOH, in the face
of the alarming reports from Parkland, don't you think they
could have said there wasn't any BOH wound, other than the
entry...HOW FRICKIN MUCH TROUBLE WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?"
Mr Canal your now bruised ego over your LGBOH
wound and *planted* 6.5 mm both going kaput in
short order is causing you to seriously
downscale and back-pedal in a face-saving mode
rather than an objective mode.
Clearly your dream of the Discovery and
History Channels "taking a fresh look" at these
opinions/theories of yours has been snuffed out
forever in the space of just over a month.
Here's what got you into so much trouble.
Fact: Kennedy's head/skull was fractured like an
egg shell from a rear shot. (But we already knew
that) Next you have taken what appears to be a
legit piece of information that one of those egg-
shell type fracture pieces came loose and was
replaced.. So far so good.. THEN YOU MAKE A LEAP
of faith that Ebersole's eyewitness description
could not possibly be mistaken or misinterpreted
and you place his account ahead of 3 (three)
separate modes of photographic *proof* that
overlap and support each other! (Each was a series
btw) Here's one example:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
NOW YOU find yourself in the dubious position of
trying to parlay those first two legit points into
a LGBOH wound which the photographic evidence tells
us just didn't exist. Hence these semi-ridiculous
face-saving attempts to salvage something out of
your now dead by your own account, "LGBOH wound."
All in a mainly egotistical effort IMO by Barb and
you to save face and salvage something out of this.
*********************
"Once again, it wasn't really a "LBOH" wound."
- John Canal, April 14, 2007, 10:21pm
*********************
Ed Cage 0358Apr2707
NFL DRAFT IN 27 HOURS!!
On Apr 27, 12:01 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1177630525.275350.263...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> John Canal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1177630525.2...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> Pein says...
>> To John Canal,
>>
>> Question --- Why do you think Dr. Boswell was so willing to come forward
>> with such shocking information about rear skull fragments in 1996....after
>> having remained dead-silent on this issue for 33 years?
>>
>> And seeing as how Boswell (per your theory) knew full well that what he
>> was saying to the ARRB panel in '96 would be pounced on by people after
>> the transcripts were released, why (under these "I'll Now Tell The Truth"
>> type of circumstances) didn't Boswell fully reveal to the ARRB something
>> along these lines....
>>
>> "Yes, gentlemen, we screwed up at Bethesda in '63. We were very worried
>> about WW3 and all that, and we were concerned that a big wound in the BOH
>> would set off alarm bells, even though we KNEW there was just ONE entry
>> hole in JFK's head, and that entry wound was positively in the back of the
>> head. So I'd like to fully clear up the issue now by stating that we DID
>> see a larger BOH wound and replaced some fragments in the BACK of the
>> President's head."
>
> Well, you asked for my opinion...so that's what you'll get....FWIW.
>
> "We were worried about WW3, etc...." ***MAY*** have been the truth, but
> admitting that, even some 33 years later, would amount to suggestions that
> he, Humes, Finck, and undoubtedly some superiors broke the law.
>
an you explain which laws were broken and prove each example? The military
can do any damn thing they want. That's the definition of a military coup.
What the Hell is the point of killing the President if they then have to
follow some silly laws?
> I talked to him right after I wrote my book. I think the guy wanted to get
> all this off his chest, but, like I said, didn't want to be a "rat", so to
> speak.
>
No deathbed confessions?
> Therefore, 33 years after the fact, he subtly says these things, e.g. he
> replaced rear pieces of skull before the x-rays, there's no bone behind
> the scalp in the BOH photos, the piece of bone I drew on my face sheet
> with the little half circle in it represented a piece of the skull that
> fell out when we reflected the scalp, etc., like they were no big
> deal...perhaps hoping that no one would connect the dots...and that they
> wouldn't lead to anyone being accused of covering up a portion of an
> investigation....even if that cover-up was thought to be in the best
> interests of the nation at the time it was effected.
>
Hint, hint, nudge, nudge. Maybe he's trying to tell you under the table
that they knew it was a conspiracy all along.
> Note that, IMHO, it was not nly what they said or didn't say that was part
> of all this. As I said before, logic demanded that they take a photo of
> the BOH from the rear with the scalp reflected...they didn't....not to
> mention one of the BOH when the body was first received....none there
> either.
>
>> WHY, in other words, would Boswell elect to say stuff ON THE RECORD that
>> (per your interpretation) would easily show the autopsy team to be either
>> outright liars or (at least) "misrepresenters" of the facts in some
>> fashion...and yet still Boswell elects to NOT say something DEFINITIVE in
>> nature like my simulated paragraph above, which would have cleared up the
>> whole matter once and for all?
>
> To definitively, in effect, say something that would place a cloud of
> conspiracy (even if it was a mini-one, and one that was well intended)
> over his colleagues, especially those who were dead, would be something I
> don't think, after talking with the man, he could stomach....and I don't
> blame him.
>
Yes, the men who killed Kennedy did it for the good of the country,
because they knew JFK was dying of Addison's Disease. That is the theory
that came from Oswald's mother.
Anthony Marsh
> To John Canal,
>
> Question --- Why do you think Dr. Boswell was so willing to come forward
> with such shocking information about rear skull fragments in 1996....after
> having remained dead-silent on this issue for 33 years?
>
> And seeing as how Boswell (per your theory) knew full well that what he
> was saying to the ARRB panel in '96 would be pounced on by people after
> the transcripts were released, why (under these "I'll Now Tell The Truth"
> type of circumstances) didn't Boswell fully reveal to the ARRB something
> along these lines....
>
> "Yes, gentlemen, we screwed up at Bethesda in '63. We were very worried
> about WW3 and all that, and we were concerned that a big wound in the BOH
Strawman argument. They did not independently know anything about WWIII.
They simply obeyed military orders.