I want to say this publicly (as if anyone cares): Von Pein has shown me
John Canal
>
>David Von Pein
>May 19, 2009
Yes indeed, Von Pein has shown me I was wrong. All along I thought he was
reasonably bright and understood the obvious--that the HSCA's Baden had lied
more times than you can shake a stick at, but that he only supported Baden's
false, "NO-BOH-WOUND" and "COWLICK ENTRY" conclusions because he was just trying
to be loyal.
Yes, I was wrong-- ### NOW I KNOW NOW THAT VON PEIN SUPPORTS BADEN'S CRAP
BECAUSE HE'S NAIVE.
For example, he thinks an artifact could miraculously appear ### "by accident"
### on the AP x-ray:
1. the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo LHO used...
2. precisely the same distance right of midline as the autopsists' entry (2.5
cm)...
3. just below the HSCA's alleged cowlick entry...
4. and after the Navy Radiologist, Ebersole, admitted having possesion of the
x-rays about a month after the assassination (when only Chief Justice Warren was
supposed to have access to them)...
Only someone extremely gullible, IMHO, would believe all that could have
"accidently" happened.....and Von Pein believes just that.
Then, if there was a chance he wasn't so gullible and naive, he says more to
prove that he is. Get this:
He thinks the near EOP entry was not problematic for those running the
investigation (for the Warren Commission)....IOW, that low, near-EOP entry
seemed to be nicely consistent with a shot from six floors up. Hmmmm, then why,
I would ask Mr. Von Pein brain why, in WC Exhibit CE-388, they had to draw JFK
leaning forward about 50 degrees WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY (see Z-312) LEANING
FORWARD ONLY ABOUT 27 DEGREES??????????????????????
I've deleted his B/S rhetoric here but when I offered the following explanation
for ### "why" ### the 6.5 mm opacity as added to the AP x-ray, he laughed.
Obviously (see CE-388) realizing the low, near-EOP didn't "appear" to be
consistent with a shot from six floors up, someone ordered Ebersole to add the
6.5 mm opacity to the AP x-ray in the cowlick......undoubtedly (for anyone with
common sense) as a means to "adjust" the entry up on the back of his
head about 4".......thereby making the "new" (revsed/corrected), higher entry
location seem more consistent with a shot from six floors up than Humes' low,
near-EOP entry.
It's my belief, however, that Humes et. al. would not go along with any little
plan to move the entry up (if Humes was even aware of it)---they [HB&F] weren't
going to look like idiots who had been mistaken when they reported that low
entry....In any event, Humes stuck to his guns with his near-EOP entry and
attmpted to resolve the "percieved" problem (with that low, near-EOP entry not
being consistent with a shot from six floors up) his own way. Indeed, he simply
fudged, by almost double, JFK's lean forward in CE-388.
Now, again, Von Pein laughs at my explanation, but does he offer a more
reasonable one? Of course not...he's too busy laughing for one thing and for
another is so unfamiliar with the medical evidence (other than Bugliosi's going
along with Baden's B/S), he can't come up with a reasonable alternative
explanation.
BTW, if Humes had only realized that the bullet deformed and deflected up about
20 deg. as it penetrated the rear skull near the EOP, he could have drawn that
deflecting bullet path and showed JFK's lean accuately in CE-388.
Anyway, DVP calls my theories wacky, but read below what he thinks to see who's
really wacky:
I'm tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can't come up with
a reasonable explanation for and pasting in those you think you have an
explanation for. That said, I'm just going to post this summary of your position
every time you use your "cut and paste" method when you post on either the BOH
wound or entry location issues.
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy's life and
said:
1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in their
hands and said:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. the BOH skull was fragmented.
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its "stretchability" for the purpose of
closing the large openings in his head..
DVP "DOESN'T" believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and said he
helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the entry and that
he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the BOH photos were taken
after the brain had been removed).
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open casket
funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in order to
close the wounds.
##### BUT #####
DVP "DOES" believe Baden, who never saw the body and testified that:
1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower brain
damage reported.
2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though:
a. no one can see the top-front of the cerebellum by just viewing either the
basilar or superior photos or drawings of the brain and...
b. Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the cerebellum lacerated.
3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly
credentialed member of Baden?s own panel told him, on the record, that he saw
evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.
4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of the
evidence for a cowlick entering bullet.....even though DVP himself acknowledges
that opacity is an artifact.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive
evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who
consulted for Baden's panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on the
x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate
even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line
trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD,
but the Dal-Tex Building.
### The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of
many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Zimmerman,
Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry
and/or existence of a BOH wound "wacky", he pretty much believes:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "wrong" regarding their descriptions
of the head wounds and....
2 all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were "correct"
regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.
So, I ask you, who's the one that's really wacky?
John Canal
[....] Again, I deleted all the usual cut and paste rhetoric.
David Von Pein
A COUPLE OF VERY GOOD 2004 QUOTES FROM JOHN McADAMS CONCERNING JFK'S
HEAD WOUNDS:
"Anybody can see that that defect is well above the EOP --
indeed about four inches above. And anybody can see that the fractures
in the AP x-ray radiate from a point about four inches above the EOP.
