For DVP. 2nd try (edited)
John Canal
"The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
"huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses".
You can be wrong, David--we all are wrong sometimes-- but, while you must
not be an idiot, you ought not talk like one....if one PH witness said the
BOH wound was the size of a quarter and another said it was the size of an
orange....how the Hell can anyone simply say they agree with the PH
witnesses on the size of the BOH wound?
For your edification, there was NO photograph taken from the rear when the
body was first received at Betheda of the BOH (for reasons that are
evidently too complicated for you to understand), much less of the BOH
wound. Sooooo, all we have to go by on the size is witness
testimony..which, in turn means we can never be certain how big it was. To
the point, I didn't say it was "huge", so please don't misquote me
anymore...like someone misquoted me to VB. That said, I'm glad you (oops,
I meant to say, "they") did, because our telephone exchanges began because
of that misquote and are continuing (and are paying dividends).
The bottom line on the size is that it was probably somehere between the
size of a quarter and a small orange.
And for Marsh, who is certainly reading this, you call MY theory
wacky???????...when your theory requires that LHO (or any TSBD shooter,
for that matter, I guess) never hit JFK in the head, that he was hit from
the front by an explosive bullet..........and that all the pathologists
who said JFK was hit by one bullet in the BOH were wrong? What would be
more believable (than your theory) is if we discovered that, all along,
you've simply been trying to find out if there were any CTs and/or newbies
naive enough to buy what you're selling and that you really didn't believe
your theory yourself.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "If one PH witness said the BOH wound was the size of a quarter..." <<<
What PH witness ever said it was the size of a quarter?
And if there is such a "quarter"-sized witness, shouldn't that little
fact signal to you that there's a pretty good-sized discrepancy
between the people who were all in the same Parkland ER looking at the
same head of President Kennedy?
Let me guess----
You think it's okay to have a "size" discrepancy (and a huge "size"
discrepancy at that) amongst the Parkland witnesses who saw JFK's head
wound....but it's not okay to have a "location" discrepancy?
And, yes, even amongst the PH witnesses, there IS some discrepancy,
with not every witness placing the wound in the exact same location
(with Dulany, Peters, and Rike, in fact, placing the wound in a
virtually-impossible location, seeing as how they could not possibly
have seen that portion of JFK's head in the ER on 11/22/63):
www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
>>> "...because our [Canal's & Bugliosi's] telephone exchanges began because of that misquote and are continuing (and are paying dividends)." <<<
LOL.
So, you're well on your way to convincing Vince Bugliosi of your silly
"BOH/LN" theory, eh John?
If so, then I guess you've also convinced Vince (somehow) to totally
ignore this X-ray too; right, John?:
And you've also convinced Vince (somehow) that the brightly-lit
autopsy photo linked below is totally misleading, with JFK's seemingly-
totally-undamaged scalp REALLY being quite damaged (per your theory).
And the reason we can't see any stitches or any visible scalp damage
at all is due to some fancy John Canal double-talk. Isn't that right,
John?
BTW, I forgot what your double-talk consisted of when referring to
this picture below, John. Please let me know what double-talk you
served up for Vince Bugliosi to explain away the TOTALLY-UNDAMAGED
REAR SCALP of President Kennedy that is seen in this particular
photograph:
Anthony Marsh
Maybe you haven't been around long enough to see how my opinions have
changed. I once accepted the lie that there was a wound on the back of
the head and no wound in the front. Then I saw the autopsy photos for
myself and saw for myself that there is no wound on the back of the head
and there is a wound on the frontal bone.
> John Canal
>
>
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "If one PH witness said the BOH wound was the size of a quarter..." <<<
>
>What PH witness ever said it was the size of a quarter?
>
>
>And if there is such a "quarter"-sized witness, shouldn't that little
>fact signal to you that there's a pretty good-sized discrepancy
>between the people who were all in the same Parkland ER looking at the
>same head of President Kennedy?
>
>
>Let me guess----
>
>You think it's okay to have a "size" discrepancy (and a huge "size"
>discrepancy at that) amongst the Parkland witnesses who saw JFK's head
>wound....but it's not okay to have a "location" discrepancy?
VB would not be proud of silly reasoning like that. I'll try to make a very
simple, let's say at the third grade level, anology that should help you
understand that it's reasonable to conclude that witnesses can differ on the
specific description of something but unreasonable to conclude they can differ
on whether or not that something existed in a certain location. Ok, read for
comprehension, OK: Let's set the scene--a car speeds away from a bank right
after shots and screams are heard coming from the bank and a dozen witnesses
outside the bank are interviewed by the police. Are you with me, David, or are
you consulting RH? If so, bear with me--I know this is complicated--but I'm
almost through. OK, out of the dozen witnesses that were interviewed, three say
the car was a blue Chevy, two say it was a green Ford, three say they know it
was purple but didn't recognize the make, and the other four say it was
definitely a turquoise Buick. While the police are disappointed, they know the
car was speeding and are not too surprised that the witnesses differ
significantly on their description of the vehicle....BUT THE POLICE (WITH NO ONE
ON THE FORCE NAMED VON PEIN, THANK GOD) DON'T CONCLUDE
FOR A MILLISECOND THAT WITNESSES DIDN'T SEE A CAR SPEEDING AWAY FROM THE FRONT
OF THE BANK.
