Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Dr. McAdams, I hate being right all the time.

8 views
Skip to first unread message

John Canal

unread,
Jun 13, 2009, 10:53:46 PM6/13/09
to
>In article <79g335t75eivp2027...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 11 Jun 2009 22:32:45 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Should anyone believe Michael Baden.
>>>
>>>Baden told us, under oath, that there was NO lower brain damage, but the
>>>supplementary autopsy report said there was, and....
>>>
>>
>>Depends on how you define damage.

Before I started answering your questions and providing the explanations
you requested, I wrote this:

.john, it seems as if every time you reply to one of my posts and I
respond, you disappear into the sunset....will you stick around this time?

Of course, you rode off into the sunset as predicted.

It's get boring being right all the time.

John Canal


John McAdams

unread,
Jun 13, 2009, 10:55:44 PM6/13/09
to
On 13 Jun 2009 22:53:46 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>>In article <79g335t75eivp2027...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 11 Jun 2009 22:32:45 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Should anyone believe Michael Baden.
>>>>
>>>>Baden told us, under oath, that there was NO lower brain damage, but the
>>>>supplementary autopsy report said there was, and....
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on how you define damage.
>
>Before I started answering your questions and providing the explanations
>you requested, I wrote this:
>
>.john, it seems as if every time you reply to one of my posts and I
>respond, you disappear into the sunset....will you stick around this time?
>
>Of course, you rode off into the sunset as predicted.
>
>It's get boring being right all the time.
>

Quit flattering yourself with the notion that it's worth my while to
keep going back and forth with you when nothing gets accoomplished.

When you answered my post with a claim that the metal fragment in the
cowlick area on the AP x-rays of Kennedy's skull was somehow faked or
forged . . . well, that bliew it.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Canal

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 8:12:52 AM6/14/09
to
In article <fip835lsb4er380kj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 13 Jun 2009 22:53:46 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>In article <79g335t75eivp2027...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>>
>>>>On 11 Jun 2009 22:32:45 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Should anyone believe Michael Baden.
>>>>>
>>>>>Baden told us, under oath, that there was NO lower brain damage, but the
>>>>>supplementary autopsy report said there was, and....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Depends on how you define damage.
>>
>>Before I started answering your questions and providing the explanations
>>you requested, I wrote this:
>>
>>.john, it seems as if every time you reply to one of my posts and I
>>respond, you disappear into the sunset....will you stick around this time?
>>
>>Of course, you rode off into the sunset as predicted.
>>
>>It's get boring being right all the time.
>>
>
>Quit flattering yourself with the notion that it's worth my while to
>keep going back and forth with you when nothing gets accoomplished.

I'll be candid, although this will probably mean my reply gets rejected. I try
to engage you, NOT because I expect our exchanges to be productive--you don't
begin to know the medical evidence well enough for that to happen--, rather I
try to engage you because lurkers are more apt to tune in on the threads in
which the host is involved.

>When you answered my post with a claim that the metal fragment in the
>cowlick area on the AP x-rays of Kennedy's skull was somehow faked or
>forged . . . well, that bliew it.

You misrepresented what I said...if you recall, I asked you to be the judge of
that....I didn't say the 6.5 mm opacity was a forgery.

In any case, you've conjured up an excuse for not addressing my points. Why am I
not surprised?

John Canal

>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 5:34:47 PM6/14/09
to

Have you ever heard of the word artifact?

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


Osprey

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 6:58:13 PM6/14/09
to
>> John Canal wrote:
>>
>> Should anyone believe Michael Baden.
>>
>> Baden told us, under oath, that there was
>> NO lower brain damage, but the supplementary
>> autopsy report said there was, and....

> John McAdams wrote:
>
> Depends on how you define damage.

The underside and corpus callosum damage were lacerations ( jagged
tears or wounds ). They were contrecoup and bullet pressure cavity
rips and clefts that had no lost of tissue. They were not inflicted by
a bullet or metal fragments.
__________

>> John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> Quit flattering yourself with the notion that it's
>> worth my while to keep going back and forth
>> with you when nothing gets accoomplished.

Inane exercise, really. Canal is intransigent. Like the EOP-vertex
trajectory, his argument seems gone astray.

> John Canal wrote:
>
> I'll be candid, although this will probably mean
> my reply gets rejected.

Canal's delightful posts fascinate the group.

