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 Historical content remains viewable.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

ARGUING ABOUT THE HEAD WOUNDS (YET AGAIN)

91 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 30, 2009, 12:40:06 AM3/30/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2b42006ea51c4556


John Canal will never be able to fully explain (logically and
reasonably) the total lack of damage/fragmentation to the right-rear
of JFK's head in this X-ray:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=WR3As0YAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJ7KlBGaOHqNmRUcXg2-hueKPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ


John Canal thinks a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear skull was
fragmented (i.e., broken apart enough so as to cause loose pieces of
skull to fall out of the right-rear part of JFK's head during the
autopsy), despite the fact that absolutely NO extensive fragmentation
can be seen in the above X-ray that could be considered ENOUGH
fragmentation (or fracturing) of the RIGHT-REAR area of JFK's head to
meet Mr. Canal's "BOH" requirements. It's not even close, in fact (as
the above X-ray illustrates so very clearly).

There are no major fractures at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head that
would (or should) cause any reasonable person examining that
authenticated and unaltered X-ray to conclude that JFK had a great-big
hole in the right-rear portion of his skull. It just simply is not
there. Period.

Nor could Dr. Boswell (or anyone else) have placed loose pieces of
JFK's skull back into the RIGHT-REAR area of President Kennedy's head.

Why?

Because of that pesky X-ray linked above (again). That X-ray shows
that no such "piecing back together" of JFK's head at the RIGHT-REAR
could have possibly been performed....because the skull was not
fractured enough in that region of the head for any such skull re-
insertion activity to have occurred in the first place.

Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony/deposition has been misinterpreted by
John Canal (and probably others as well). If Boswell re-inserted any
loose skull fragments into the head of the deceased President, it was
certainly NOT at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR (occipital) area of his head.

Any such re-insertion of skull/bone fragments could only have occurred
in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP areas of Kennedy's cranium. And the above-
linked X-ray proves this fact beyond all possible reasonable doubt.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,
Mar 30, 2009, 12:50:59 AM3/30/09
to
On Mar 29, 9:40 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2b420...

>
> John Canal will never be able to fully explain (logically and
> reasonably) the total lack of damage/fragmentation to the right-rear
> of JFK's head in this X-ray:
>

what Canal can or cannot fully explain is irrelevant, troll. When you
starts asking relevant questions you just might be surprised who
responds, till then, spam on!

And no free advertising for your disinfo site, thanks ahead of time

<snip the Nutter nonsense>

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 30, 2009, 1:08:42 AM3/30/09
to

Do you suppose there is any possible chance that Healy The Crackpipe
could (just once) pass up the temptation of responding with his say-
nothing excrement within minutes of my posting a message?

Any chance in Hades of that happening at all, Healy/C-pipe?

Or is your wide-eyed fascination with me and my posts so deep that you
feel an uncontrolled compulsion to make your daily "NO FREE
ADVERTISING, TROLL" fool of yourself after each one of my posts?

Just wondering.

And I'm also wondering if the men with the nets from the booby hatch
have reached the front door of Healy's weed-covered double-wide yet.
They should be there by now; I called them in 2004 and told them to
rush right over. Traffic must be heavy there in Drug Alley, I guess.
Anyway, they'll be arriving soon.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 31, 2009, 12:28:39 AM3/31/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4aa8ad8b81c1e29d


TONY MARSH UTTERED:


>>> "How can you possibly look at that X-ray and not see the extensive damage/fragmentation to the right rear of JFK's head?" <<<


Because there is no extensive fracturing of the right-rear of the
skull. Period.

There's certainly not the type of "extensive" fragmentation and
fracturing that John Canal requires. That's quite obvious. It couldn't
BE any more obvious, in fact:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=eJrX8kYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJQczlsonkFBqfJXhzme5DlR1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=X7dM2QsAAADQViure_rJqVWRk8tySx2M

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=3XzOWUYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJQczlsonkFBqfJXhzme5DlaPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=X7dM2QsAAADQViure_rJqVWRk8tySx2M

>>> "No hole, but there was extensive damage and fracturing." <<<


Not nearly enough to meet John Canal's BOH requirements. It's not even
close.