Do you get my point, David? No, that's ok...I don't need you to get it.
One more try to reach you. When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum
was severely lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C)
misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?
Just curious.
Mods, you've been cutting a lot of my posts lately, as difficult as it is to do
when replying to some of my many (perhaps everyone here?) critics, I'm really
really trying to not insult the intelligence of other posters....ACTUALLY, I'M
JUST JOKING WITH WHET I WROTE ABOVE...DAVID IS OBVIOUSLY AMONG THE BRIGHTEST WHO
POST HERE.
David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out.
:-)
John Canal
[....] editing out recycled worthless arguments.
John Canal
People with wacky theories like yours usually hestitate to spell it out...almost
as if they're afraid to totally unmask their ridiclous theory. A couple of
examples pop up quite handily, re. your comments above. First, you said you saw
"the autopsy photos", but you didn't tell us if they were the originals or first
generation copies, etc. We've been here before Anthony a few years ago and as I
recall you've never seen the originals....so how about clearing hat up for
us...honestly, now. Second, you said you saw "a wound on the frontal
bone".....but you didn't tell us if you disagreed with all the pathologists who
either said (mistakenly) it was an exit..or didn't mention it at all. Was that
just another case of not bothering to fill in important details re. your wacky
theory? IOW, why didn't you say, specifically, you saw what you (and maybe a
small handfull of other CTs on the planet) think is an ENTRANCE wound on the
frontal bone???????????? Ya, I agree, that sounds too wacky that way...it's
better that you just say wound, period, eh, Anthony?
LOL.
BTW, still re. your wacky theory, they found three spent shells in the SN, and
the LNs have accounted for all three--but with your theory, where did the third
bullet go if it didn't hit JFK in the BOH....another miss? Was it a blank? An
ice bullet that melted after hitting the limo? Oh, I've got you covered...it was
planted, right? You like that last one, don't you.
John Canal
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> "The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
> "huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses".
>
> You can be wrong, David--we all are wrong sometimes-- but, while you must
> not be an idiot, you ought not talk like one....if one PH witness said the
> BOH wound was the size of a quarter and another said it was the size of an
> orange....how the Hell can anyone simply say they agree with the PH
> witnesses on the size of the BOH wound?
The overwhelming consensus among the Parkland doctors and nurses was
that the BOH damage was massive.
Dr. Boswell confirmed exactly that, in his testimony before the ARRB,
and that damage is clearly visible in the Zapruder film.
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
You can learn about that damage, and read Boswell's statement in this
brief video John. Hopefully, this time you will study it carefully,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
That video will explain exactly why the autopsy photos seemed to
contradict the Parkland doctors and how Boswell and the other autopsists
managed to hide it from the cameras.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "If one PH witness said the BOH wound was the size of a quarter..."<<<
>
> What PH witness ever said it was the size of a quarter?
>
>
> And if there is such a "quarter"-sized witness, shouldn't that little
> fact signal to you that there's a pretty good-sized discrepancy
> between the people who were all in the same Parkland ER looking at the
> same head of President Kennedy?
>
>
> Let me guess----
>
> You think it's okay to have a "size" discrepancy (and a huge "size"
> discrepancy at that) amongst the Parkland witnesses who saw JFK's head
> wound....but it's not okay to have a "location" discrepancy?
>
> And, yes, even amongst the PH witnesses, there IS some discrepancy,
> with not every witness placing the wound in the exact same location
> (with Dulany, Peters, and Rike, in fact, placing the wound in a
> virtually-impossible location, seeing as how they could not possibly
> have seen that portion of JFK's head in the ER on 11/22/63):
>
>
Eyewitnesses are the most unreliable form of evidence. Never rely on
eyewitnesses.
> www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "...because our [Canal's& Bugliosi's] telephone exchanges began because of that misquote and are continuing (and are paying dividends)."<<<
John Canal
>That video will explain exactly why the autopsy photos seemed to
>contradict the Parkland doctors and how Boswell and the other autopsists
>managed to hide it from the cameras.
[...]
>Robert Harris
Not the brightest statement about the medial evidence from someone who's
positive just about everyone else is wrong about the shooting.
The autopsy photos don't contradict the testimony of the PH BOH witnesses
nor the testimony and/or statements of the Bethesda BOH
witnesses......because those photos (the ones showing the BOH) weren't
taken when the body was first received at Bethesda...if they had been then
there'd be a contradiction. I'd suggest you do some more homework, Robert,
instead of continuing to tell people to watch a video that you think is
slam-dunk proof there was a conspiracy....if it was that obvious you
wouldn't have 90% of the posters here telling you you're wrong. If it's
not 90%, sorry...that was just a don't-give-a-shit guess.
If you want another example of your sloppy research, I've got one for you.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C)
misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?" <<<
C.
Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:
QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
>>> "David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out." <<<
LOL. Why on this EARTH would Vince want to come out with a "sequel"
volume called "Reclaiming History 2"?