> I try to engage you, NOT because I expect our
> exchanges to be productive--you don't begin to
> know the medical evidence well enough for that
> to happen--,

McAdams is so unsophisticated he thinks an EOP inshoot would destroy
the cerebellum. The Gael of Chesseshire obviously lacks the anatomical
clairvoyance of the group's more nimble-minded.

> rather I try to engage you because lurkers are
> more apt to tune in on the threads in which the
> host is involved.

( Canal's arguments would entice the fringe crowd.)


John Canal

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 10:12:15 PM6/14/09
to
In article <27c349f6-eae6-4e5a...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Osprey says...

>
>>> John Canal wrote:
>>>
>>> Should anyone believe Michael Baden.
>>>
>>> Baden told us, under oath, that there was
>>> NO lower brain damage, but the supplementary
>>> autopsy report said there was, and....
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> Depends on how you define damage.
>
>The underside and corpus callosum damage were lacerations ( jagged
>tears or wounds ). They were contrecoup and bullet pressure cavity
>rips and clefts that had no lost of tissue. They were not inflicted by
>a bullet or metal fragments.

I suggest you research the medical evidence a lot more before you make
assumptions disguised as some sort of fact.

The laceration that went completely through the brain and began at the tip
of the occipital lobe, lacerated the Corpus Callosum while exposing the
Thalamus. It's important to note that that laceration began 2.5 cm right
of midline--that distance right of midline is precisely the same distance
right of midline as the autopsists' near-EOP entry. Moreover, the fact
that the laceration began at the "tip of the occipital lobe", as far as
the vertical plane goes, is totally consistent with their near-EOP entry.

If you believe in bizarre coincidences, then you might believe that
channel-like laceration through the brain was caused by "contrecoup and
bullet pressure cavity rips and clefts"....I don't...and I don't think
many with much common sense would either. You might also have noticed that
the direction of that laceration from the tip of the occipital lobe to the
tip of the frontal lobe, is totally consistent with the windshield damage.

One more thing, and I've mentioned this to you before...the trail of
opacities extending from near the EOP, as seen on the original lateral
x-ray, makes it a slam-dunk the autopsists were correct about the bullet
entering there. And I also repeat for your enlightenment that the
distinguished former Chief Medical Examiner from Dade County, Florida, Dr.
Joseph Davis, who served on the FPP, tried to tell Baden et. al. (on the
record) that the aforementioned trail of opacities extending from near the
EOP was evidence that the bullet impacted there.

>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Quit flattering yourself with the notion that it's
>>> worth my while to keep going back and forth
>>> with you when nothing gets accoomplished.
>
>Inane exercise, really. Canal is intransigent. Like the EOP-vertex
>trajectory, his argument seems gone astray.

Not exactly. It's just that I, unlike you, McAdams, and the other high
entry theorists, know the related medical evidence.

And, that's why a member of Baden's own Forenic Pathology Panel tried to
tell Baden there was evidence on the x-rays that the bullet impacted near
the EOP.

I challenge you here and now to post a graphic of an brain MRI showing how
you think the bullet entered the parietal lobe an then caused a
channel-like laceration through the brain that exposed the Thalamus and
exited at the official exit point just forward of the coronal
suture....and pleeeease don't try to make anyone above 12 years old
believe that the laceration through the brain that began 2.5 cm right of
midline at the tip of the occipital lobe was caused by "contrecoup and
bullet pressure cavity rips and clefts"...thank you.

And then, if you do (and I doubt you will), let's extend your trajectory
line (the one that enters the cowlick and exits just forward of the
coronal suture) back to see where it points. Oh, forget that, we don't
have to--D. Myers did it for us...yes, your beloved cowlick trajectory
points back 124' above the roofline of NOT the bloody TSBD, but the damn
Dal-Tex building!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is any of this sinking in yet, laddie????????????????

If not, do youself a big favor and get a copy of Larry Sturdivan's, "The
JFK Myths" and read pages 193 to 203. Sturdivan, BTW, was a bonafied
wound-ballistics expert who consulted for the HSCA and agreed with them
that the bullet entered in the cowlick. But, after I showed him the
replications of the photo of the entry in the skull, he reversed his
position on the entry location and explained why the bullet
entered--surprise, surprise--just where the three autopsy doctors and all
the other EYE-witnesses said it did, near the EOP!!!! I might add, that
Sturdivan points out that the photo of the entry in the skull shows the
entry to be near the lateral sinus.....Laddie, do you know how far the
posterior parietal is from the lateral sinus???????????? No? Well, I
suggest you get out a copy of "Gray's Anatomy" and look.

