Mystery--at least for me anyway--solved!
John Canal
independently replicated F8 (which shows the bullet entry in the skull)
and became 100% certain Humes had been correct about his near-EOP entry,
I've been unable to come up with a believable explanation for why the
entry is shown so far aove the hairline in the BOH photos.
Recently, I advanced a theory (that DVP basically said was B/S) that the
scalp was "stretched" and offered what I thought was some supporting
evidence for that theory: that the scalp that (at Z-frame 313) was either
missing and or macerated in the area of the large top/right/front exit
defect is shown ****VIRTUALLY UNDAMAGED**** in the same BOH photos. In
other words, by stretching the scalp they did two things: 1) the entry
became further above the hairline than it was originally, and 2) the
undamaged upper occipital scalp was stretched enough so it covered a good
portion of the aforementioned large top/right/front opening--the same
wound that they were compelled to cover in anticipation of an open casket
funeral.
Since DVP has rejected that theory, even though he didn't seem to have a
reasonable explanation for why there was so much undamaged scalp in he
area forward of the entry and corresponding to that large top/right/front
defect (as seen in the BOH photos), he [DVP], unknowingly, received some
support from a highly credentialed expert. I won't give out his name right
now, but I've been communicating with him for the past couple of years and
will a least tell you that he was a member of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel (FPP).
BTW, he now has put it in writing (email) that "He will not argue against
what Dr. Humes reported as the entry location...." I was actually
disapointed that his written statement was "watered down" from what he
once promised me over the phone that he'd write about that: He had said
(on the phone) he'd give me something in writing that said, in his
opinion, "Humes was correct about the entry location". I don't think what
he wrote in his email reflects what he told me on the phone he'd
write....but, my feeling is that if there ever was another official
inquiry he would testify that, in his opinion, Humes was correct about the
entry location.
Now, it should be noted that, if one carefully reads the FPP discussions
in 7HSCA, he did suggest that the bullet first impacted in the region of
the EOP, with a fragment tunnelling up and entering at the proposed high
cowlick site. His basis for that hypothesis was the trail of opacities he
saw on the lateral film extending from near the EOP. Oh, shortly after he
offered that theory to his FPP colleagues, they went off the record. I
always wondered if he had been taken to the wooshed during that
"off-the-record" time (because he was suggesting Humes had been correct
about the entry location), and finally asked him what Baden et. al. told
him. He refused to discuss it. Hmmmm, interesting, eh?
Ok, I said this forensic pathologist (formerly on the FPP) supported DVP's
rejection of my "scalp streching" theory, so let me get to what he said
[that supported DVP]. After reminding me he had performed about 10,000
autopsies [my wow!], he said he never saw the scalp stretched the three
inches that I had theorized it had been. I told him I respected his
opinion, but that I would consult with additional morticians to solicit
their opinion on whether or not it was possible (after employing the
process of "undermining" the scalp), to stretch the scalp in the area from
about an inch above the EOP down to the hairine by three inches. I also
hinted to him that "undermining" the scalp so it could be stretched more
would be something that a mortician did a lot more than a forensic
pathologist (medical examiner), like himself would do.
In the past few days, four morticians (in addition to the ones that had
previously told me the same thing) have independently told me that,in
their opinion, by "undermining" the scalp (which is a process performed to
maximize the amount the scalp can be stretched, in which the skin is cut
free from the underlying connecting tissues and muscles), it [the scalp in
that area] could have been stretched three inches. Other morticians, BTW,
told me that the process of "undermining" is not used nearly as often
anymore to cover holes in the head of a deceased as is a new
method......which I won't bore you by explaining.
For me, that ties up the last of three significant "loose end" issues in
this case that I wanted to resolve in my mind, 1) the head-shot entry
location conflict, 2) the BOH wound controversy, and 3) why the hole in
the clothes matched the hole on the autopsy descriptive sheet and where
Burkley described it in the death certificate....with none of that
evidence being consistent with where the photo of the wound shows it was.
Barb J. got me started on two of those "quests"...thanks to her for that
because it's been an interesting ride.
Look, I'm at peace with myself that I can explain those issues, and
frankly don't give a hoot what the skeptics, here, including the scholars,
think about my theories......but get this: the last thing I'm going to do
is to argue with those on this newsgroup anymore.....anyway, it'd be
easier to climb Mt. Everest with greesed sneakers on than it would be to
change anyone's mind here. I'm too old to try to do the impossible, but
I'll save my energy and continue trying to get a re-examination of the
medical evidence done by team of credible, unbiased, experts. Of course,
if that did get done and what they reported supported any of my theories,
they would probably be lumped into the hallucinator category by most here,
like the DVPs and Marshes have done to the autopsy docs and other credible
eyewitnesses. :-(
Cheers...and I'm outta here. Oh, one more thing: .john was sporting enough
to add an article of mine to his website. Thanks again to him for
that...not that anybody here will read it let alone believe anything
that's in it.
If anyone has any "legitimate" questions my email is jca...@webtv.net.
John Canal
WBurg...@aol.com
John, how does this relate to the cerebellum citing by the lead surgeon
(Humes) to the AARB? Why would they stretch the scalp that much and take a
photo of it? You have in the past given little credence to the
O'Connor-Stringer-Jenkins-et al scenario of a second ambulance et al and
the second casket with the pre-autopsy Lifton surgey concept which Waldron
cites as SOP for the Secret Service at the time. I guess you feel the idea
of a forged photo and a second autopsy as outlined by Doug Horne is
errata? I respect your research but could you briefly clarify your FINAL
take on this before you ride your horse off into the sunset? One
paragraph. What happenned.