Such a volume being released with the moniker "Reclaiming History 2"
is utterly stupid, IMO. It would be like advertising that it was VB's
feeling that the first massive 2,800-page book was a failure (at least
to a large degree), requiring a second "RH" to be written and marketed
to replace the first. Such a "sequel" would be totally ridiculous and
unnecessary.
If there is a "re-release" of "RH" (not a "sequel", just a re-print
version of the original 2007 book and CD-ROM), a few of the small
number of errors and typos and inconsistencies might be corrected. In
fact, I've volunteered my services to Vince (through his secretary,
Rosemary Newton) in helping to proofread the entire book and CD, in
order to eliminate the minor mistakes that do exist in "RH" in case
just such a re-release version of the book does come to pass in the
future.
And Vince should eliminate the horrid contradiction that appears on
pages 423 and 424 for starters. That's by far the biggest error/
mistake in the whole book (IMO).
But correcting such errors (mostly typos and incorrect dates, etc.)
wouldn't require slapping a whole new sequel-like title on the book.
I'm pretty sure that re-prints of books are accomplished all the time
in such a manner, where small errors are corrected, but the book title
remains exactly the same.
Did you have a second printing of your 2000 book, "Silencing The Lone
Assassin", John C.? If so, were you allowed to correct any minor
errors that might have slipped through the cracks in the First
Edition?
Anyway, Vince B. certainly doesn't need to change a thing that he
wrote in "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the subject of JFK's
head wounds and the specific locations of those wounds. Vince has it
covered nicely in "RH", including ample discussion about the 4-inch
discrepancy that exists with respect to the precise location on the
back of JFK's head where Oswald's bullet entered.
That topic is thrashed out in a good deal of detail in "RH", with
Vince coming to the only reasonable and logical conclusion about the
true location of that entry wound -- i.e., the wound was located near
the cowlick area of President Kennedy's head.
Another question for John Canal: If the red spot near the cowlick
isn't the wound of entrance in this picture below, then why does
photographer John Stringer seemingly focus in on and CENTER his camera
on that red spot in the middle of this picture? If the red spot isn't
the thing being focused on the most by Stringer here, then WHAT WAS
Stringer focusing on the most in this photo? He surely wasn't focusing
on the white splotch near the BOTTOM of the picture, was he John?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>>>> "When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
>lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C)
>misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?" <<<
>
>
>C.
>
>Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
>Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:
>
>
>
>QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
>opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
>QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
>noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "No."
>
>QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
>were intact?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
Good job, David...glad to ee you're reading something besides RH. But
here's the thing: Humes testified that he saw that part of the cerebellum
severely lacerated less than four months after the assassination, and
Boswell testified he saw an intact cerebellum 33 years after the
fact......as far as evidentiary value goes, which testimony trumps which?
Seeing that you picked "C" above, I can answer my own question, re. the
evientiary value question. Here's a little tidbit, not that I think
everything Boswell said to the ARRB should be taken with a grain of salt,
but during two phone interviews I had with him in the early to
mid-nineties, his memory was slipping in and out--I thought at one point I
might need to remind him who the autopsy was on. Sad, but true.
>>>> "David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out." <<<
>
>
>LOL. Why on this EARTH would Vince want to come out with a "sequel"
>volume called "Reclaiming History 2"?
Perhaps because he listened to some of the wrong "authorities" re. his
take on the head wounds? Maybe there are other reasons, I don't know....In
any case, he confirmed he wanted to do that after you posted that his
secretary knew nothing about such a project.
>Such a volume being released with the moniker "Reclaiming History 2"
>is utterly stupid, IMO. It would be like advertising that it was VB's
>feeling that the first massive 2,800-page book was a failure (at least
>to a large degree), requiring a second "RH" to be written and marketed
>to replace the first. Such a "sequel" would be totally ridiculous and
>unnecessary.
Again, maybe he has more information to share?
>If there is a "re-release" of "RH" (not a "sequel", just a re-print
>version of the original 2007 book and CD-ROM), a few of the small
>number of errors and typos and inconsistencies might be corrected. In
>fact, I've volunteered my services to Vince (through his secretary,
>Rosemary Newton) in helping to proofread the entire book and CD, in
>order to eliminate the minor mistakes that do exist in "RH" in case
>just such a re-release version of the book does come to pass in the
>future.
>
>And Vince should eliminate the horrid contradiction that appears on
>pages 423 and 424 for starters. That's by far the biggest error/
>mistake in the whole book (IMO).
>
>But correcting such errors (mostly typos and incorrect dates, etc.)
>wouldn't require slapping a whole new sequel-like title on the book.
>I'm pretty sure that re-prints of books are accomplished all the time
>in such a manner, where small errors are corrected, but the book title
>remains exactly the same.
>
>Did you have a second printing of your 2000 book, "Silencing The Lone
>Assassin", John C.? If so, were you allowed to correct any minor
>errors that might have slipped through the cracks in the First
>Edition?
I'm too old...if I were younger, I do another and tell all I know about
how Baden et. al. decieved the American people, re. the head wounds.
