David and Goliaths?—Actually David VP.......
John Canal
David and Goliaths?�Actually, in what one might think would be a �David &
Goliath�, lop-sided type engagement, David VP, relatively new to the medical
evidence, appears to be extremely confident he�s up to the challenge of taking
on Paul Seaton & myself (and on rare occasions, Barb J., when she�d not locking
horns w/Pam regarding Judyth and other terribly important issues), who have been
studying the medical evidence for probably about15 and 10 years respectively.
David thinks he has the equalizer, to make up for his lack of the medical
evidence, however�because he has the HSCA, Bugliosi, Posner, McAdams, and
Fiorentino agreeing with his �No-BOH-Wound� and �Cowlick entry� positions, which
I guess could be called the �official� positions.
Even so, when I started debating David I thought he�d be a pushover, because I
knew he was relatively unfamiliar with the medical evidence. I also thought
Paul, for the same reasons, would send David running with his tail between his
legs. I was dead wrong on both assumptions. David doesn�t run--he actually stays
on the offensive.....I�d love to have a buck for every post he�s submitted with
my name mentioned in it.
In the past 24 hours or so, I tried to step back and try to figure out why
David, fearlessly, and seemingly anxious, if not �frothing at the bit�, to
engage me, was still posting away, almost relentlessly, for my attention when I
thought I�d made many good points--just as Paul had--that would send him back to
the drawing board. I think know now what keeps him around. IT�S HIS PATENTED
�CUT & PASTE� DEBATING STYLE. I hate it and have complained about it over and
over again......but why would he change a technique that�s been so effective.
WHAT HE DOES, if you�re unfamiliar with that technique, IS IGNORE ALL THE GOOD
POINTS THAT EITHER PAUL OR I HAVE MADE, AND CUT OUT AND REBUT THE FEW THAT HE
THINKS HE HAS A GOOD REBUTTAL FOR......that �rebuttal�, being pretty much
repetitive: telling us that the lateral X-ray, the BOH photographs, and the
Z-film �prove� we�re wrong when we argue there was a BOH wound and when I argue
the entry was near the EOP. Here�s what I mean--this is a quote today that could
be called his �signature� rebuttal.
DVP <quote on>
How in the world one man (John A. Canal) can talk himself into
believing that ALL of the items in the complete photographic record
surrounding JFK's head wounds (e.g., the autopsy photos AND X-rays AND
the Z-Film) are, incredibly, displaying a FALSE AND MISLEADING RECORD
regarding the true nature of Kennedy's head wounds is something that I
will never be able to understand at all.
DVP <quote off>
If he hasn�t posted this same argument 50 times, he hasn�t posted it once. He�s
like a broken record. That said, I�m going to try a new approach to flush out
the holes in his �so-called� argument by asking him a series of simple ## �YES�
## or ## �NO� ## questions. If he employs his usual cut and paste technique,
I�ll keep repeating the same questions until he answers them��..at which time I
think his weak position will be apparent. We�ll see what happens.
�YES� or �NO� Question #1:
Are you 100% certain that Boswell did not shove any dislodged rear bone pieces
(that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the lateral X-ray
was taken?
�YES� or �NO� Question #2:
Are you 100% certain that the scalp, as seen in the BOH photographs, was not
stretched and/or repaired prior to those photos being taken?
�YES� or �NO� Question #3: Are you 100% certain you�d be able to see in the
Z-film a �non-blow-out� wound in the back of JFK�s head where one or two loose
bone fragments, caused by the bullet fired from the SN, were dislodged?
Note 1: At least I believe the gaps between those dislodged pieces may have been
widened when they transferred JFK from the limo to the gurney.
Note 2: I believe, because blood and brain matter began gravitating towards the
gaps between those dislodged rear bone pieces, the wound appeared to become
progressively worse from the time he was first put in a prone position to the
time, several hours later, when he finally was turned over at Bethesda.
DVP, I have no idea whatsoever whether you�ll answer those questions or, if you
do, how you�ll answer them. I will say, though, if you answer them honestly I
would ask you one more �YES� or �NO� question.
�YES� or �NO� Question #4: (take a deep breath because it�s a long question)
Considering that �your� lateral X-ray, BOH photos, and Z-film so-called
�evidence�, as the above comments strongly imply, constitute pieces of what are
only circumstantial evidence that there was no BOH wound and that the entry was
high......,DON�T YOU FIND YOUR ACCUSATION (based on that circumstantial
�evidence�) THAT THE ABOUT 30 �BOH-WOUND� EYEWITNESSES WERE ALL WRONG WHEN THEY
SAID THEY SAW A BOH WOUND.....AS WELL AS YOUR ACCUSATION (also based on some of
that circumstantial �evidence�) THAT THE SEVERAL �LOW-ENTRY� EYEWITNESSES WERE
WRONG BY ABOUT FOUR INCHES.....TO BE EVEN MORE BIZARRE THAN LINTON�S
�GREER-DID-IT� AND MARSH�S �NO-HITS-TO-THE-BOH� THEORIES?????????????????