John Canal

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 10:37:32 AM6/16/09
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d82da3667a1d74cb


Another additional random thought re. John Canal and JFK's head.......

It's also rather remarkable (in an "Every Piece Of Photographic
Evidence IN TANDEM Is Proving John Canal To Be Wrong Re. His Theory"
kind of a way) that the bullet-fragment trail just happens to be HIGH
in JFK's head via the lateral X-ray, instead of where it probably
SHOULD be located if John C. is correct about the entry wound really
being located much lower.

But, of course, John can explain away this total lack of a low bullet-
fragment trail, by speculating that the explosion of the head after
the bullet struck the President's skull resulted in ALL of the metal
fragments being moved northward in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, leaving no
sign of any metallic trail at the actual point of entry.

Plus: the metal fragments, after being pushed upward by this explosive
thrust (per John Canal), somehow managed to line themselves up to form
a very nice-looking "high-to-low", "back-to-front" kind of arrangement
in the X-ray, located high in the skull cavity of the President, near
the cowlick entry site endorsed by the HSCA....thereby fooling Dr.
Baden and various other pathologists who examined the X-rays since
1963.

In short, the number of things in John Canal's filing cabinet marked
"The Photos And X-rays We Have At Our Disposal On The Internet Aren't
Really Showing The True Nature Of JFK's Head Wounds" is quite a
voluminous number.

I'm just wondering how large that number must reach before John
realizes that he's barking up the wrong tree (and the wrong BOH
theory)?

David Von Pein
August 15, 2008

John Canal

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 1:41:47 PM6/16/09
to
In article <ba6335e8-6417-4abf...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

I'd debate these issues with you David, but you simply don't know the medical
evidence re. to the head wounds well enough for any exchanges between us to be
productive. If you guys ever want to know it well enogh, you ought to start
trying to figure out what F8, the only autopsy photo that shows the entry in the
skull, reveals. I believe you've said before that Sturdivan's book, "The JFK
Myths", was a good read---well in it he devotes several pages to a discussion
about F8---I suggest you and the two Johns read it for comprehension.

You might also get a news reader that allows you to open graphics as there has
been many graphics posted on this NG that are useful to those desiring to know
the evidence better.

Now, I'll leave you with this list of findings from the autopsy that you
evidently pretty much refute....which begs the question, "Do you think autopsies
should be conducted by none-patholgists--or just by photographers and x-ray
techs who would turn over their photos and x-rays years later to experts to
determine the cause of death?"

1. the entry was near the EOP

2. the BOH skull was fragmented

3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated

4. the large wound extended into the occipital

5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its "stretchability" an then stretched
it

6. the photos showing an intact and virtually undamaged BOH scalp were taken
after the brain was removed

7. they sutured closed any tear in the BOH scalp

8. they did not see and/or recover the 6.5 mm opacity on 11-22-63

9. the "white-ish" looking, part-like anomaly extending forward and to the right
from the red splotch in the BOH photos was a laceration

10. a channel-like laceration through the brain began at the tip of the
occipital lobe.

John Canal

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 10:29:19 PM6/16/09
to
On 6/16/2009 1:41 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<ba6335e8-6417-4abf...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
> I'd debate these issues with you David, but you simply don't know the medical
> evidence re. to the head wounds well enough for any exchanges between us to be
> productive. If you guys ever want to know it well enogh, you ought to start
> trying to figure out what F8, the only autopsy photo that shows the entry in the
> skull, reveals. I believe you've said before that Sturdivan's book, "The JFK
> Myths", was a good read---well in it he devotes several pages to a discussion
> about F8---I suggest you and the two Johns read it for comprehension.
>

Your air of superiority and Argument by Authority falls flat, because A.
You are not a medical expert and B. You have not seen the best evidence.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 10:43:04 PM6/16/09
to


>>> "I'd debate these issues with you David, but you simply don't know the
medical evidence re. to the head wounds well enough for any exchanges
between us to be productive." <<<


And, incredibly, ALL of the photographs and X-rays are totally misleading.
Right, John C.?