Burgundy
David Von Pein
Hello John Canal,
Maybe you should ask your FPP friend if he thinks the red spot (i.e., the
bullet hole) in this autopsy photo linked below is penetrating JFK's scalp
at the area of the "cowlick" (i.e., the area on JFK's head where his hair
starts to "diverge" and go in different directions-- which, of course, is
what makes it a "COWLICK AREA" of the head in the first place; and the
hair on Kennedy's head is, indeed, "diverging" in the exact same area of
the head where the red spot/bullet hole is located):
And I'm also curious to know what John's FPP friend would say if he
was asked these two logical question:
"Why would the [autopsy] doctors have had a desire to document the
TRUE location of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head by STRETCHING
his scalp in such an extreme manner (per John Canal's theory) that the
doctors and photographer John Stringer certainly must have KNOWN on
11/22/63 that such a photograph would NOT be depicting the TRUE and
ACCURATE location of the entry wound?
"Were the autopsy doctors deliberately TRYING to hide the true
location of the entry hole by "stretching" the scalp in absurd ways before
having a picture taken of the wound (i.e., a picture that was taken for
the specific reason of showing WHERE on Kennedy's head the entry wound was
located)?" -- DAVID VON PEIN; APRIL 4, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96282f364fca7448
And I'm also wondering about this----
If John Canal's theory about JFK's scalp being stretched three inches is
correct (and in earlier posts, John has suggested that the scalp was
stretched even more than that, such as in John's April 2, 2009, post
referenced below, when he said "they could have stretched the section of
scalp that was still there...three inches and probably a little more")....
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/cea79bf7db3c3668
....then I'm curious to know why the actual bullet hole (red spot) on the
back of President Kennedy's head isn't distorted more than it is in the
autopsy picture linked above.
I.E.,
It seems to me if the President's scalp is being stretched the incredible
amounts that John C. insists it is being stretched on JFK's head in the
above autopsy photograph (which John says is causing "diminished hair
density" or the "thinning" of JFK's hair in the photo), then the actual
bullet hole (the red spot) should be much more "oblong" in shape, due to
this extreme amount of scalp-stretching.
Now, the red spot is, indeed, not a perfectly round hole. I will readily
admit to that obvious fact. The "height" of the wound (with "height" being
a word that I will use here in lieu of the proper medical term to describe
the "North to South" axis/measurement precisely) is 15 millimeters in size
(per JFK's autopsy report); while the "width" of the entry wound is said
to be 6 millimeters in the autopsy report.
But as far as I can remember, I don't think even John Canal has suggested
that the reason the "height" measurement of that wound is more than twice
as big as the "width" measurement is due to the heavy amount of
"stretching" that John says is being done to JFK's scalp in the
above-linked autopsy photo.
And it stands to reason that the entry wound was not being officially
measured by the autopsy doctors while any kind of "scalp stretching" was
being performed on President Kennedy's scalp.
And there's also the following comments made by Michael Baden in 1978
(during a taped interview with Dr. Pierre Finck):
"In reading your autopsy report, you specifically say that the
entrance perforation that you're looking at is 15 by 6 millimeters, WHICH
IS THE PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF THAT AREA IN THE COWLICK [DVP's emphasis]
when we measure it out. And that area...is in the central portion of the
picture, as if that's what's being looked at by the camera." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN; MARCH 12, 1978
So, via the above remarks made by Dr. Baden, the HSCA's Forensic Pathology
Panel was of the opinion that the entry hole in the back of JFK's head
(the red spot), AS SEEN IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH, measures precisely 15
by 6 millimeters, which is exactly the same measurement for that entry
wound as determined by the autopsists.
Therefore, it seems to me that John Canal has a slight problem here, in
that the red spot (entry wound) in the back of JFK's head that is shown in
the above picture (which is also showing what John C. says is a severely
"stretched" scalp of JFK) is EXACTLY the same shape and size as described
in the autopsy report (15 x 6 millimeters).
Why isn't that wound distorted all out of proportion in that autopsy
picture, John? You admit that you think President Kennedy's HAIR is
somewhat distorted (or "diminished" or "thinning") as a result of the
stretching that you say is occurring in that photograph.
Then why is the entry PERFORATION itself (the red spot) not being
distorted into much more of an "egg"-shaped configuration in that very
same photograph?
Anyway, it's just a little more "Food For Scalp-Stretching Thought" at any
rate.
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein
Barb Junkkarinen
Read the HSCA testimonies. They said the purpose of the photo was to
show the entrance in the *scalp* and that they were holding the scalp
up in front of the defect in the bone, in order to do that.
With the scalp loose and being held up ... it just got pulled a bit
too far out of whack ... and that is clear because the 1" right of the
midline EOP wound in the scalp is clearly at or even slightly left of
midline in the pic.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>Hello John Canal,
>
>Maybe you should ask your FPP friend if he thinks the red spot (i.e., the
>bullet hole) in this autopsy photo linked below is penetrating JFK's scalp
>at the area of the "cowlick" (i.e., the area on JFK's head where his hair
>starts to "diverge" and go in different directions-- which, of course, is
>what makes it a "COWLICK AREA" of the head in the first place; and the
>hair on Kennedy's head is, indeed, "diverging" in the exact same area of
>the head where the red spot/bullet hole is located):
You know, don't you that JFK's actual cowlick was high ... and on his
*left*?
