HEAD WOUND DOUBLE-TALK (COURTESY OF JOHN CANAL)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/af1a5a5182b54673
>>> "If one PH witness said the BOH wound was the size of a quarter..." <<<
What Parkland witness ever said it was the size of a quarter?
And if there is such a "quarter"-sized witness, shouldn't that little
fact signal to you that there's a pretty good-sized discrepancy
between the people who were all in the same Parkland ER looking at the
same head of President Kennedy?
Let me guess----
You think it's okay to have a "size" discrepancy (and a huge "size"
discrepancy at that) amongst the Parkland witnesses who saw JFK's head
wound....but it's not okay to have a "location" discrepancy?
And, yes, even amongst the PH witnesses, there IS some discrepancy,
with not every witness placing the wound in the exact same location
(with Dulany, Peters, and Rike, in fact, placing the wound in a
virtually-impossible location, seeing as how they could not possibly
have seen that portion of JFK's head in the ER on 11/22/63):
www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
>>> "...because our [Canal's & Bugliosi's] telephone exchanges began because of that misquote and are continuing (and are paying dividends)." <<<
LOL.
So, you're well on your way to convincing Vince Bugliosi of your silly
"BOH/LN" theory, eh John?
If so, then I guess you've also convinced Vince (somehow) to totally
ignore this X-ray too; right, John?:
And you've also convinced Vince (somehow) that the brightly-lit
autopsy photo linked below is totally misleading, with JFK's seemingly-
totally-undamaged scalp REALLY being quite damaged (per your theory).
And the reason we can't see any stitches or any visible scalp damage
at all is due to some fancy John Canal double-talk. Isn't that right,
John?
BTW, I forgot what your double-talk consisted of when referring to
this picture below, John. Please let me know what double-talk you
served up for Vince Bugliosi to explain away the TOTALLY-UNDAMAGED
REAR SCALP of President Kennedy that is seen in this particular
photograph:
Robert Harris
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=XzM5oU
> YAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJc3SnGw127IswnSlnwF1V8KPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uy
> u956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=PN8nkRYAAADSNkp-fiw23MwrXMCP7VdW-vghgYg
> ES8zAzJdW7J9-8w
That Xray is included in my video, David.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
The large piece in the upper rear of the head is very clearly, separated
from the rest of the skull. It is the same piece that Boswell described
as separate from the skull but still suspended in the scalp.
It was that piece that flipped to the rear, taking scalp and hair with
it, that was previously located in the superior-top of the head, and
which formed the large protrusion you see in the clearest frames in the
330's.
Rise above the level of a troll and deal with the facts, David.
Promoting your theory is only cool, as long as you know it is correct.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Promoting your theory is only cool as long as you know it is correct." <<<
I'm safe and secure then.
But your theory, Bob, isn't supported by the Z-Film or the X-rays or
the photos.
David Von Pein
>>> "When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C) misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?" <<<
C.
Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:
QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
>>> "David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out." <<<
LOL. Why on this EARTH would Vince want to come out with a "sequel"
volume called "Reclaiming History 2"?
Such a volume being released with the moniker "Reclaiming History 2"
is utterly stupid, IMO. It would be like advertising that it was VB's
feeling that the first massive 2,800-page book was a failure (at least
to a large degree), requiring a second "RH" to be written and marketed
to replace the first. Such a "sequel" would be totally ridiculous and
unnecessary.
If there is a "re-release" of "RH" (not a "sequel", just a re-print
version of the original 2007 book and CD-ROM), a few of the small
number of errors and typos and inconsistencies might be corrected. In
fact, I've volunteered my services to Vince (through his secretary,
Rosemary Newton) in helping to proofread the entire book and CD, in
order to eliminate the minor mistakes that do exist in "RH" in case
just such a re-release version of the book does come to pass in the
future.
And Vince should eliminate the horrid contradiction that appears on
pages 423 and 424 for starters. That's by far the biggest error/
mistake in the whole book (IMO).
But correcting such errors (mostly typos and incorrect dates, etc.)
wouldn't require slapping a whole new sequel-like title on the book.
I'm pretty sure that re-prints of books are accomplished all the time
in such a manner, where small errors are corrected, but the book title
remains exactly the same.
Did you have a second printing of your 2000 book, "Silencing The Lone
Assassin", John C.? If so, were you allowed to correct any minor
errors that might have slipped through the cracks in the First
Edition?