And, even more incredibly, ALL THIRTEEN MEMBERS of the Clark Panel and the
HSCA's FPP are/were 100% incorrect about various things they ALL said
regarding JFK's head wounds (and those 13 people looked at the ORIGINAL
PHOTOS & X-RAYS).

Right, John C.?

That's called "denial", Mr. Canal. Simple as that.


John Canal

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 12:36:51 AM6/17/09
to
In article <797ac7a5-3551-4a00...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

This is stupid--getting drawn into replying to your post when you don't
know the evidence you're arguing about.

1. If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than
examining the body to determine the ause of death then it is you who is in
denial.

2. At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada,
zilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the
originals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of
forensic pathology) was ging to refute as much as one tinsy finding of
his. Of course, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you
think you posses), think that's a bunch of horse____, but, IMHO, a truly
logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible.

Undecided lurkers, don't be led astray by Mr. Von Pein, who, IMO, without
investigating matters himself (e.g. he doesn't know F8 from a toenail),
just jumps on the bandwagon of those he thinks must be right....because of
their positions. Heck, he prpbably thought Richard Nixon was telling the
truth all along.

John Canal

John Fiorentino

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:39:19 AM6/17/09
to
"If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than
examining the body to determine the cause of death then it is you who is in
denial."

Canal of course makes statements like this, because he MUST.

FACT is we could go back and forth with this because there are so many
variables. However, as I've pointed out to John on numerous
occasions...........

It is standard practice in audits of autopsies to review the X-rays, photos
and other test results to insure proper compliance with procedures and the
competency of the autopsists.

At THAT point there essentially is no other option. This is routinely done
before considering a disinterment if there are any lingering questions.

So, yes, review of the x-rays and photos is a very effective way to confirm
results. That is why these things are done in the first place. And of course
x-rays are routinely used DURING the examination, just as was done during
the JFK case.

Unfortunately, they didn't get to see the photos.

And of course years later, when they finally did get to see them, it is
quite obvious that some of their faulty recollections were corrected.

John F.


"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h19o9...@drn.newsguy.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 2:35:16 PM6/17/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a0da1e956791fc5f

>>> "If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than examining the body to determine the [c]ause of death[,] then it is you who is in denial." <<<


Who's arguing about "the cause of death"? Not me.

The "cause of death" isn't in dispute -- it was Lee Oswald's third
shot that struck the President in the back of the head.

I thought you knew that, John.

>>> "At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada, zilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the originals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of forensic pathology) was g[o]ing to refute as much as one tiny finding of his. Of course, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you think you posses[s]), think that's a bunch of horse [hockey/manure/shit], but, IMHO, a truly logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible." <<<

I suppose it's possible to a conspiracist like John Canal who WANTS it
to be "possible" -- i.e., the extremely remote and far-fetched idea
that THIRTEEN different pathologists on the Clark Panel and the House
Select Committee's forensic panel would be so silly and downright
deceptive as to "sign off" off on the "cowlick" entry location merely
because they didn't want to hurt poor Dr. Fisher's little ol' feelings
(or some other stupid reason they might have had) is a loony-as-all-
get-out scenario that is actually MORE REASONABLE to believe (per John
A. Canal) than to believe what the THIRTEEN different people on the
Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP told us was their true opinion
regarding the entry-wound location in JFK's head.*

* = Even though, per John C., these other TWELVE people (not counting
Fisher) evidently must have known that Fisher was dead wrong about his
"cowlick" determination. But those 12 people decided to sign off on
the cowlick entry location anyway, merely to avoid rocking the boat (a
boat that, evidently, only Dr. Fisher was in).

Right, John?


All that's needed now is the proverbial (and mandatory) three-letter
sign-off to this part of the discussion.....

LOL.


>>> "Undecided lurkers [the ONE "lurker" who enters this forum this month, that is], don't be led astray by Mr. Von Pein, who, IMO, without investigating matters himself (e.g. he doesn't know F8 from a toenail), just jumps on the bandwagon of those he thinks must be right....because of their positions. Heck, he pr[o]bably thought Richard Nixon was telling the truth all along." <<<


Mr. (Lonely) Lurker --- Keep in mind that it is Mr. John A. Canal who
HAS NO CHOICE (per his strange BOH theories) but to believe that
THIRTEEN different men who examined the original autopsy photos/X-rays
were DEAD WRONG (were they liars? incompetent? or retards perhaps?)
when they ALL concluded that the entry wound in the back of President
Kennedy's head was located HIGH on his head, "100 millimeters [four
inches] above the EOP" (per the Clark Panel).