Hair "diverged" at the spot in the pick because it it was wound,
disrupted tissue, a bloody spot ... and they had it poised because
their purpose was to take a picture of that spot.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
I can't believe the friend is reneging a bit...sigh. You have told him
it's no 3 inch stretch ... right? That splotch in the BOH is no way 3"
above the EOP ... people need to orient the photo correctly (JFK was
laying on his left side, his nose pointed at an autopsist's stomach)
to see that that splotch is no where near the cowlick area ... it's
closer to the top of the ears ... which is close to the eop.
It's been too long, I'd say...
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
I'm not going to argue with you, but will post this time to answer your
question. If you'll look at the photo you post so often, you'll notice that the
red spot is in the area where the hair density is not diminished--translation:
most of the scalp that was stretched was "below" the red spot. I might add that
they weren't concerned about the appearance of the area where the scalp was
stretched, because that area would eventually be concealed with a pillow.
For someone who argues about this issue so much, I find it pretty remarkable
that you have not been able to decipher the photo of the entry in the
skull....and please don't cop out and try to convince those on this NG that no
one else has...because even McAdams has figured it out....and there are many
others. Your relying on a photo (that wasn't taken at the beginning of the
autopsy) of the entry in the ***scalp***, instead of a photo of the entry in the
***skull***, in order to determine where the entry was in the ***skull***,
speaks volumes.
If you should chose to get ambitious and try to figure F8 out, a helpful aid to
correctly orientating it [F8] is to find the bone flap that is prominently seen
in your favorite photo hanging off the front right of his head and then find it
in F8...it's there. That's all the help I'll give you. Like they say, you can
lead someone to water, but you can't make them drink.
John Canal
John Canal
says...
If he knows there will be a re-examination of the evidence, I'm sure he will be
more definitive..in favor of Humes' entry.
>You have told him
>it's no 3 inch stretch ... right?
I have said approximately three inches...it could be two or it could be a little
more than three. The key is to determine how far above the typical hairline the
EOP is (it varies, of course, according to the individual because not everyone's
hairline and EOP location are the same). My EOP, for instance, is "very roughly"
three inches above my hairline. If JFK's was even close to that, then the fact
that the entry is roughly six inches above his hairline in the photo has to be
explained. The explanation, IMHO, is that the scalp was stretched--they said
so--they also said it was "undermined", which enhances the stretching of the
scalp. The scalp "had" to be stretched because they needed to try to cover that
huge top/right/front hole [area of missing bone and missing and/or macerated
scalp].
>That splotch in the BOH is no way 3"
>above the EOP ... people need to orient the photo correctly (JFK was
>laying on his left side, his nose pointed at an autopsist's stomach)
>to see that that splotch is no where near the cowlick area ... it's
>closer to the top of the ears ... which is close to the eop.
I will agree with you that it's closer to the EOP than most people think. The
camera angle is the reason for the misinterpretation, IMO....your demonstration
proved that. So did Brian Kelleher's. The FPP guy believes that's the problem
too.
>It's been too long, I'd say...
Yes.
>Bests,
Back at you.
JC
>Barb :-)
>>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
The angle and not realizing the true position/orientation ... makes am
amazing difference.
As for the EOP ... I think you remember I measured the EOP relative to
the tops of the ears omn many many people .... dozens. And I found
that in all but 1 of them, the EOP was anywhere bbetween 3/4" below to
spot on with the tops of the person's ears. One person had a full 1"
difference between the two ... tall ears.
Orient the pic the way you know it goes ... and it's no 3" from the
splotch to the top of JFK's ears ... which puts the splotch much
closer to where his eop would be ... much much closer.
This was the exercise I went thru with Baden ... looking at that pic,
talking about the eop relative to the tops of the ears, JFK's position
on his side and the angle of the camera ... the location of the
splotch ... then turning the pic to orient it correctly and telling
him to look where the splotch is relative to the tops of JFK's ears.
Baden was nodding along with me the whole way ... when I got to the
punchline, he basically sputtered and thre his hands up ... he was
basically quite quiet.... and that was the final thing at the end of
what turned out to be about a 4-1/2 - 5 hr lunch meeting (Tink
Thompson, Baden, Wecht, Aguilar, Mantik, the Snyders, and me. The
Snyder's daughter was along as was Baden's wife, Linda Kenney Baden.)
When we got into the car to leave, David Mantik laughed and said,
"What was that Baden said again, Barb ... sputter sputter, huh?" We
all laughed.
Have you looked for any early just-out-of-Navy-training pics of JFK? A
buzz cut may help with your approach.
Bests,
Barb :-)
John Canal
WBurg...@aol.com says...
>
>On Apr 17, 7:55=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> For going on nine years now, ever since I and, subsequently three others,
>> independently replicated F8 (which shows the bullet entry in the skull)
>> and became 100% certain Humes had been correct about his near-EOP entry,
>> I've been unable to come up with a believable explanation for why the
>> entry is shown so far aove the hairline in the BOH photos.