Anyway, Vince B. certainly doesn't need to change a thing that he
wrote in "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the subject of JFK's
head wounds and the specific locations of those wounds. Vince has it
covered nicely in "RH", including ample discussion about the 4-inch
discrepancy that exists with respect to the precise location on the
back of JFK's head where Oswald's bullet entered.
That topic is thrashed out in a good deal of detail in "RH", with
Vince coming to the only reasonable and logical conclusion about the
true location of that entry wound -- i.e., the wound was located near
the cowlick area of President Kennedy's head.
Another question for John Canal: If the red spot near the cowlick
isn't the wound of entrance in this picture below, then why does
photographer John Stringer seemingly focus in on and CENTER his camera
on that red spot in the middle of this picture? If the red spot isn't
the thing being focused on the most by Stringer here, then WHAT WAS
Stringer focusing on the most in this photo? He surely wasn't focusing
on the white splotch near the BOTTOM of the picture, was he John?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
Robert Harris
<d07e70e3-cfbf-4a1c...@q36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/af1a5a5182b546
> 73/eaf481bb3de27053?hl=en#eaf481bb3de27053
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely
> >>> lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C)
> >>> misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?" <<<
>
>
> C.
>
> Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
> Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:
>
>
>
> QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
> opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
>
> BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
> QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
> noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
>
> BOSWELL -- "No."
>
> QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
> were intact?"
>
> BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
David, PLEASE stop making up strawmen. I NEVER claimed that Boswell said
anything about cerebellum.
The damage I was describing was in the upper rear of the head. And the
critical fact is, that that damage was not inflicted, until AFTER frame
313.
>
>
>
>
> >>> "David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out." <<<
>
>
> LOL. Why on this EARTH would Vince want to come out with a "sequel"
> volume called "Reclaiming History 2"?
Yoohoo! Earth to David.
I never said anything about Bugsi writing a sequel. You seem to have
forgotten who you were responding too:-) There is medication for this
problem, if you catch it early enough, David.
But the good new is, that as always, you remembered to delete the link
to that unpleasant video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "You seem to have forgotten who you were responding too [sic]." <<<
I didn't forget at all. I'm responding to Mr. Canal. Just as I was in
my thread-starting post.
You're the one who decided to crash this thread and insert your
presence. I created the thread in response to Canal, not you....which
is why this link was included at the very top of my last post that you
think was directed at you (for some reason):
>>> "There is medication for this problem, if you catch it early enough, David." <<<
Is there a pill you can take to cure "The Z285 Disorder"?
If so, buy all you can get your hands on!
Robert Harris
<268042ec-29af-4b5b...@m22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You seem to have forgotten who you were responding too [sic]." <<<
>
>
>
> I didn't forget at all. I'm responding to Mr. Canal. Just as I was in
> my thread-starting post.
David, you need to examine the headers in your previous two posts. They
were absolutely, positively in response to me:-)
>
> You're the one who decided to crash this thread
David, how many thousand of threads have you "crashed":-)
If you want to have a private conversation with Mr. Canal, why don't you
email him or just give him a call?
> and insert your
> presence.
Hmm.. naaa.. I won't go there:-)
> I created the thread in response to Canal, not you....which
> is why this link was included at the very top of my last post that you
> think was directed at you (for some reason):
David, I co-founded a moderated newsgroup, with McAdams. The charter of
his current newsgroup was mostly written by me.
After rewriting headers for the first several thousands of messages I
processed, I got pretty good at understanding headers and who was
responding to whom.
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/af1a5a5182b546
> 73/eaf481bb3de27053?hl=en#eaf481bb3de27053
>
> >>> "There is medication for this problem, if you catch it early enough,
> >>> David." <<<
>
> Is there a pill you can take to cure "The Z285 Disorder"?
David, if there was a shot at frame 285 then everything you have
dedicated a major portion of your life to, is not only wrong, but
detrimental to your country.
I hope you have analyzed this with a great deal of care, because if you
are wrong, purely because you have closed your mind, then you become a
pretty sorry excuse for an American.
The reason mainstream media people reject a conspiracy in the JFK case,
is that they THINK its all about badgeman, the SBT, and a dozen other
idiotic theories.
But don't you wonder why it is infinitely easier to debunk that stuff,
than the shot at 285?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
I sure don't see how John Canal can possibly think that the red spot
on JFK's head (which is certainly located at the "cowlick" area) is
the entry wound, when the same Mr. Canal has insisted that the entry
wound was much lower on JFK's head...not HIGH on the head near the
cowlick.