Plus: It's also Mr. Canal who has NO CHOICE but to believe that the
following two pieces of photographic evidence connected to the death
of John F. Kennedy are both (IN TANDEM!) telling a false story about
the true nature of JFK's head injuries (and the Zapruder Film is a
THIRD piece of photographic evidence that is ALSO, per Mr. Canal,
telling the world a misleading story regarding JFK's head wounds as
well):


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=rErDI0gAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9QULmhVrDReMb5RjHtVayvBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=dD2njRYAAABJbMQJaY0tNJdQ4EdaLZXdkoocv7_4s8VgxAkWGh8RuA


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=xXmkAUYAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9QULmhVrDReMb5RjHtVayvB1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=dD2njRYAAABJbMQJaY0tNJdQ4EdaLZXdkoocv7_4s8VgxAkWGh8RuA


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/THE+ZAPRUDER+FILM+(STABILIZED+VERSION).mov?gda=Jo1K-2AAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z90nTPwBSkg1XupmKqoSU8507M4UfakGfQkeP8lzs5xjq-8E7CUXyJo09RCDD78XAbE-UNtHX_4btfeYyY783Zxm3FU91bWBii3KPv5fvAM40&gsc=dD2njRYAAABJbMQJaY0tNJdQ4EdaLZXdkoocv7_4s8VgxAkWGh8RuA


It must be a "Photographic Conspiracy (IN TRIPLICATE)" that is keeping
the world from knowing the full truth about the President's head
wounds -- despite the fact that even Mr. Canal admits that each of the
above items of photographic evidence is GENUINE and UNALTERED and NOT
FAKED in any way.


The theories that people can invent are amazing. Aren't they?


=========================================

ARGUING WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORIST IN DENIAL (THAT'S JOHN A. CANAL, OF
COURSE); PARTS 109 AND 294 (APPROX.):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717

=========================================


John Canal

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:01:18 PM6/17/09
to
In article <4a38bdea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

So from the examination of the photos and x-rays you high-entry, no-BOH wound


Badenites have determined that Humes et. al. were wrong when they said:

1. the entry was near the EOP
2. the BOH skull was fragmented
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated

4. the large wound extended into the ocipital
5. the photos of a virtually undamaged BOH scalp were taken after the
brain was removed
6. they "undermined" the scalp to maximize its "tretchability" and
stretched it


7. they sutured closed any tear in the BOH scalp

8. the white-ish looking anomaly that extends forward and to the right

from the red splotch in the BOH photos was a laceration

9. they did not see and/or recover the 6.5 mm opacity on 11-22-63

and

10. a channel-like laceration began 2.5 cm to the right of midline at the
tip of the occipital lobe and extended all the way through the brain to

the tip of the frontal lobe

You determined all that from the photos and
x-rays???????????????????????????

What a crock...and you know it.

John Canal

Tom

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:06:01 PM6/17/09
to
On Jun 16, 10:36 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <797ac7a5-3551-4a00-b2c0-c0f4a4eb6...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> David Von Pein says...
>
> This is stupid--getting drawn into replying to your post when you don't
> know the evidence you're arguing about.
>
> 1. If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than
> examining the body to determine the ause of death then it is you who is in
> denial.
>
> 2. At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada,
> zilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the
> originals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of
> forensic pathology) was ging to refute as much as one tinsy finding of
> his. Of course, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you
> think you posses), think that's a bunch of horse____, but, IMHO, a truly
> logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible.
>
> Undecided lurkers, don't be led astray by Mr. Von Pein, who, IMO, without
> investigating matters himself (e.g. he doesn't know F8 from a toenail),
> just jumps on the bandwagon of those he thinks must be right....because of
> their positions. Heck, he prpbably thought Richard Nixon was telling the
> truth all along.
>
> John Canal
>
>

John,

IMHO your interpretation of the head wound evidence is correct. Sent
countless hours reviewing ALL the testimony myself and built several
models of the wound in 3D. Put it all together and the EOP wound as
entry point is the only one that makes sense.

