Dr. McAdams & DVP, comments for you [us] from an anonymous lurker
John Canal
I received two emails from someone who has been lurking on the BOH
threads. In them he criticizes all three of us. He asked that I post them
for him. Actually, I posted the first one the other day, but, evidently
DVP missed it so I'm posting that one again along with a second one.
I know very little about this person--not even his name. I do know that he
seems to be well read on the BOH wound issue and that he must have a
degree in the field of audio-visual production or something similar. I
assume that because he has sent me some very professional-looking [with
audio, i.e. music and the whole bit] videos he composed from Zapruder and
Nix film clips
The first email was mainly directed at DVP with one jab at myself. The
second one was mostly directed at Dr. McAdams.
FIRST EMAIL:
Mr. Canal,
As a JFK discussion thread lurker who hopes to gain insight and
information re: JFK assassination (including re: discussions on the status
of injury to the back of the head), I find most unedifying some of the
rhetorical tactics used by posters. For example, Mr. Von`Pein frequently
uses what logicians call ‘false dichotomy’ or “the either-or fallacy.” In
these situations Mr. Von Pein typically presents a false choice between
two extremes. For example, his posting on altconspiracy Dec 21, 2007
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6 )
as follows: Start quote: “Focusing additional attention on this important
X-ray......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
It boils down to this: 1.) The above X-ray of the right side of President
Kennedy's head is a fake. Or: 2.) The Parkland witnesses (and the
Bethesda "BOH" witnesses) were wrong about the location of JFK's head
wound.” End quote. In the above style of framing of the issue, Mr. Von
Pein represents that the above are the only two choices available, which
of course is not true. Some of a number of additional alternative choices
could be “Or, Von Pein is incorrect in his interpretation of the meaning
of the right lateral x-ray,” and “Or, Von Pein is incorrect in
interpreting what fracture lines, readily apparent or faint, are visible
in the original archival copy of the right lateral x-ray” or "Von Pein is
incorrect in interpreting that the original autopsy color BOH photo
evidences no abnormality to the back of the head below the cowlick." But
instead of acknowledging these alternatives, Mr. Von Pein typically
concludes with words that his (false) dichotomous choice “proves” his
point of view. There is a difference between use of rhetorical devices to
score points to appear to ‘win a debate’ versus employ truth-finding
methods and enlighten us all. Between Mr. Von Pein’s (and some other
posters’) lengthy reliance on false dichotomy rhetorical devices, and
other persons’ (including one Mr. Canal) resort to expletives (another
rhetorical device), I am finding it almost as uninformative to read
alt.assassination as it is to read Education Forum.
SECOND EMAIL:
Dear Mr. Canal,
I have seen your posting of the comments I made about on rhetorical
devices rather than truth-finding methods being used by many JFK
assassination thread discussants, and your lament that I did not include
Mr. McAdams among those I cited by name. In that vein, I note that on his
web site Mr. McAdams publicly castigates Mr. Harrison Livingstone (whom I
am not defending here) because he “…shows digitally enhanced x-rays
produced by the House Select Committee to witnesses without telling the
witnesses that they are digitally enhanced, with contrast vastly
increased...” Mr. Von Pein in his 12/21/07 posting on alt.conspiracy,
links to the same ENHANCED image that is the work product of the HSCA, but
does not tell readers/newbies that it is an enhanced work product, and he
labels it as if it is the unenhanced autopsy x-ray:
Von Pein’s description: “Focusing additional attent ion on this important
X-ray .. the above X-ray of the right side of President Kennedy's head”.
Von Pein’s link:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
Hence, Mr. McAdams is publicly silent when Mr. Von Pein commits this same
transgression as for which Mr. McAdams publicly castigates Mr.
Livingstone. Similarly, Mr. Von Pein trumpets that features of the back of
the head that, if present, would defeat his own position, cannot be seen
on what he represents to readers/newbies to be a dispositive color autopsy
photo of the back of the head. But the image he links to is significantly
darkened (i.e., altered, with reduced legibility; see below) as compared
to the root color image in the public domain from Groden’s TKOAP (which is
much brighter and more legible for interpretation; see below).
Von Pein’s color BOH image:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6 )
Scan directly from Groden’s TKOAP:
http://s318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS
Mr. McAdams, again, is as silent on Mr. Von Pein’s use of
altered-reduced-legibility photographic evidence as he is silent on Mr.
Von Pein’s use of falsely labeled autopsy x-ray images. In my opinion,
both of these practices of Mr. Von Pein may give the impression that his
contributions to the JFK assassination20information pool is about as
reliable as that of Mr. James Fetzer.
****************
Well, that's it. I'm going to ask him that I not be a messenger any
more--I just don't have time.
John Canal
David Von Pein
LOL.
As if the alternate (lighter) versions of the BOH photo or the lateral
X-ray show something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the versions I have used in
my Internet postings.
What a crock.
No wonder he wants to remain "anonymous".
And I guess the HSCA's/FPP's determination re. the location of JFK's large
head wound is supposed to be tossed aside too (in favor of some oddball
"alternative" theory, like Mr. Canal's), correct?:
====================================
"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the
Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. Since the thick growth of hair on
Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the
doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp.
All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may
have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back
and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head.
"But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the
observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in
the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's
head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head."
-- DR. MICHAEL BADEN; AS TOLD TO AUTHOR VINCENT BUGLIOSI VIA TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION OF JANUARY 8, 2000; PAGES 407-408 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)
====================================
Repeating a very important part of Dr. Baden's above comments (for extra
effect and emphasis):
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other
than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- M. Baden;
January 2000
====================================
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History