>Anyway, Vince B. certainly doesn't need to change a thing that he
>wrote in "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the subject of JFK's
>head wounds and the specific locations of those wounds. Vince has it
>covered nicely in "RH", including ample discussion about the 4-inch
>discrepancy that exists with respect to the precise location on the
>back of JFK's head where Oswald's bullet entered.
>
>That topic is thrashed out in a good deal of detail in "RH", with
>Vince coming to the only reasonable and logical conclusion about the
>true location of that entry wound -- i.e., the wound was located near
>the cowlick area of President Kennedy's head.
Ask his secretary to ask VB for you if he's come into new information that
might change his take on, not only the entry, but whether or not a BOH
wound existed. Now, don't get it twisted...I'm not saying he's changed his
mind--I'm saying he's all ears re. the headwounds evidence I relayed to
him (and rightly so, he's an honest and terrific person and lawyer) and
wants to hear more when he gets this Bush project out of the way.
>Another question for John Canal: If the red spot near the cowlick
>isn't the wound of entrance in this picture below, then why does
>photographer John Stringer seemingly focus in on and CENTER his camera
>on that red spot in the middle of this picture?
You've asked this before. It ***is*** the entry and Stringer has the
camera pointed nicely right at it. Are we clear on that? But since you
brought up that red spot, let me ask you a question about it. First, are
you familiar with the Dox drawing, F-66? If not, turn to 1HSCA, p. 252.
Ok, look at the entry in the drawing and note that just a cm or two
forward of that entry is the posterior margin of the great defect, which
extends into the frontal bone...se it? Good. Now go back to your photo
with the red spot and look a cm or two forward of that red spot...what do
you see, David? Unless, you're lost, you should see perectly intact hair
from near the red spot all the way forward several inches. So, David, what
gives? Perhaps you can see why Humes said he was confused when they shoved
that photo in his face and asked him to point out the entry? In any event,
I could try to explain it to you but don't think it'd be worth the effort.
VB is interested in stuff like that, though.
>If the red spot isn't
>the thing being focused on the most by Stringer here, then WHAT WAS
>Stringer focusing on the most in this photo? He surely wasn't focusing
>on the white splotch near the BOTTOM of the picture, was he John?:
Duh, no David! You mean that white piece of whatever near the hairline
that the autopsy docs got confused with the entry? Note that Humes even
said he was confused when they asked him to point out the entry in that
photo. Note also that Humes later cleared up that confusion up in a letter
specifically and almost entirely about the entry.
And you keep inferring that it was the PH docs who were mistaken about
seeing a BOH wound...now hear this, David...several Bethesda witnesses
also said they saw a BOH wound. If you're going to discuss these issues
like you were an expert on the medical ev., at least be aware of important
facts like that.
John Canal
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >That video will explain exactly why the autopsy photos seemed to
> >contradict the Parkland doctors and how Boswell and the other autopsists
> >managed to hide it from the cameras.
>
> [...]
>
> >Robert Harris
>
> Not the brightest statement about the medial evidence from someone who's
> positive just about everyone else is wrong about the shooting.
Statements are not "bright" or stupid John. People are.
And as you know all too well, I agree with LNers on more particular
issues than I do with conspiracy people.
>
> The autopsy photos don't contradict the testimony of the PH BOH witnesses
You are absolutely wrong about that, John.
The Parkland doctors and nurses who stated an opinion about the BOH
damage were nearly unanimous in confirming that it existed, which was in
direct contradiction to most of the autopsy photos.
But the photos were taken after the scalp, hair and attached pieces of
skull were folded back over the damaged area. This is how Boswell
described the damage, as he was discussing the photo in which we can see
his hand pulling the scalp to hold it in place,
"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from
the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably
reflect that."
The ARRB were stunned by his admission, and Gunn asked him to confirm
what he said,
Q. Dr. Boswell, I'm sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure
that the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this,
and I want you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to
say first that the diagram that we're talking about is a drawing of the
skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?
A. Yes.
MR. GUNN: I'd like to ask the reporter if he could read back Dr.
Boswell's last answer with regard to the transiting and the direction.
When you hear this, I would like you to think if this is what you meant
to say. I may have heard it differently from what you said, and I just
want to make sure we're all on the same page.
[The pertinent portion of the record, as recorded, was read by the
reporter.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer
read back. was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left
posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal
area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed
from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp
actually虐calp missing.
(unquote)
What we see in frames 335 and 337 John, is the same damage that Boswell
described, but with that massive wound laid open. This blowup from the
Zapruder film makes that very clear,
http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
When the second headshot was fired, it blew that large piece of skull at
the top of the head, to the rear, although it remained suspended in the
scalp as Boswell said.
It flipped backward with enough force to rip out scalp and hair in the
upper-superior part of the head, causing much of it to fold back over
the broken skull, and covering part of what had been the inner surface.
You can confirm that in the following video, whose link you always
delete:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
John C.,
Who is the PH witness who said the BOH wound was the size of a
"quarter"?
Grossman
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>John C.,
>
>Who is the PH witness who said the BOH wound was the size of a
>"quarter"?