And I cannot really see how the LOOSENESS of JFK's scalp can be used
as an explanation for a LOW wound to appear as a HIGH/COWLICK one in
this autopsy photo:
Because even with some small amount of scalp displacement at the time
when John Stringer took the above photograph, the COWLICK is still the
COWLICK (right?) -- i.e., the red spot (the bullet hole) is STILL in
the exact area of the COWLICK, even on a slightly-DISPLACED scalp.
Therefore, the entry hole IS at the "COWLICK" area of John Kennedy's
head. Period.
For John Canal to look at the above autopsy photograph and come away
with the following two conclusions (in tandem with one another) is
simply something that I can't figure out for the life of me:
1.) The red spot in the autopsy photo does, indeed, represent the
entry hole for the bullet that hit JFK in the head.
And:
2.) The entry hole in the back of JFK's head was located LOW on the
head ("near the EOP"), and was not located where the HSCA determined
the entry wound was actually located, which was at the cowlick area of
the head.
"The replications of F8 by myself, Sturdivan, Hunt, and Seaton
scientifically prove the entry was near the EOP. .... If the entry had
been in the cowlick, when F8 was taken, the entire entry would have
been on the table with the pieces of bone that fell out." -- John
Canal; 11/30/08 (original post below)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b0fc5a14bc46a980
I guess only John Canal (and possibly a few others) can see how the
above two conclusions can co-exist in perfect harmony when discussing
the location of the entry wound in the back of John F. Kennedy's head.
~shrug~
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/af1a5a5182b54673/d53f1a8bb9772f8b
SOME MORE "BOH" TALK:
=====================
Another problem John Canal will never be able to overcome is the
following question:
WHY WAS THERE *ANY* HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR *SCALP* OF PRESIDENT
KENNEDY?
It makes no sense whatsoever that there would be a large (or semi-
large) HOLE in the REAR SCALP of President Kennedy (via the scenario,
which John Canal subscribes to, which has only one bullet from Lee
Oswald's gun striking JFK in the back of the head, causing the to-be-
expected small wound of entrance from the bullet itself).
John wants a large (or semi-large or "quarter"-sized) hole to suddenly
appear in the RIGHT-REAR SCALP of JFK.
How?
Such a wound in such a location makes no sense whatsoever.
Ultimate logical conclusion:
No such large or semi-large hole in the rear scalp of JFK was there at
all. That fact couldn't be more obvious--via the Z-Film, the autopsy
photos, and (especially) the lateral autopsy X-ray, with that lateral
X-ray telling us that there is no hole whatsoever located at the right-
rear of Kennedy's head. Nor is there nearly enough fragmentation or
fracture lines in the right-rear area of JFK's head to accommodate Mr.
Canal's crazy theory.
And John Canal certainly NEEDS such a goodly-sized hole to be present
in President Kennedy's BOH for his theory to grow any legs at all. And
that BOH hole certainly needs to be much bigger than just a "quarter"-
sized hole too, in order to accommodate the majority of PH witnesses
who claimed to see a great-BIG hole in the far-right-rear of Kennedy's
head.
I'll ask John Canal for a third time (I don't recall getting an answer
previously) -- What Parkland witness ever said that the BOH hole in
the right-rear of Kennedy's head was merely "quarter"-sized?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e38c098a9d287e8a
>>> "My [John Canal's] logic was that many in the morgue had heard about, or seen news footage of, people in DP running up the GK following the shooting (not to mention the PH news conference)..." <<<
Concerning the latter part of the above statement....
Then why in the world didn't anybody in the morgue at Bethesda know
about the existence of the bullet hole in JFK's throat (if some of the
Bethesda personnel had, indeed, seen the Parkland news conference
given by Drs. Clark and Perry)?
It's fairly obvious that (incredibly) not a single person who had
anything to do with President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda on the
night of 11/22/63 had seen the Clark/Perry news conference a few hours
earlier.
Because if anybody in the morgue had heard or seen that afternoon
press conference, surely someone would have felt compelled to speak up
and say something like this -- "Dr. Humes, I heard on the TV earlier
today that a doctor in Dallas said there was a bullet hole in JFK's
throat when the President arrived at Parkland Hospital."
==========================================
"You [John Canal] said that the [Bethesda] doctors feared that
by revealing a large BOH wound they would be opening up the door to
rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front.
"But why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
"There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None.
So even WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot
adhere to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a
larger BOH hole.
"Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE
bullet striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH),
could obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as
merely the extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the
ONE bullet which entered the back of the head and then fragmented
badly after entering the skull." -- DVP; 04/22/2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
==========================================