For the record, if the circumstances surrounding the taking of the x-rays and
photographs, to include the precise time they were taken, had been recorded by,
let�s say, Siebert & O�Neill, I would have no problem whatsoever weighing their
evidentiary value--REGARDLESS OF WHAT SIDE THEY SUPPORTED.
Before I end this, I want to include most of a post that you--surprise,
surprise--all but ignored. It�s pretty much how I sum up your position. Here it
is:
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy's life and
said:
1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in their
hands and said:
1. the entry was near the EOP
2. the BOH skull was fragmented
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its "stretchability" for the purpose of
closing the large openings in his head
6. they either did not see and/or recover the 6.5 mm opacity on 11-22-63
DVP "DOESN'T" believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and said he
helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the entry and that
he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the BOH photos were taken
after the brain had been removed).
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open casket
funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in order to
close the wounds.
##### DVP "DOES" believe Baden, who "never saw the body" and said:
1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower brain
damage reported.
2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though: a) "no one" can see the top-front
of the cerebellum by just viewing either the basilar or superior photos or
drawings of the brain and b). Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the
cerebellum lacerated.
3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly
credentialed member of Baden's own panel told him, on the record, that he saw
evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.
4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of the
evidence for a cowlick entering bullet, even though DVP himself acknowledged
that opacity represented an artifact....(but lately says he's not sure) and the
autopsists testified they didn�t recall seeing and/or recovering it on 11-22-63.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive
evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who
consulted for Baden's panel clearly said the was "no" conclusive evidence on the
x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate
even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line
trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD,
but the Dal-Tex Building.
THE BOTTOM LINE is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of many
others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr Chad Zimmerman, Dr.
Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry and/or
existence of a BOH wound wacky, he pretty much believes that:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "WRONG" regarding their descriptions
of the head wounds and�.
2. all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were "CORRECT"
regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.
To which I can only say, if I keep engaging him regarding these issues, I�m not
too smart.
John Canal
David Von Pein
For some silly reason, John Canal thinks that I haven't answered (in
some detail) every item on his lengthy list(s) of questions regarding
the "BOH" matters.
But, in fact, I have answered every single question raised by Mr.
Canal. I'm sure that John thinks my answers are pure bullshit (what
else could John possibly think?), but I HAVE responded to his
inquiries nonetheless...multiple times, in fact!
I answered his lengthy list of "29 questions" on April 1, 2009 --
right here are my answers:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
And, more recently (on May 17, 2009), I answered John's shorter,
truncated list of 10 questions -- right here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
So, John, do you now want to continue to state that I have avoided
your complete lists of questions concerning the BOH matters?
Shall we dance around this mulberry bush another 29 times?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>For some silly reason, John Canal thinks that I haven't answered (in
>some detail) every item on his lengthy list(s) of questions regarding
>the "BOH" matters. But, in fact, I have answered every single question raised
>>by Mr. Canal.
That's crap. I asked you 4 simple yes or no questions and you--surprise,
surprise--dodged them.
Here they are again:
1. Are you 100% certain that Boswell did not shove any dislodged rear bone
pieces (that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the lateral
X-rays were taken?
2. Are you 100% certain that the scalp, as seen in the BOH photographs, was not
stretched and/or repaired prior to those photos being taken?
3. Are you 100% certain you'd be able to see in the Z-film a "non-blow-out" type
wound in the back of JFK's head where one or two loose rear bone pieces, caused
by the bullet from the SN, were dislodged?
Note: I believe that the gaps between the dislodged rear pieces of bone may well
have been widened when he was transferred from the limo to the gurney,.....with
the wound appearing to become progressively worse during the extended time he
was prone as blood and brain tissue gravitated to and/or out of the BOH wound.
If you answered questions 1-3 honestly then please answer one more yes or no
question...here it is:
4. Considering that your so-called evidence, that you think supports your
no-BOH-wound and cowlick entry positions is circumstantial at best, do you
understand why your claims that the 20+ PH BOH wound EYEwitnesses, 10 PH
cerebellum EYEwitnesses, and numerous BOH-wound/near-EOP-entry/cerebellum
Bethesda EYEwitnesses (including the autopsists) were ALL wrong about what they
said they saw are more bizarre and ridiculous than both Linton's
"Greer-shot-JFK" and Marsh's "no-hits-to-the-back-of-Kennedy's-head" theories?