Regards,

Tom Pinkston

John Canal

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:12:22 PM6/17/09
to
f93bfc...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, David Von Pein says...
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a0da1e956791fc5f

>>>> "If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than examin=
>ing the body to determine the [c]ause of death[,] then it is you who is in =


>denial." <<<
>
>Who's arguing about "the cause of death"? Not me.
>
>The "cause of death" isn't in dispute -- it was Lee Oswald's third
>shot that struck the President in the back of the head.
>
>I thought you knew that, John.

Well, Mr. ,Guru of the JFK Medical Evidence, Von Pein, when they say the
cause of death resulted from gunshots they ususally describe where the
bullets hit and what the damage was....it's the pretty much all the
details of the case of death that you think the autopsists got
wrong...based on the photos and x-rays. Duh, do you get m point now?

Now, here's a real suggestion: Write Rosemary and tell her to pass on to
VB that you've already resolved the issues with the head shot medical
evidence that I brought to his attention......that he said in writing he'd
check out for himself when he ever could manage the time? Indeed, tell him
he doesn't need to check out those issues himself....he'd surely
appreciate the time a JFK medical evidence guru like you saved him.

And, I'm also sure he'd appreciate you telling him that you've deemed John
Canal, who he closes his letters to me by writing, "Your respectful
colleague, Vince Bugliosi", to be a conspiracy believer with strange
theories.

>>>> "At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada, z=
>ilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the ori=
>ginals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of forensic=
> pathology) was g[o]ing to refute as much as one tiny finding of his. Of co=
>urse, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you think you pos=
>ses[s]), think that's a bunch of horse [hockey/manure/shit], but, IMHO, a t=


>ruly logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible." <<<

LOL. But how stupid I am for replying to someone who can't even, or won't
even bother to, figure out one of the most important autopsy photos...the
only one that shows the entry in the skull. Some guru of the JFK medical
evidence you are.

Yes, I am really stupid for that.


John Fiorentino

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:48:47 PM6/17/09
to
Oh Judas Priest Tom!

You could have called me on the phone and we could have argued about this
for hours while carping back and forth what idiots we both are!

Instead you have taken the easy way out................ ;-)

Look, Canal is entitled, You are entitled, Sturdivan is entitled to their
opinions. It's just a shame that they're wrong................. ;-)

I'll say this, anytime you want to discuss the issue, I'll be happy to do
that.

Regards,

John F.

"Tom" <thomasp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3f91aaab-dbda-42bf...@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

John Canal

unread,
Jun 18, 2009, 9:36:11 AM6/18/09
to
In article <3f91aaab-dbda-42bf...@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Tom says...
>
>On Jun 16, 10:36=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <797ac7a5-3551-4a00-b2c0-c0f4a4eb6...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups=

>.com>,
>> David Von Pein says...
>>
>> This is stupid--getting drawn into replying to your post when you don't
>> know the evidence you're arguing about.
>>
>> 1. If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than
>> examining the body to determine the ause of death then it is you who is i=

>n
>> denial.
>>
>> 2. At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada,
>> zilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the
>> originals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of
>> forensic pathology) was ging to refute as much as one tinsy finding of
>> his. Of course, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you
>> think you posses), think that's a bunch of horse____, but, IMHO, a truly
>> logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible.
>>
>> Undecided lurkers, don't be led astray by Mr. Von Pein, who, IMO, without
>> investigating matters himself (e.g. he doesn't know F8 from a toenail),
>> just jumps on the bandwagon of those he thinks must be right....because o=

>f
>> their positions. Heck, he prpbably thought Richard Nixon was telling the
>> truth all along.
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>>
>
>John,
>
>IMHO your interpretation of the head wound evidence is correct. Sent
>countless hours reviewing ALL the testimony myself and built several
>models of the wound in 3D. Put it all together and the EOP wound as
>entry point is the only one that makes sense.
>
>Regards,

Tom,

Thank you for stepping forward...it hasn't been easy to be the only one arguing
against the team of JF, McAdams, and Von Pein...even though their arguments make
no sense whatsoever....it's just that I felt I need to respond to each and every
one of there attacks. Barb used to help out, but, while I don't want to speak or
her, I think she pretty much was tired of the same old arguments and rhetoric
coming from the aforementioned.

You opinion is highly regarded and appreciated. We should talk sometime when you
can get free--I've been working tirelessly trying to get a newspaper to cover
the story of the deception and misreporting of the head wounds (by the
Clark/Rockefeller/HSCA "experts")...hoping that if such a story is published and
verified by them, it would eventually provoke an official re-examination of the
medical evidence....to determine how and why such misreporting occurred.