>>
>> Recently, I advanced a theory (that DVP basically said was B/S) that the
>> scalp was "stretched" and offered what I thought was some supporting
>> evidence for that theory: that the scalp that (at Z-frame 313) was either
>> missing and or macerated in the area of the large top/right/front exit
>> defect is shown ****VIRTUALLY UNDAMAGED**** in the same BOH photos. In
>> other words, by stretching the scalp they did two things: 1) the entry
>> became further above the hairline than it was originally, and 2) the
>> undamaged upper occipital scalp was stretched enough so it covered a good
>> portion of the aforementioned large top/right/front opening--the same
>> wound that they were compelled to cover in anticipation of an open casket
>> funeral.
>>
>> Since DVP has rejected that theory, even though he didn't seem to have a
>> reasonable explanation for why there was so much undamaged scalp in he
>> area forward of the entry and corresponding to that large top/right/front
>> defect (as seen in the BOH photos), he [DVP], unknowingly, received some
>t
>> now, but I've been communicating with him for the past couple of years an=
>d
>> will a least tell you that he was a member of the HSCA's Forensic
>> Pathology Panel (FPP).
>>
>> BTW, he now has put it in writing (email) that "He will not argue against
>> what Dr. Humes reported as the entry location...." I was actually
>> disapointed that his written statement was "watered down" from what he
>> once promised me over the phone that he'd write about that: He had said
>> (on the phone) he'd give me something in writing that said, in his
>> opinion, "Humes was correct about the entry location". I don't think what
>> he wrote in his email reflects what he told me on the phone he'd
>> write....but, my feeling is that if there ever was another official
>e
>> entry location.
>>
>> Now, it should be noted that, if one carefully reads the FPP discussions
>> in 7HSCA, he did suggest that the bullet first impacted in the region of
>> the EOP, with a fragment tunnelling up and entering at the proposed high
>> cowlick site. His basis for that hypothesis was the trail of opacities he
>> saw on the lateral film extending from near the EOP. Oh, shortly after he
>> offered that theory to his FPP colleagues, they went off the record. I
>> always wondered if he had been taken to the wooshed during that
>> "off-the-record" time (because he was suggesting Humes had been correct
>> about the entry location), and finally asked him what Baden et. al. told
>> him. He refused to discuss it. Hmmmm, interesting, eh?
>>
>s
>> rejection of my "scalp streching" theory, so let me get to what he said
>> [that supported DVP]. After reminding me he had performed about 10,000
>> autopsies [my wow!], he said he never saw the scalp stretched the three
>> inches that I had theorized it had been. I told him I respected his
>> opinion, but that I would consult with additional morticians to solicit
>> their opinion on whether or not it was possible (after employing the
>m
>> about an inch above the EOP down to the hairine by three inches. I also
>> hinted to him that "undermining" the scalp so it could be stretched more
>> would be something that a mortician did a lot more than a forensic
>> pathologist (medical examiner), like himself would do.
>>
>> In the past few days, four morticians (in addition to the ones that had
>> previously told me the same thing) have independently told me that,in
>o
>> maximize the amount the scalp can be stretched, in which the skin is cut
>n
>> that area] could have been stretched three inches. Other morticians, BTW,
>> told me that the process of "undermining" is not used nearly as often
>> anymore to cover holes in the head of a deceased as is a new
>> method......which I won't bore you by explaining.
>>
>> For me, that ties up the last of three significant "loose end" issues in
>> this case that I wanted to resolve in my mind, 1) the head-shot entry
>> location conflict, 2) the BOH wound controversy, and 3) why the hole in
>> the clothes matched the hole on the autopsy descriptive sheet and where
>> Burkley described it in the death certificate....with none of that
>> evidence being consistent with where the photo of the wound shows it was.
>>
>> Barb J. got me started on two of those "quests"...thanks to her for that
>> because it's been an interesting ride.
>>
>> Look, I'm at peace with myself that I can explain those issues, and
>,
>> think about my theories......but get this: the last thing I'm going to do
>> is to argue with those on this newsgroup anymore.....anyway, it'd be
>> easier to climb Mt. Everest with greesed sneakers on than it would be to
>> change anyone's mind here. I'm too old to try to do the impossible, but
>> I'll save my energy and continue trying to get a re-examination of the
>> medical evidence done by team of credible, unbiased, experts. Of course,
>> if that did get done and what they reported supported any of my theories,
>,
>> like the DVPs and Marshes have done to the autopsy docs and other credibl=
>e
>> eyewitnesses. :-(
>>
>> Cheers...and I'm outta here. Oh, one more thing: .john was sporting enoug=
>h
>> to add an article of mine to his website. Thanks again to him for
>> that...not that anybody here will read it let alone believe anything
>> that's in it.
>>
>> If anyone has any "legitimate" questions my email is jca...@webtv.net.
>>
>> John Canal
>
>John, how does this relate to the cerebellum citing by the lead surgeon
>(Humes) to the AARB?
Humes said that in his WC testimony.
Different issue. There was a BOH wound...a few pieces of rear skull moved
out of position (with the sharp edges of one or two pieces tearing the
scalp) after the bullet hit near the EOP. Cerebellum could be seen through
the opening.
When the BOH photos were taken of the entry in the scalp, the rear bone
had come out. There were only tears in the scalp back there and it was
easy for them to suture those closed.
>Why would they stretch the scalp that much and take a
>photo of it?
That was stupid of them, but I believe it was Mr. Paranoia, Admiral
Burkley, who was calling the shots. Maybe they didn't think anyone would
question the autopsy results. Normally autopsy results are not questioned.
To say they were wrong about that would be the "Mother of all
understatements".