Grossman....during a Nov., 2003 interview w/Larry King. There was one more, as I
recall, but I'm not going to sift through the statements and testimonies of all
the PH and Bethesda BOH wound witnesses to find out who the other one was...if
my recollection is accurate and there was another one.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<f7f65b8b-ba73-46d0...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>>>> "When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
>> lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C)
>> misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?"<<<
>>
>>
>> C.
>>
>> Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
>> Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:
>>
>>
>>
>> QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
>> opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>>
>> QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
>> noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "No."
>>
>> QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
>> were intact?"
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
>
> Good job, David...glad to ee you're reading something besides RH. But
> here's the thing: Humes testified that he saw that part of the cerebellum
> severely lacerated less than four months after the assassination, and
> Boswell testified he saw an intact cerebellum 33 years after the
> fact......as far as evidentiary value goes, which testimony trumps which?
The photographic evidence trumps testimony. Never rely on testimony.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe there is something wrong with your newsreader program. I
specifically explained several times that I saw the original Fox set. Do
you know what that is?
> generation copies, etc. We've been here before Anthony a few years ago and as I
> recall you've never seen the originals....so how about clearing hat up for
> us...honestly, now. Second, you said you saw "a wound on the frontal
> bone".....but you didn't tell us if you disagreed with all the pathologists who
> either said (mistakenly) it was an exit..or didn't mention it at all. Was that
I specifically said that the pathologists are wrong and they based their
opinion on the prevailing state of knowledge at the time which said that
external beveling indicates an exit wound. YOU won't even admit it is an
exit wound so I guess you disagree with them also. Since then we have
learned that external beveling occurs on entrance wounds as well.
> just another case of not bothering to fill in important details re. your wacky
> theory? IOW, why didn't you say, specifically, you saw what you (and maybe a
> small handfull of other CTs on the planet) think is an ENTRANCE wound on the
Who else thinks it is an entrance wound? Who? Give me the names right
now. Or admit that you are making up crap again.
> frontal bone???????????? Ya, I agree, that sounds too wacky that way...it's
> better that you just say wound, period, eh, Anthony?
>
YOU won't even say wound. You ignore the fact that Dr. Lawrence Angel
called it an exit wound.
> LOL.
>
> BTW, still re. your wacky theory, they found three spent shells in the SN, and
> the LNs have accounted for all three--but with your theory, where did the third
> bullet go if it didn't hit JFK in the BOH....another miss? Was it a blank? An
My articles on my Web site cover this and I have discussed it here before.
I believe the grassy knoll shot hit JFK's forehead and the last shot from
the TSBD hit Connally's wrist, broke up into several pieces, one of which
hit the chrome topping and landed in the front seat.
> ice bullet that melted after hitting the limo? Oh, I've got you covered...it was
> planted, right? You like that last one, don't you.
>
It was the FBI who speculated about an ice bullet. I never have. Go make
fun of the FBI.
Show me the bullet which YOU think missed. Prove what it hit and where it
went.
John Canal for an anonymous lurker
time to time sent me his opinions re. whether or not a BOH wound existed. We
disagree on some things and agree on others.
<Quote on>
If you would be so inclined, how about posting this for an anonymous lurker on
the recent 'correction to DVP' thread?
........................
I've watched Canal's recent attempts the past week to communicate with DVP. It
causes me to contemplate that there are some persons on the alt.assassination
who are intellectually sharp ... although one may strongly disagree with their
interpretation of data, when one has finished watching their debates, one still
has the feeling 'that was a stimulating intellectual exercise that helped
clarify thinking.' I relish reading the debates involving such persons,
including Mr. Canal, with whom I note I do not agree on all of his data
interpretations.
Then there are persons such as DVP, where I cannot find that he adds a fresh
intellect to the debates. If one follows these alt.assassination discussions
back for the last several years, what DVP does for the various medical evidence
aspects is periodically parrot as a broken record his same debate lines, each
time with the (feigned?) zeal of it being a first time 'gotcha' ace. For
example, I checked/confirmed that several times now in the past DVP has linked
to a darkened version of the color BOH photo and challenged Canal "so Mr. Canal,
just what is that red spot on the cowlick if you don't think it is the entry
point?" Each time, Canal has replied to DVP that DVP has wrongly quoted Canal,
that actually Canal AGREES th at the red spot is the entry point, and each time
Canal reminds DVP that DVP already posed that question and Canal has already
described to that Canal DOES AGREE. Yet, this week, DVP did it AGAIN ... he
posed exactly the SAME 'gotcha' question to Canal AGAIN --- with no
acknowledgement that he ever previously asked it and was previously corrected by
Canal that Canal agrees with him that it is the entry point!
When DVP does this periodic ‘so what is the red spot Mr. Canal?’ then, on that
(and similar medical evidence situations), I do not detect intellectual rigor
coming from DVP into the discussion.
<Quote off>
John Canal
David Von Pein
I sure don't see how John Canal can possibly think that the red spot
on JFK's head (which is certainly located at the "cowlick" area) is
the entry wound, when the same Mr. Canal has insisted that the entry
wound was much lower on JFK's head...not HIGH on the head near the
cowlick.