Take care,

John Canal

P.S. I understand Ken Rahn also believes the bullet entered near the EOP. Also,
I'm not sure on this, but I think Paul Hoch also agrees.

>Tom Pinkston


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 18, 2009, 11:53:59 PM6/18/09
to
On 6/17/2009 11:39 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> "If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than
> examining the body to determine the cause of death then it is you who is in
> denial."
>
> Canal of course makes statements like this, because he MUST.
>
> FACT is we could go back and forth with this because there are so many
> variables. However, as I've pointed out to John on numerous
> occasions...........
>
> It is standard practice in audits of autopsies to review the X-rays,
> photos and other test results to insure proper compliance with
> procedures and the competency of the autopsists.
>

Standard practice sure. But very little in the JFK autopsy was done
according to standard practice. The three autopsy doctors were not allowed
to see the photos or the clothes.

Tom

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 9:58:02 AM6/20/09
to
On Jun 17, 10:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> Oh Judas Priest Tom!
>
> You could have called me on the phone and we could have argued about this
> for hours while carping back and forth what idiots we both are!
>
> Instead you have taken the easy way out................  ;-)
>
> Look, Canal is entitled, You are entitled, Sturdivan is entitled to their
> opinions. It's just a shame that they're wrong.................  ;-)
>
> I'll say this, anytime you want to discuss the issue, I'll be happy to do
> that.
>
> Regards,
>
> John F.
>
> "Tom" <thomaspinks...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Tom Pinkston- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey John,

I thought we hashed this over a couple of times and agreed to
disagree. Or did we disagree about disagree(ing)? As you know I try to
stay out of these things mostly because I have no beef about this with
anyone. Barb got me started on this many years ago. So its her fault!
I'm not going to speak for John C. since he is most capable of that
and he has all the relational aspects of this in his head currently.
All I know is what I did to grasp the head wound and came to the same
conclusion. I suspect we all have done the same thought experiment in
our minds many times. You can reconstruct the events that happen as
the skull fragments occur in several ways. Youself and others go about
it one way and support the high entrance point. Others insist on a
frontal entry scenario. Me, I went back and forth comparing the x-
rays, photos, testimony.....make another model, wash, rinse and
repeat. Did that until I could satisfy myself with one scenarion only.
Took many months of reading the doctors own words. Humes, Boswell,
Finck...like a juggling act of words, keep them all in the air at
once. Ultimately you have to work through this in all four dimensions
with the timing of specific fracturing of the bones and lastly where
the fragments ended up after the event. You can argue the placement of
the metal fragments till your blue in the face, but I think you have
to take it several steps further. Anyway I'm home this weekend, no
rush samples in the lab this weekend (for a change).

Tom

Tom

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 10:05:54 AM6/20/09
to
On Jun 18, 8:36 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <3f91aaab-dbda-42bf-bc20-ed7192d17...@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >Tom Pinkston- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

John,

No problem. Just wanted to lend support. I think many people have
grown weary of this part of the debate. Most folks here have a
viewpoint that is held based upon a certain valuation on the physical
evidence, then the testimony and so on. If you work through this
enough times you can easily see how the problem causes so much
disagreement. Depending on where you place your faith in people you
can make a case for several scenarios. Always glad to talk to anyone
about this.

Regards,

Tom


John Fiorentino

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 11:43:04 AM6/20/09
to
Thanks Tom

Yeah, I think I'll just leave it alone. It's really quite vexing, and for
the most part unproductive.

Maybe we could talk about Tague?...............Oh, geez, another "open
wound" around here...............I take that back!

Have a great weekend. Oh, BTW "inconclusive" is the word......... ;-)


John F.


"Tom" <thomasp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:4175fe93-cd9e-4368...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 11:43:47 AM6/20/09
to


>>> "And, I'm also sure he [VB] would appreciate you telling him that you've deemed John Canal, who he closes his letters to me by writing, "Your respectful colleague, Vince Bugliosi", to be a conspiracy believer with strange theories." <<<

You are a conspiracy believer, John. Without a doubt.

You believe that Burkley and Humes and Boswell and Finck deliberately
"under-reported" the condition of JFK's head wounds. And you believe
that Oswald was rubbed out by the Mob -- hence, you must surely also
believe that "The Mob" murdered President Kennedy. Otherwise, why
would the mafia need to hire Ruby to eliminate Lee Harvey?