>You have in the past given little credence to the
>O'Connor-Stringer-Jenkins-et al scenario of a second ambulance et al and
>the second casket with the pre-autopsy Lifton surgey concept which Waldron
>cites as SOP for the Secret Service at the time. I guess you feel the idea
>of a forged photo and a second autopsy as outlined by Doug Horne is
>errata?
They tried to explain in their own ways why the BOH photos do not show a
BOH wound. The fact is that there was indeed a BOH wound, but, by the time
the BOH photos were taken, that wound had been sutured closed.
>I respect your research but could you briefly clarify your FINAL
>take on this before you ride your horse off into the sunset? One
>paragraph. What happenned.
I think now that I'm leaving this forum, except to answer occasional
questions (no debating), Barb will step forward (like she used to
pre-Judyth) and answer most of the questions about these issues...she's
more than capable.
John Canal
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/14f79c1c404bba67
>>> "You know, don't you[,] that JFK's actual cowlick was high...and on
his *left*?" <<<
Try telling that to the House Select Committee (they apparently didn't
agree with you):
"In reading your [Dr. Finck's] autopsy report, you specifically say
that the entrance perforation that you're looking at is 15 by 6
millimeters, WHICH IS THE PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF THAT AREA IN THE COWLICK
[DVP's emphasis] when we measure it out. And that area...is in the central
portion of the picture, as if that's what's being looked at by the
camera." -- Michael Baden; 3/12/78
>>> "Hair "diverged" at the spot in the pick because it it was wound,
disrupted tissue, a bloody spot ... and they had it poised because their
purpose was to take a picture of that spot." <<<
I defy anyone looking at the above Barb Junkkarinen-authored paragraph to
make head or tail out of it.
>>> "With the scalp loose and being held up ... it just got pulled a bit
too far out of whack ... and that is clear because the 1" right of the
midline EOP wound in the scalp is clearly at or even slightly left of
midline in the pic." <<<
No, it's not.
It's obvious that Stringer wasn't standing DIRECTLY behind JFK's head at
the time he took the picture. It's being taken at a slight "right-
to-left" angle:
John Canal
Ok, yes and Paul drew where he thought the EOP would be on JFK using an
in-life photo (see his "Orientating the BOH Photo" article)...and he has
it near the top of JFK's ear, consistent with what you found out. FWIW, my
EOP is also near the top of my ear. But....
>Orient the pic the way you know it goes ... and it's no 3" from the
>splotch to the top of JFK's ears ... which puts the splotch much
>closer to where his eop would be ... much much closer.
....Paul shows the red spot or splotch in the BOH photos to be about 3-4
inches above the top of the ear.
>This was the exercise I went thru with Baden ... looking at that pic,
>talking about the eop relative to the tops of the ears, JFK's position
>on his side and the angle of the camera ... the location of the
>splotch ... then turning the pic to orient it correctly and telling
>him to look where the splotch is relative to the tops of JFK's ears.
>Baden was nodding along with me the whole way ... when I got to the
>punchline, he basically sputtered and thre his hands up ... he was
>basically quite quiet.... and that was the final thing at the end of
>what turned out to be about a 4-1/2 - 5 hr lunch meeting (Tink
>Thompson, Baden, Wecht, Aguilar, Mantik, the Snyders, and me. The
>Snyder's daughter was along as was Baden's wife, Linda Kenney Baden.)
>
>When we got into the car to leave, David Mantik laughed and said,
>"What was that Baden said again, Barb ... sputter sputter, huh?" We
>all laughed.
>
>Have you looked for any early just-out-of-Navy-training pics of JFK? A
>buzz cut may help with your approach.
I'm using the in-life photo of JFK Paul has on his website.
You make a lot of sense and we both agree the entry was a little above the
EOP, but try looking at what I'm seeing. Using the Dox drawing of the BOH
photo, which shows the cm marks on the ruler, the red spotch is about a
whopping 7 inches above the hairline. Barb, that's too much distance
[scalp]. Try measuring the distance from Juha's EOP to his hairline or
about the bottom of his ear...see what you get. I say you'll measure that
distance to be between 3-4 inches....(that distance on me is a little over
3 inches) and that reveals the problem, i.e. "there's just too much
hair/scalp between JFK's hairline and his EOP [about 7 inches] in the BOH
photos.
Again, you are absolutely correct about the camera perspective problem in
the BOH photos and Kelleher's demonstration backs you up, not to mention
my FPP friend agreeing with you....that the red splotch in the photos is
significantly nearer the EOP than most people have thought it was.
Please, though, for a minute, "forget the ears".....just use the hairline
to splotch distance...if the splotch was just above his EOP, that distance
should be only 3-4 inches, but in the photos it's very roughly seven. The
scalp, IMHO, had to have been stretched...just like they said they did.
You and I are sick and tired of the DVP's and others calling the witnesses
liars or hallucinators---well they weren't doing either when they said
they stretched the scalp. And, it makes perfect sense that they did;
IMO--they needed to get some good scalp forward to help cover the huge
area of missing/macerated scalp...the only way to accomplish that was to
stretch the good scalp from the EOP to the hairline....just where the
photos show the hair to be less dense.....which is a telltale sign that
the scalp was stretched there...."very roughly" 3 inches worth.