BTW, if you answered "yes" to the first 3 questions, I would ask you how in
Hades you are 100% certain those 3 pieces of so-called evidence are not
circumstantial.
Note that had Seibert and O'Neill detailed the circumstances, including the
precise time they were taken, surrounding the taking of the head X-rays and BOH
pictures, I would not consider that evidence as "circumstantial"....but they
didn't and no one, including you, knows those aforementioned circumstances.
John Canal
Ben Holmes
>
>In article <f4902ef8-6fa0-4677...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>David Von Pein says...
>
>>For some silly reason, John Canal thinks that I haven't answered (in
>>some detail) every item on his lengthy list(s) of questions regarding
>>the "BOH" matters. But, in fact, I have answered every single question raised
>>by Mr. Canal.
The simple way to make that point, is to simply cut & paste your previous
responses.
Sadly, LNT'ers are better at evasion and running from the evidence than they are
at telling the truth.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
>>> "That's crap. I asked you 4 simple yes or no questions and you--surprise, surprise--dodged them." <<<
All are answered in the links I provided earlier.
It's not my fault you can't read.
David Von Pein
I SAID:
>>> "All are answered in the links I provided earlier." <<<
I NOW SAY:
Correction -- Mr. Canal's #3 inquiry above was not answered by me in
the previously-linked April 1st and May 17th posts. (It wasn't asked
by John in those earlier posts.)
Here's his #3 question:
"3. Are you 100% certain you'd be able to see in the Z-film a
"non-blow-out" type wound in the back of JFK's head where one or two
loose rear bone pieces, caused by the bullet from the SN, were
dislodged?"
My answer:
No, I'm not certain we'd be able to see that (when John's exact "non-
blow-out" make-believe parameters are added into the Z-Film mix).
But what John Canal has done here is to CREATE his own right-rear
SCALP damage. And John gets to decide HOW BIG OR SMALL this make-
believe "cut"/"laceration" is in JFK's right-rear scalp.
Of course, the vast majority of the Parkland witnesses said they saw a
good-sized hole/deficit in the occipital area of JFK's head (meaning:
JFK's right-rear SCALP, since the Parkland people couldn't have
possibly seen ANY "deficit" or "hole" or "large-ish wound" in the
right-rear of JFK's head UNLESS the right-rear SCALP had been
extensively damaged).*
* = Which is why Dr. Robert McClelland's 1988 on-camera explanation
for the PBS-TV "NOVA" program is so utterly ridiculous on its face.
McClelland claimed that there was a large HOLE in the SKULL of JFK,
but the reason the HOLE cannot be seen in the autopsy BOH photo is
because the TOTALLY-UNDAMAGED SCALP of the President was pulled up in
the photo to hide the huge hole in the skull.
But are we to actually believe that silly explanation when we know
that JFK's SCALP was not reflected back (or peeled back) while
McClelland was observing the President's wounds AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL?
IOW -- How would it even be physically POSSIBLE for McClelland (or ANY
Parkland observer) to have seen a large-sized HOLE (or ANY-sized HOLE)
in the right-rear of JFK's head when the RIGHT-REAR SCALP of the
President didn't have ANY hole in it at all?
And even Dr. McClelland agrees (at least as of 1988) that the right-
rear SCALP of JFK appears to be completely undamaged in the autopsy
photos he examined at the National Archives in 1988.
A Question For John Canal:
John, where in the available evidence and testimony is there ANY
reference to the RIGHT-REAR (OCCIPITAL) area of JFK's SCALP being
damaged at all? Where? Please provide a direct citation.
Thank you.
John Canal
>responses.
That would work, but the easiest way, and what I'm looking for in the nterests
of clarity, is for him to just answer "yes" or "no" to each of the questions.
>Sadly, LNT'ers are better at evasion and running from the evidence than they are
>at telling the truth.
Don't lump us all in the same category as DCPVP (David Cut & Paste Von Pein).
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>I SAID:
>
>>>> "All are answered in the links I provided earlier." <<<
[...]
>A Question For John Canal:
Is it too much to ask for you to just simply answer "yes" or "no" to those
questions? Do it for clarity.
Do that and I'll answer your question below.
I'm waiting--I think several of us are.
lazu...@webtv.net
egomaniac who can't reason at all whatsoever, and is ever so defensive.
His sole persona seems to be a pathological need to argue.
John Canal
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>I think we've exposed Von Pein over and over John. He's a total
>egomaniac who can't reason at all whatsoever, and is ever so defensive.
>His sole persona seems to be a pathological need to argue.