And I cannot really see how the LOOSENESS of JFK's scalp can be used
as an explanation for a LOW wound to appear as a HIGH/COWLICK one in
this autopsy photo:
Because even with some small amount of scalp displacement at the time
when John Stringer took the above photograph, the COWLICK is still the
COWLICK (right?) -- i.e., the red spot (the bullet hole) is STILL in
the exact area of the COWLICK, even on a slightly-DISPLACED scalp.
Therefore, the entry hole IS at the "COWLICK" area of John Kennedy's
head. Period.
For John Canal to look at the above autopsy photograph and come away
with the following two conclusions (in tandem with one another) is
simply something that I can't figure out for the life of me:
1.) The red spot in the autopsy photo does, indeed, represent the
entry hole for the bullet that hit JFK in the head.
And:
2.) The entry hole in the back of JFK's head was located LOW on the
head ("near the EOP"), and was not located where the HSCA determined
the entry wound was actually located, which was at the cowlick area of
the head.
"The replications of F8 by myself, Sturdivan, Hunt, and Seaton
scientifically prove the entry was near the EOP. .... If the entry had
been in the cowlick, when F8 was taken, the entire entry would have
been on the table with the pieces of bone that fell out." -- John
Canal; 11/30/08 (original post below)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b0fc5a14bc46a980
I guess only John Canal (and possibly a few others) can see how the above
two conclusions can co-exist in perfect harmony when discussing the
location of the entry wound in the back of John F. Kennedy's head.
~shrug~
David Von Pein
"Red Spot" Addendum.......
John Canal,
If I've repeated myself numerous times (as your "anonymous lurker"
suggests I have), I apologize for that. But I honestly cannot recall
having discussed the "red spot" topic in the past in our forum exchanges.
We normally are talking about the "Large BOH" matter.
In fact, I've searched through my own saved archived posts (which I link
to my JFK Blog), and I could not find any post where we discussed the "red
spot" at all. (Now, there might very well be some posts of this nature
dating back a couple of years, but my search tonight revealed none that I
have saved for placement on my blog.)
If you (or your e-mail "lurker") could point me to some of those pre-2009
"red spot" posts, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to see how those threads
played themselves out -- because, honestly, I simply cannot recall them.
I guess my memory could be failing me. But, gee, I'm only 47! Heaven help
me when I'm Mr. Canal's age! (Sorry, John. I couldn't resist. No offense.)
;)
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
Your youth explains a lot.
You've asked me about the red spot at least twice, but I don't care enough about
this matter to look through the archived posts for proof you did. Maybe the
anonymous lurker will look. If you don't mind, though, don't ask me again.
>Heaven help
It doesn't matter where you get your help from--whatever works for you.
IMO,...VB seems to be reaching out...and obviously has a great deal of wisdom
that some others could use more of....no names mentioned.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>I sure don't see how John Canal can possibly think that the red spot
>on JFK's head (which is certainly located at the "cowlick" area) is
>the entry wound, when the same Mr. Canal has insisted that the entry
>wound was much lower on JFK's head...not HIGH on the head near the
>cowlick.
Brian Kelleher (sp?) who used to post here quite often and was obsessed with the
entry location issue, once recreated the photo you post ad nauseam (BTW, can you
just say the BOH photo--we all know it well--instead of posting the link) and
concluded that the red spot is not as high up on the BOH as it appears on first
glance in the photo (he said the red spot was actually about half way between
the EOP and cowlick. Call it disortion, camera angle or whatever--I don't know
why....but that's what he claimed. Anyway, I was skeptical, because it sure
looks as if the red spot is in the cowlick or about four inches above the EOP to
me.
But my skepticism waned a bit when Barb J. sent me a copy of an article she
wrote documenting a demonstration she performed at home using her husband or son
(I forget, sorry, Barb) as a stand-in. She put a dot on the BOH at the level of
the EOP of her stand-in and photographed it so that her photo supported the
conclusion that the red spot in the BOH photos was actually much much lower than
the cowlick....almost at the level of the EOP!
>And I cannot really see how the LOOSENESS of JFK's scalp can be used
>as an explanation for a LOW wound to appear as a HIGH/COWLICK one in
>this autopsy photo:
[...]
Do you keep posting the link to the BOH photo just to be annoying? If that's
your reason, you're achieving your goal.
>Because even with some small amount of scalp displacement at the time
>when John Stringer took the above photograph, the COWLICK is still the
>COWLICK (right?) -- i.e., the red spot (the bullet hole) is STILL in
>the exact area of the COWLICK, even on a slightly-DISPLACED scalp.
>Therefore, the entry hole IS at the "COWLICK" area of John Kennedy's
>head. Period.
First, if Kelleher's replication was reasonably accurate or Barb's demonstration
was even close, the scalp would not have to be displaced near as much as you
think....or Baden et. al. would like to think. Now, let's say Kellerher was
close and the red spot is actually only about two inches above the
EOP.....considering that we know for certain that the scalp is displaced about
one inch too far to the left (just abut everyone agrees with that), perhaps it's
not too much of a leap to think the scalp has been displaced two inches
vertically?