Note also that they couldn't stretch the hair in the front or near the red
spot to help cover the huge area of missing/macerated scalp because that
would detract from his appearance...the good scalp/hair, "nursery" if you
will, had to come from an area of his head that wouldn't be seen when he
was in the casket...that area was from the EOP to his hairline, which
would have been hidden by a pillow.
Bests to you too.
JC
Anthony Marsh
Waldron doesn't know what he is talking about. The Secret Service did
not routinely perform pre-autopsy surgeries on assassinated Presidents.
Anthony Marsh
But in fact it is physically impossible to stretch the scape three inches.
That has never happened and never will and you have no medical expert who
describes that happening.
John Canal
One more point. I'm sure you agree that they stretched the scalp (Humes
said they undermined it which makes the scalp even more "stretchable").
Ok, so they had "very very roughly" a five X 2 or 3 inch top/right/front
area of missing and/or macerated scalp that they needed to "fix". Sooo,
stretching the scalp a half inch or one inch, or even two inches wasn't
going to help....they needed more...I say they stretched it very roughly
three inches.
As I wrote earlier, that stretching had to be done where it wouldn't
detract from his appearance, thus the best area to stretch the scalp was
from near the EOP (just below the splotch) down to the hairline...just
where the photos show the hair to be less dense. That stretching, IMO,
resulted in the increased distance between the splotch as well as
virtually undamaged scalp (the autopsist is holding some in the photos)
being available to partially cover the aforementioned large area of
missing/macerated scalp.
I'm speculating here, because it really doesn't matter all that much, but
maybe they couldn't stretch the scalp enough to do the job....and that's
why the plan for an open casket funeral was aborted. Perhaps someone knows
for sure why they went with the closed casket...I'm just guessing.
More [last] speculation. I think they may have stretched the lower scalp
so much they caused it to slightly tear....and that allowed some tissue to
exude through the break [in the scalp]...that'd be the white spot. They
probably weren't too concerned, though, because that part of his head
would eventually be hidden by the pillow....and that maybe why they didn't
even bother to do a better job cleaning that area for the photos.
Take care,
JC
David Von Pein
>>> "Your relying on a photo (that wasn't taken at the beginning of the
autopsy) of the entry in the ***scalp***, instead of a photo of the entry
in the ***skull***, in order to determine where the entry was in the
***skull***, speaks volumes." <<<
The HSCA's 9-member Forensic Pathology Panel was able to figure it out --
i.e., both the entry wound in the SKULL and the entry in the SCALP were in
the area of the COWLICK:
"In reading your autopsy report, you specifically say that the
entrance perforation that you're looking at is 15 by 6 millimeters, which
is the precise measurement of that area in the cowlick when we measure it
out. And that area...is in the central portion of the picture, as if
that's what's being looked at by the camera. At the same time, from having
the benefit of X-rays and everything, it lays right over what appears to
be an X-ray [of] the entrance perforation in the skull." -- DR. MICHAEL
BADEN; 03/12/78
www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
You can disagree with those words spoken by Dr. Baden all you want, but
he's on tape saying these words in March of 1978:
"It [the red spot in the autopsy photo] lays right over what
appears to be an X-ray [of] the entrance perforation in the skull." --
Dr. Baden
So, John C., is Dr. Baden a liar? Or is/was he merely totally
incompetent?
And, by extrapolation, I guess John Canal needs to label all of the other
eight members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel as "incompetent" too,
since they all agreed (in 1978 at any rate) with Dr. Baden's analysis of
the true location of the entry wound on JFK's head.
Footnote -- Barb J. is, IMO, way off when she says that the red spot is
about at the level of the top of the ears. JFK's head is being tilted BACK
a little bit in the photo. If we were to place his head in a rigid,
upright, non-tilted position, I think the red spot would appear to be even
higher on JFK's head than it does appear in the photo below....i.e., the
red spot (the bullet hole itself) is well above the top of the ears:
John Canal
least until VB changes his mind...then you'll follow suit. But I will answer
your question.
> "It [the red spot in the autopsy photo] lays right over what
>appears to be an X-ray [of] the entrance perforation in the skull." --
>Dr. Baden
>
>
>So, John C., is Dr. Baden a liar? Or is/was he merely totally
>incompetent?
IMO, he lied....several times. I've listed the instances for you before.
Maybe he thought his lies were justified, though--he was between a rock
and a hard place, i.e. agree with one of the most highly recognized
forensic pathologists in the world, The Clark Panel's Dr. Fisher......or
three unknown and relatively inexperienced military pathologists.
Had he agreed with the later, in effect he'd be refuting the conclusions
of a government inquiry (Clark Panel) that had already refuted the
conclusions of an earlier investigation (WC). Musical entry wounds,
anyone?
It was a no-brainer...again, maybe he thought he was doing it for the good
of the nation..I don't know?
Let me ask you a couple of questions. During the FPP discussions (7HSCA),
why do you think they went off the record as soon as Dr. Davis pointed out
that there was evidence that the bullet initially impacted near the EOP?
Lunch? And when they came back from "lunch" why do you think they started
talking about something entirely different? Come on, don't be so damn
naive.
Two more questions. They had a very very roughly 5 inch x 3 inch area of
missing/macerated scalp in the top/right/front of his head to "fix"...so:
1) Do you think stretching the scalp a half inch or even one or two inches
would have helped them "fix" the scalp in that rather sizeable area for an
open casket funeral?
2) What part of the virtually undamaged scalp would you have stretched to
help "fix" the scalp in that area..knowing that appearance was a priority
objective?