And you also believe that several members of the Clark Panel and the
Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA deliberately covered up the truth
about JFK's head wounds (via the various "lies" that you think they
told).

If that's not "conspiracy" stuff....then what is it?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 3:34:02 PM6/20/09
to
On 6/20/2009 11:43 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> "And, I'm also sure he [VB] would appreciate you telling him that you've deemed John Canal, who he closes his letters to me by writing, "Your respectful colleague, Vince Bugliosi", to be a conspiracy believer with strange theories."<<<
>
> You are a conspiracy believer, John. Without a doubt.
>
> You believe that Burkley and Humes and Boswell and Finck deliberately
> "under-reported" the condition of JFK's head wounds. And you believe
> that Oswald was rubbed out by the Mob -- hence, you must surely also
> believe that "The Mob" murdered President Kennedy. Otherwise, why
> would the mafia need to hire Ruby to eliminate Lee Harvey?
>

Your logic is flawed. Jack Ruby was not the Mafia. The CIA at the time
had an alliance with the Mafia. Just because some flunky is used in a
murder plot does not mean it was a Mafia hit. It might have been a CIA
contract using a known criminal to provide plausible deniability. And
cover-up specialists like you would fall for it.

> And you also believe that several members of the Clark Panel and the
> Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA deliberately covered up the truth
> about JFK's head wounds (via the various "lies" that you think they
> told).
>
> If that's not "conspiracy" stuff....then what is it?
>


As I have said many times before and this is living proof, MANY WC
defenders (read you) secretly believe it was a conspiracy.


John Canal

unread,
Jun 20, 2009, 11:45:15 PM6/20/09
to
Prev Next Normal view To: jca...@webtv.net
From: John Canal
Subject: Re: Dr. McAdams, I hate being right all the time.
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:13 PM

In article <5302260c-70e3-4e46...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

Your signature "cut & past" posting style and your arguing about the head
wounds as if you knew the medical evidence, are bad enough, IMO....but
when you misrepresent what I say, then...well, I better not say what I
want to or else this will be rejected. I did say some things (that I can't
say here) about you, your character, your style, and lack of knowledge
about the medical evidence on the other group and I meant every word.

Anyway, you know damn well that to say I'm a conspiracy believer on this
newsgroup can be taken by many to mean I believe there was a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK....and you deliberately do that as some sort of an insult
(and that's not to say that there aren't some well read and highly
intelligent CTs). That's hittng below the belt.

Now, can you read? I say up front very clearly in my book that I was
speculating when I offered the scenario that the Mob had LHO
killed......you left that "speculating" part out, DID YOU NOT??????????
Why? I'll tell you why, it's for the same reason you say I'm a conspiracy
believer--it's your style--to sensationalize your attacks by taking my
true beliefs out of context and distorting them.

Pat Speer and I don't agree on much, but, evidently, we do agree you'd
have to do a lot more reading about this case than just RH to justify how
often you voice your opinion around here.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 21, 2009, 12:00:30 AM6/21/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/896eefee90f69210


>>> "Your logic is flawed." <<<


LOL. Thanks for the laugh, Tony.

But, like you always say -- Not my theory.

It's John Canal's theory (or at least it was his theory as of the year
2000). So, go gripe to him about his "flawed logic" then.


>>> "Jack Ruby was not the Mafia." <<


Of course he wasn't. And I never (ever) said he was. It's John Canal
who must certainly believe that Ruby was hired by the Mob to rub out
Lee Oswald, via the wholly-unsupportable scenario laid out in Mr.
Canal's book "Silencing The Lone Assassin" (published in June 2000):


www.Amazon.com/dp/1557787824

>>> "As I have said many times before and this is living proof, MANY WC
defenders (read you) secretly believe it was a conspiracy." <<<


Does Tony Marsh realize he's responding to DAVID VON PEIN in this
post....and not John Canal?? (I wonder if he does.)


Because if Anthony truly thinks that I "secretly believe" that a
conspiracy existed in Dallas in November 1963, he needs medical treatment.


So, once again, it appears that we've been treated to another round of
"Misinterpretation Of Newsgroup Posts" by Anthony "I Feel The Need To
Argue Constantly" Marsh.

Good job, Tony. You're still batting 1.000.


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


0 new messages