You guys just have too much to explain away." -- John McAdams; May 13,
2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/daceaec260a0442a
"John [Canal], let me be frank. You and your fellow Back of the
Head Buffs are just amateurs trying to interpret materials you don't
understand. Indeed, most of the materials you have [are] quite poor
compared to those that the HSCA FPP had.
You need to explain all of the following:
1.) The back of the head photo.
2.) The lateral x-rays.
3.) The AP x-ray.
4.) The pair of photos that included F8, showing the entry.
You and Barb just huff and puff but you can't really interpret away
ALL of that."
-- John McAdams; May 13, 2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e619e898d1a36649
David Von Pein
DVP SAID (RE: THE "6.5-MM. OBJECT" ON JFK'S X-RAY):
>>> "It's not a "bullet" fragment at all."
DVP THEN LATER SAID:
>>> ""As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet) fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know. But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray." <<<
JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>> "DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THOSE READING YOUR B/S ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THE 6.5 MM THING WAS "ADDED" BUT NOT "PLANTED"?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS (WHILE HEAVING A DEEP ~SIGH~):
John Canal should learn how to READ. I never ONCE said that I am of
the opinion that the 6.5-millimeter "object" on the X-ray was "added"
to the X-ray after 11/22/63 ("accidentally" or otherwise).
I'm admitting I have no idea what it is. But I specifically stated my
belief that WHATEVER it is, it certainly was not "planted" or "added"
to the X-ray film after the autopsy.
Whatever the "thing" is, it was certainly THERE ON NOVEMBER 22ND when
Dr. Humes (et al) looked at the X-rays at Bethesda.
I now give you Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):
"But if Dr. [David] Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit
the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of
cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which
enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an
actual bullet fragment?
"Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have
gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that
they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a
case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected
to the assassination is irrational on its face.
"One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were
willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary
to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the
attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
"Surely Dr. Mantik doesn’t want us to believe the “fragment” was
superimposed on the X-rays after the Warren Commission had already
concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman. Indeed, in his 2001 writing
on the subject, Mantik says the forgery was accomplished “shortly
after the autopsy,” which would be before the Warren Report came out,
ten months after the assassination.
"Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the
sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time
thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book
"Assassination Science"? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes section of "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton
& Co.)(c.2007)
John Fiorentino
The 6.5mm object does need more investigation, in fact I've looked into
this, but have no firm conclusions as of yet.
Of course, as to the rest of it, I disagree with Canal re: his theory.
Neither do I care what names Canal might drop in support of his ideas. The
whole thing is simply a jumble of conjecture and misinformation combined
with various misinterpretations and selective mining of the evidence.
Unfortunately, some otherwise rational thinkers have been sucked into this
fantastical vortex of conjecture. But, perhaps that is what happens when
peoples interests turn into obsessions.
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:913d6bbc-987f-44a2...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
DVP SAID (RE: THE "6.5-MM. OBJECT" ON JFK'S X-RAY):
>>> "It's not a "bullet" fragment at all."
DVP THEN LATER SAID:
>>> ""As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no
>>> explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on the
>>> X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet) fragment. But
>>> I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply was
>>> missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know. But I certainly do not
>>> for one second believe that anyone would have wanted to "plant" the
>>> "object/opacity" onto that X-ray." <<<
JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>> "DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THOSE READING YOUR B/S ARE
>>> STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THE 6.5 MM THING WAS "ADDED" BUT NOT "PLANTED"?"
>>> <<<
DVP NOW SAYS (WHILE HEAVING A DEEP ~SIGH~):
John Canal should learn how to READ. I never ONCE said that I am of
the opinion that the 6.5-millimeter "object" on the X-ray was "added"
to the X-ray after 11/22/63 ("accidentally" or otherwise).
I'm admitting I have no idea what it is. But I specifically stated my
belief that WHATEVER it is, it certainly was not "planted" or "added"
to the X-ray film after the autopsy.
Whatever the "thing" is, it was certainly THERE ON NOVEMBER 22ND when
Dr. Humes (et al) looked at the X-rays at Bethesda.
I now give you Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):
"But if Dr. [David] Mantik�s conspirators were going to commit
the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a �simple piece of
cardboard� to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which
enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn�t they use an
actual bullet fragment?
"Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have
gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that
they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a
case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected
to the assassination is irrational on its face.
"One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik�s conspirators were
willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary
to frame Oswald, wouldn�t they have found some way to bring it to the
attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
"Surely Dr. Mantik doesn�t want us to believe the �fragment� was
superimposed on the X-rays after the Warren Commission had already
concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman. Indeed, in his 2001 writing
on the subject, Mantik says the forgery was accomplished �shortly
after the autopsy,� which would be before the Warren Report came out,
ten months after the assassination.
"Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the
sinister implications of the �cardboard artifact� for the first time
thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book
"Assassination Science"? Isn�t this silly, again, on its face?"
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> A COUPLE OF VERY GOOD 2004 QUOTES FROM JOHN McADAMS CONCERNING JFK'S
> HEAD WOUNDS:
>
>
> "Anybody can see that that defect is well above the EOP --
> indeed about four inches above. And anybody can see that the fractures
> in the AP x-ray radiate from a point about four inches above the EOP.
> You guys just have too much to explain away." -- John McAdams; May 13,
> 2004
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/daceaec260a0442a
>
Oh, you mean Dr. McAdams? Is he the world famous forensic pathologist?