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "IMO, he [Dr. Baden, the FPP member from HELL!!] lied....several
times." <<<
What about the other eight FPP pathologists who all agreed with the
"cowlick" determination for the entry wound? Were they merely following
their leader (Baden)?
>>> "Let me ask you a couple of questions. During the FPP discussions (7HSCA), why do you think they went off the record as soon as Dr. Davis pointed out that there was evidence that the bullet initially impacted near the EOP? Lunch?" <<<
Probably to set Davis straight. (It must've worked too, huh?)
>>> "Two more questions. They had a very very roughly 5 inch x 3 inch area of missing/macerated scalp in the top/right/front of his head to "fix"...so: 1) Do you think stretching the scalp a half inch or even one or two inches would have helped them "fix" the scalp in that rather sizeable area for an open casket funeral?" <<<
Of course not. Why on Earth would they want to "fix" his head in such
a crazy fashion by "stretching" his rear scalp all to hell? They
probably utilized some type of rubber or "fake head" material of some
kind. In fact, we know they used a rubber type of "mat", per Tom
Robinson's comments about putting in a "rubber dam" of some kind to
plug up the exit wound.
Of course, any such "dam" was not utilized in the OCCIPITAL area of
the head, as almost all CTers want to believe.
Plus, via your theory, John, there would be no need for any such "rubber"
device in the BACK of Kennedy's head at all, since you say the scalp was
sewn up nice and neat, totally hiding the damaged skull that you continue
to pretend was present in the occipital underneath your make-believe
"sewn-up" scalp (which had to be a huge amount of "sewing", too, in order
for John Canal's theory about all of the Parkland witnesses being RIGHT
about there actually being a great-big hole in JFK's BOH while at PH on
11/22).
>>> "2) What part of the virtually undamaged scalp would you have stretched to help "fix" the scalp in that area...knowing that appearance was a priority objective?" <<<
None.
I would have utilized a "fake/rubber/plastic/whatever" type of device
to fill in the hole (just as Tom Robinson said he did).
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/14f79c1c404bba67
>
>
>
>>>> "You know, don't you[,] that JFK's actual cowlick was high...and on
>his *left*?" <<<
>
>
>Try telling that to the House Select Committee (they apparently didn't
>agree with you):
Oh, we all know they kept referring to it as "the cowlick."
Perhaps they should have looked at a photo of the back or side of
JFK's head in life. High on left side ... decidedly not in the middle
of the back of his head just above his ears.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>>>> "Your relying on a photo (that wasn't taken at the beginning of the
>autopsy) of the entry in the ***scalp***, instead of a photo of the entry
>in the ***skull***, in order to determine where the entry was in the
>***skull***, speaks volumes." <<<
>
>
>The HSCA's 9-member Forensic Pathology Panel was able to figure it out --
>i.e., both the entry wound in the SKULL and the entry in the SCALP were in
>the area of the COWLICK:
>
>
> "In reading your autopsy report, you specifically say that the
>entrance perforation that you're looking at is 15 by 6 millimeters, which
>is the precise measurement of that area in the cowlick when we measure it
>out. And that area...is in the central portion of the picture, as if
>that's what's being looked at by the camera. At the same time, from having
>the benefit of X-rays and everything, it lays right over what appears to
>be an X-ray [of] the entrance perforation in the skull." -- DR. MICHAEL
>BADEN; 03/12/78
>
>
>www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
>
>
>You can disagree with those words spoken by Dr. Baden all you want, but
>he's on tape saying these words in March of 1978:
Bully for Baden. Where was JFK's cowlick? Post a photo showing JFK's
cowlick. Compare to BOH photo.... and those words you are so fond of.
And below you say:
"Footnote -- Barb J. is, IMO, way off when she says that the red spot
is about at the level of the top of the ears. JFK's head is being
tilted BACK a little bit in the photo. "
I didn't say the splotch is "about at the level of the top of the
ears." The splotch is clearly above the top of the ears ... but not by
far ... certainly not by 3 to 4".
In the photo, and Baden agreed, JFK'
s head is just slighted cocked back and down a little bit to his left.
He wqas on his left side ... his nose aimed at the autopsist's belly,
in a copy without the autopsists' arm bent at the elbo cropped out,
it's easier to get a sense of position and angle.
That photo is in this article here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/barbj.pdf
Barb :-)
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "IMO, he [Dr. Baden, the FPP member from HELL!!] lied....several
>times." <<<
You sir are one unique person.
You obviously haven't read his testimony, you can't or refuse to try to figure
out the photo which shows the world precisely where the entry in the skull was,
and you have just about every witness who saw the body lying or hallucinating
but you run your mouth with the best of them.
>What about the other eight FPP pathologists who all agreed with the
>"cowlick" determination for the entry wound? Were they merely following
>their leader (Baden)?
My friend on the FPP doesn't agree...why did he sign off on the
report?....probably the same reason Wecht did--pressure.
>
>>>> "Let me ask you a couple of questions. During the FPP discussions (7HSC=
>A), why do you think they went off the record as soon as Dr. Davis pointed =
>out that there was evidence that the bullet initially impacted near the EOP=
>? Lunch?" <<<
>
>Probably to set Davis straight. (It must've worked too, huh?)
No, you haven't even read the record well enough to realize that I gave it away
several times who my FPP friend was who now says he will not argue against
Humes' entry being the correct one....and he's the one who told the other FPP
members, on the record, there was evidence the bullet entered near the
EOP....and was evidently scolded for that. And no, it really didn't work!