But here's an explanation that, while I and the anonymous lurker (and I think
Barb is open to this as well) believe is the most plausible, you won't like one
bit. We believe the photo was taken just prior to the body being turned over to
the morticians, and by that time a laceration had been closed in the BOH
scalp...and not only the morticians but Humes spoke of stretching an undermining
the scalp so that it almost covered the holes. Tom Robinson's statements are
revealing--he said that not too long before the body was turned over to them
[the morticians] the body was cleaned up and photos were taken! And that begs
the question, "What photos?" The answer that makes the best sense is that the
photos showing the BOH were taken then. Now, also keep in mind that the
morticians said they saw an orange-sized hole in the BOH (undoubtedly, when the
body was first received--they said they were there then)....the same description
as many of the dozens of other BOH wound witnesses. Were they lying? If so, why?
Did they misremember? If so, why does their story help explain all this madness
over whether or not there was a BOH wound so well?
I'm about to give up trying to debate this with you because I feel I'm making
headway doing that with, not only VB, but also one of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel members...and they really count.
That said, try real hard to understand the significance of why Humes innocuously
and cleverly switched out the words, "falx cerebri" in the autopsy report with
the words, "flocculus cerebri" [the flocculus is part of the cerebellum] in his
testimony to the Warren Commission. The only logical reason that it could be is
that during the four months between the autopsy and his testimony he read the
reports of the PH docs (he testified he read those reports)...and realized that
while he said nothing about seeing cerebellum in the report, there was no sense
hiding the fact anymore that he also saw cerebellum when the body was first
received at Bethesda...and changed his testimony to make sure it didn't conflict
with the statements of the PH docs...and the truth.
I told that story to VB and the slience on the other end (you might suggest he
fell asleep?) told me that he was literally taken aback by the significance of
Humes' switch.
Ask yourself why they didn't take any photos of the BOH when the body was first
received? The answer is that Mr. paranoid Burkley (IMO) instructed the
autopsists to understate and certainly not photograph a BOH wound for fear that
reporting such a wound could be misinterpreted as evidence there was a frontal
shooter.....there was pandemonium in Washington and throughout the military
(trust me, I was in the military at that time--yes, I'm that old), if not
everywhere else at that time--no one was sure the Soviets or Cubans weren't
behind the assassination.
Anthony, you don't have to tell me that you think this account is wacky--I know
you think that already...predictable.
And for anyone else that thinks this is nuts, ask yourself what is
crazier--about 25 PH & Bethesda witnesses, not to mention Clint Hill who saw a
right rear gaping wound in DP, at PH, and at Bethesda, being wrong about seeing
a BOH wound or this scenario, yes, as wild as it seems. I say the former.
As far as the X-rays go, because the fragmented rear skull was still adered to
the scalp, it was easy to just "smooth" the scalp (with the pieces of adhered
bone) back into place before the X-rays were taken. Have you ever wondered why
the AP film doesn't show the BOH? IMO, in spite of what they said, that was done
purposely for obvious reasons.
I give up...any more explanations will be saved for VB.
John Canal
We
John Canal
the BOH photos of course making it appear the red spot was high as well and I
transitioned into talking about the BOH wound....I think leaving you hanging on
why the scalp was displaced.
I meant to say that we think the scalp was stretched and undermined (as per
Humes' testimony), probably as well as being displaced...and the reason they did
that was to cover the top/right/front hole with the available scalp.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> I sure don't see how John Canal can possibly think that the red spot
> on JFK's head (which is certainly located at the "cowlick" area) is
> the entry wound, when the same Mr. Canal has insisted that the entry
> wound was much lower on JFK's head...not HIGH on the head near the
> cowlick.
>
> And I cannot really see how the LOOSENESS of JFK's scalp can be used
> as an explanation for a LOW wound to appear as a HIGH/COWLICK one in
> this autopsy photo:
>
Canal's only way out is to imagine that the scalp is so loose that an
entrance wound at the EOP can be pulled up 4 inches to APPEAR as though
it is in the cowlick area.
David Von Pein
SOME MORE "BOH" TALK:
=====================
Another problem John Canal will never be able to overcome is the
following question:
WHY WAS THERE *ANY* HOLE IN THE REAR *SCALP* OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?
It makes no sense whatsoever that there would be a large (or semi-
large) HOLE in the REAR SCALP of President Kennedy (via the scenario,
which John Canal subscribes to, which has only one bullet from Lee
Oswald's gun striking JFK in the back of the head, causing the to-be-
expected small wound of entrance from the bullet itself).
John wants a large (or semi-large or "quarter"-sized) hole to suddenly
appear in the REAR SCALP of JFK at Parkland.
How?
Such a wound in such a location makes no sense whatsoever.
Ultimate logical conclusion:
No such large or semi-large hole in the rear scalp of JFK was there at
all. That fact couldn't be more obvious--via the Z-Film, the autopsy
photos, and (especially) the lateral autopsy X-ray.
And John Canal certainly NEEDS such a goodly-sized hole to be present
in President Kennedy's BOH for his theory to grow any legs at all. And
that BOH hole certainly needs to be much bigger than just a "quarter"-
sized hole too, in order to accommodate the majority of PH witnesses
who claimed to see a great-BIG hole in the back of Kennedy's head.