I wouldn't argue with that. I think he likes center stage and trying to be the
hero for the hard-line LN crowd--notice most of them sit back and let him
embarrass himself. Fiorentino and McAdams chime in once occasionally, but they
don't hang around very long (usually one-liner rhetoric stuff for
Fiorentino)--they know better.
There were a few other hard-liners--Durnavich and Mitch Todd (both well versed
on the medical evidence)--come to mind, but they saw the light and rather to
embarrass themselves simply quit posting.
What bothers me is when he runs to Rosemary, Bugliosi's secretary, he selects
certain exchanges to have her show VB. I wonder if he'd e willing, in fairness,
to send her a link to the recent 4 questions I posted for him to answer? I think
not.
aeffects
> In article <25643-4A170570-6...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
there is NO Rosemary... his pathological need created her like he
created his pathetic 'composite' persona... end of story :)
justm...@gmail.com
Shut up you paranoid moron. You have no proof of any of the lies you
spew on here. You must sit in that dark little slum you live in and
rack your brain trying to come up with your next line of bullshit
about someone.
Prove Rosemary isn't real junkie...I dare you!
David Von Pein
>>> "I think we've exposed Von Pein over and over." <<<
And just how have the conspiracy-happy kooks here at acj done that --
by presenting some kind of hard, physical EVIDENCE that a conspiracy
was involved in the death of JFK?
I think not.
>>> "His [DVP's] sole persona seems to be a pathological need to argue." <<<
Nah. Not even close. But you have just described one member of the
nearby aaj forum -- Anthony Marsh.
The four words you just used -- "pathological need to argue" -- fit
Tony to a tee.
David Von Pein
>>> "There is NO Rosemary [Newton]. His [DVP's] pathological need created her[,] like he created his pathetic 'composite' persona. End of story." <<<
I'll be sure to inform Rosemary that she was never born. In fact, I'm
going to dash off an e-mail to her tonight, because I want her to see
for herself that there really ARE mega-kooks like David G. Healy in
this world.
However, it might be hard for Rosemary to believe that there are nuts
that are as retarded as Mr. Healy in our world. I sometimes have a
hard time believing that people like Healy exist myself.
Anyway, as I've mentioned to Mr. Crackpipe (that's Mr. Healy) in a
previous post, Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, Rosemary Newton, has
almost a whole page written about her in VB's book "Reclaiming
History". It's Page #1,514.
I guess Vince B. must have "created" the same person I did, huh?
No, wait a second!
Oh, that's right!
~slaps forehead~
I AM Vince Bugliosi, aren't I, Mr. Healy?!!
I keep forgetting about the fact that Healy (just last month, in fact)
was of the very firm opinion that I (DVP of Indiana) was, indeed,
really Vincent T. Bugliosi of Los Angeles, California. Let's have a
look, and a good laugh:
"c'mon Vince.... we KNOW its you, you old slime bucket you. And
hiding behind a ghost secretary, yet -- shame on you. We understand
you've taken a major defeat, the publishing disaster of the century
fer christsakes. You'll get over it Vinnie, you're all washed up hon,
time to put it out to pasture.... Old Mark Lane would drive you to
insanity, dance around you like you weren't even there..... ya see
Vin, that's the problem with doing a "book of the
century" (sic)....You're a joke Vin, er Dave Von Pein and we know you
haven't the nads to show up here under your real name -- so you just
just hide behind that secretary that doesn't exist - we won't tell a
soul, promise." -- David G. Healy; April 20, 2009
Here's the original source link for the above batch of hilarious
nonsense:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9eb07b15c166e5d
Who's got the industrial-sized "LOL" icon today? I need it now--real
bad!
aeffects
yeah uh-huh..... David Von Pein has reams written about himself (by
himself) yet he's a fucking ghost. Now you run right back to Vinnie
handmaiden and have her show up here and present her bonifides. You
want her to be Vinnies mouthpiece here, so be it... another dipshit
lone nut amongst the 5 already here -- no big deal, troll! I'm sure
bigdob-little dickee will put a dress on, right up his alley (sic) No
pun intended on Skeezix and Corky (justme1952/jecorbett acj's hubby-
wifey combo)
Carry on shithead! Hey have you found em[ployment yet? Mom has to be
pissed regarding your worthlessness, eh?
aeffects
> >>> "I think we've exposed Von Pein over and over." <<<
>
> And just how have the conspiracy-happy kooks here at acj done that --
> by presenting some kind of hard, physical EVIDENCE that a conspiracy
> was involved in the death of JFK?
>
> I think not.
>
> >>> "His [DVP's] sole persona seems to be a pathological need to argue." <<<
>
> Nah. Not even close. But you have just described one member of the
> nearby aaj forum -- Anthony Marsh.
focus shithead...... the thread is about YOU, DVP daGHOST......