>>>> "Two more questions. They had a very very roughly 5 inch x 3 inch area =
>of missing/macerated scalp in the top/right/front of his head to "fix"...so=
>: 1) Do you think stretching the scalp a half inch or even one or two inche=
>s would have helped them "fix" the scalp in that rather sizeable area for a=
>n open casket funeral?" <<<
>
>Of course not. Why on Earth would they want to "fix" his head in such
>a crazy fashion by "stretching" his rear scalp all to hell? They
>probably utilized some type of rubber or "fake head" material of some
>kind. In fact, we know they used a rubber type of "mat", per Tom
>Robinson's comments about putting in a "rubber dam" of some kind to
>plug up the exit wound.
Have you read the statements of the morticians and the autopsists regarding ther
attempts to close the wounds? Hell no, but you keep running your mouth as if you
have some clue as to what happened....but you really don't.
>Of course, any such "dam" was not utilized in the OCCIPITAL area of
>the head, as almost all CTers want to believe.
LOL! You don't have a clue what happened.
>Plus, via your theory, John, there would be no need for any such "rubber"
>device in the BACK of Kennedy's head at all, since you say the scalp was
>sewn up nice and neat, totally hiding the damaged skull that you continue
>to pretend was present in the occipital underneath your make-believe
>"sewn-up" scalp (which had to be a huge
>amount of "sewing", too, in order
>for John Canal's theory about all of the Parkland witnesses being RIGHT
>about there actually being a great-big hole in JFK's BOH while at PH on
>11/22).
Do you have to try to misrepresent what I said, or does it come naturally for
you? I never said they were right about any great-big hole!
>>>> "2) What part of the virtually undamaged scalp would you have stretched=
> to help "fix" the scalp in that area...knowing that appearance was a prior=
>ity objective?" <<<
>
>
>None.
So the morticians and autopsists lied? Amazing! Damn them--I wonder why they
would lie?
>I would have utilized a "fake/rubber/plastic/whatever" type of device
>to fill in the hole (just as Tom Robinson said he did).
That would have looked really neat if there had been an open-casket funeral.
jackie would have been touched by the memory of her fallen husband lying there
with a rubber "whatever" showing where the huge top/rght/front wound was.
Linton an Marsh make more sense.
Are any lurkers out there laughing at DVP's B/S?
Anyway, that's another stupid thing to say. They used plaster of paris, and then
put rubber over it so they could attach the scalp to the rubber.
Pleeease don't address me in your posts any more until you've read the evidence.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "I didn't say the splotch [red spot] is "about at the level of the top of the ears"." <<<
You said:
"It's closer to the top of the ears." -- Barb J.; 04/18/09
RE: The Cowlick......
JFK parted his hair on the left side of his head, that's certainly
true. And a "cowlick" can be seen in many pictures and films on the
LEFT side of JFK's head. That's true too.
But that doesn't mean that a "Cowlick"-like area (i.e., diverging hair
going in two different directions) cannot exist on the RIGHT side of
his head too, when his hair is manipulated in such a way to show the
"diverging"/"parting" hair on the RIGHT side of his head....which is
just what occurred when the doctors (or somebody) "manipulated" and
obviously cleaned up JFK's hair for the purpose of taking the picture
of the entry wound.
Just because JFK always parted his hair on the left side of his head,
that doesn't mean a "cowlick" couldn't be visible on the right side of
his head too (given the right conditions and manipulation of his
hair).
If JFK had parted his hair on the RIGHT side of his head (instead of
on the left), his "cowlick" area would look similar to this:
David Von Pein
>>> "I never said they were right about any great-big hole!" <<<
LOL!
Then your whole "BOH" theory just went sliding down the toilet, John.
Why?
Because you NEED a "great-big" hole to be present AT PARKLAND in the
RIGHT-REAR (occipital) area of JFK's head in order for your theory to be
correct.
Why?
Because you want to BELIEVE THE PARKLAND WITNESSES -- and those Parkland
witnesses all said they saw a very large wound in the occipital area of
JFK's head....not just a teeny-tiny "quarter"-sized hole that you seem to
want to invent.
Talk about picking and choosing. John wants to invent a unique "BOH/ LN"
theory (in large part for the purpose of reconciling the observations of
those Parkland witnesses)....but at the very same time John C. thinks he
can utter the following absurd comment while still trying to prove that
those Parkland witnesses were right after all:
"I never said they were right about any great-big hole!" -- John C.
To throw John's words back at him:
You, sir, are one unique person.
pjspeare
DVP, you might be surprised to find that I agree with you that Canal's
"stretched-scalp" theory is nonsense. But you are in error to keep
repeating as evidence Baden's assessment that the red splotch matched the
size of the wound at autopsy. Baden was trying to intimidate Finck into
going along with the change in wound location. He was repeating something
he read in the Clark Panel's report. But there is no way in heck that
Baden could honestly have believed that the red splotch was 15 by 6 or 2
1/2 by 1. The HSCA instead deliberately fudged this issue by saying it was
15-20 by 9. It is in fact nowhere near 2 by 1.
The actual EOP entrance was not measured until after the scalp had been
peeled back and the tunnel exposed. I have a number of pictures of it at
patspeer.com
http://www.patspeer.com/nowyou.jpg/nowyou-full;init:.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg/backoftheheadcom-full.jpg