I'll ask John Canal for a third time (I don't recall getting an answer
previously) -- What Parkland witness ever said that the BOH hole in
Kennedy's head was merely "quarter"-sized?
David Von Pein
>>> "Canal's only way out is to imagine that the scalp is so loose that an
entrance wound at the EOP can be pulled up 4 inches to APPEAR as though it
is in the cowlick area." <<<
But even that silliness won't help Mr. Canal....because the actual HOLE
(red spot) that is going THROUGH THE SCALP OF JFK *IS* in the "cowlick"
area. Period. That couldn't be more obvious.
Does Mr. Canal think that the actual bullet HOLE (i.e., the red spot)
somehow was floating around and shifting its position SEPARATELY from the
cowlick area underneath that red spot??
Jonh Canal
David Von Pein says...
DVP wrote:
>I'll ask John Canal for a third time (I don't recall getting an answer
>previously) -- What Parkland witness ever said that the BOH hole in
>Kennedy's head was merely "quarter"-sized?
AGAIN, Grossman.
Now, enough of me wasting my time arguing with you about whether or not a BOH
wound exited....sooo let's get it on record one final time that DVP concludes:
1. Dozens of PH and Bethesda witnesses, including two PH neurosurgeons, the
autopsists, and Clint Hill, who said he saw a right-rear BOH wound in DP, at PH
and at Bethesda, were either lying or hallucinating when they claimed they saw a
BOH wound.
2. That photos of the BOH that were taken after: 1) the rear scalp was
reflected, 2) pieces of bone allowed to come out, 3) the brain was removed, 4)
some repair to and/or cleaning of the BOH scalp was effected, and 5) the rear
scalp held back up is proof that a BOH wound didn't exist well before the moment
when those photos were taken.
3. That an x-ray showing pieces of BOH skull essentially in place is proof that
a BOH wound could not have existed, even though, an autopsist testified he
replaced pieces of skull prior to that x-ray being taken.
Good for you David Von Pein--you've clearly got it on record what you think is
the truth re. the existence of a BOH wound.
John Canal
>SOME MORE "BOH" TALK:
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
Ok, Let's just end this sillness and put you, David Von Pein, on record for all
time concluding:
1. There autopsists and several other eyewitnesses were wrong when they said
they saw the entry near the EOP.
2. The NASA engineer made an innocent mistake estimating JFK's lean in z312 to
be half what it was when he calculated the cowlick entry trajectory cone that
showed the bullet could have been fired from the SN.
3. Dale Myers' computer analysis that showed a bullet that entered in the
cowlick and exited where the HSCA said it did would have been fired from a point
124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building was seriously flawed.
4. Because the BOH photos show a red spot in what appears to be the cowlick area
of an obviously mobile scalp, it is impossible that the entry in the skull was
ear the EOP.
5. The replications of the photos that shows the entry (F8) by four researchers
and/or authors were flawed because they all showed that the entry was near the
EO.
6. A bullet entering in the poserior parietal lobe of the right cerebrum can
logically create a through and throuh wound that began at the tip of the right
occipital lobe.
7. A trail of tiny opacities that have been seen on the original lateral x-ray
extending from near the EOP is of no apparent evidentiary value in showing that
a bullet entered near the EOP.
8. John McAdms mispoke or was hallucinating when he said, while looking at a
copy of F8, what I, John Canal THINK is the entry is deep inside the cranial
cavity. Note: John Fioentino subsequently corrected .john saying what I, John
Canal, THINK is the enrty **IS** undoubtedly the entry.
9. The autopsists must have been wrong when they said the entire area of the
skull where the alleged cowlick entry was fragmented because the photo of the
entry shows the bottom half of the entryin unfragmented skull.
Let it be written....now you're on record, David...good for you.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article<5176db3e-ef60-4141...@f3g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
> DVP wrote:
>> I'll ask John Canal for a third time (I don't recall getting an answer
>> previously) -- What Parkland witness ever said that the BOH hole in
>> Kennedy's head was merely "quarter"-sized?
>
> AGAIN, Grossman.
>
> Now, enough of me wasting my time arguing with you about whether or not a BOH
> wound exited....sooo let's get it on record one final time that DVP concludes:
>
> 1. Dozens of PH and Bethesda witnesses, including two PH neurosurgeons, the
> autopsists, and Clint Hill, who said he saw a right-rear BOH wound in DP, at PH
> and at Bethesda, were either lying or hallucinating when they claimed they saw a
> BOH wound.
>
Thousands of people claim they see the Virgin Mary on a potato chip.
Never rely on eyewitnesses. Never.
> 2. That photos of the BOH that were taken after: 1) the rear scalp was
> reflected, 2) pieces of bone allowed to come out, 3) the brain was removed, 4)
> some repair to and/or cleaning of the BOH scalp was effected, and 5) the rear
> scalp held back up is proof that a BOH wound didn't exist well before the moment
> when those photos were taken.
>
Tell us more about your stitching theory. I like it, but I can't see the
stitches.
> 3. That an x-ray showing pieces of BOH skull essentially in place is proof that
> a BOH wound could not have existed, even though, an autopsist testified he
> replaced pieces of skull prior to that x-ray being taken.
>
Sure, above the occipital bone.