>>> "You are forgetting that many pieces of skull fell out of the head when they unwrapped it." <<<


Not in the BACK of his head. That couldn't be more obvious by just
looking at the X-ray. No pieces could have possibly fallen out from
the occipital area of the head. Impossible.

>>> "IF? So, you are calling Boswell a liar. Why would he make up a lie about replacing fragments into the head?" <<<


Why are you so tough on John Canal's theory then, Tony?

Sounds to me like you're ready to jump into bed with him (and his
silly theory).

Or are you just "playing the whole field" again, Tony?

(Tony Marsh is another hard one to figure out. Always has been.)

>>> "Compare the X-rays to the photos looking into the head after removal of the brain. There are several areas in the front and rear where skull fragments came out." <<<


Then you have no choice but to think that this X-ray is a fake
(because it proves that no "fragments" of skull bone could have
possibly fallen out of the back of John Kennedy's head):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=3XzOWUYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJQczlsonkFBqfJXhzme5DlaPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=X7dM2QsAAADQViure_rJqVWRk8tySx2M


aeffects

unread,
Mar 31, 2009, 12:39:02 AM3/31/09
to
no advertising troll!
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 31, 2009, 1:08:58 AM3/31/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/51dd54d40e5dbf75

>>> "Don't you have any new arguments?" <<<


Why would I need any new ones? The ones I've been using on your lame
theory work just fine. And they always will....because the autopsy X-
ray, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the words of the
autopsy doctors aren't going anyplace. That stuff's in place forever.
Live with it. There's no large-sized BOH wound. Period.


>>> "This one has been debunked already." <<<


You haven't even come close to "debunking" it, John. You're in a dream
world all your own.


>>> "Now where in the Hell did John Canal ever get that crazy idea?.....oh ya, of all places, it was hidden from the likes of DVP, Fiorentino, and McAdams...yup, it was in the autopsy report and in Humes' WC & HSCA testimony." <<<


Nope. Not even close.

There's nothing in the autopsy report or in the testimony of Humes
that can possibly bolster the "BOH/LN" theory you've invented, John.

>>> "Brilliant, just brilliant. Not only did Dr. Zimmerman[,] who reads x-rays on a daily basis and has examined the originals[,] say the fractures looked "complete", but the autopsy docs also said they were....but that doesn't stop the doctor wanabe, DVP, from giving us his analysis of the copies of the x-rays." <<<

There's not nearly enough fracturing in the right-rear to make your
"BOH/LN" fantasy come true. It's not even close.

>>> "I've already dignified your B/S more than I should have, wake up." <<<


I'm fully awake. The proof is in the visual aids -- in TRIPLICATE, in
fact --

1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows not a HINT of the "BOH" wound that
John needs to make his fantasy come true).

2.) The autopsy photos (i.e., BOTH of the pictures that show the back
of JFK's head...with neither picture providing anything even CLOSE to
the kind of large-sized BOH hole or DAMAGE of ANY kind that would [or
could] turn John Canal's fantastic theory into a reality).

3.) The autopsy X-ray of the right side of President Kennedy's head
(which doesn't show nearly the type of fragmentation/fracturing of
JFK's skull in the occipital [right-rear] part of the head that John
requires in order for his dream theory to reach fruition).


Incredibly, John Canal thinks that his fantastic BOH/LN theory is
TRUE....even though ALL THREE of the above hunks of photographic
evidence (IN TANDEM, mind you!) are proving to John that his theory
won't hold even an ounce of H2O.

John, you're amazing.

>>> "Wake up. VB has, on the entry and BOH wounds...ASK HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " <<<


There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a
complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy,
thus totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his
impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not
a chance.

Why?

Because Vince has eyes too. And Vince can see, by merely taking one
more good look (in tandem) at the THREE photographic items mentioned
above (which include FOUR separate pieces of photo/film evidence,
including two different autopsy pictures of the back of JFK's head),
that John F. Kennedy did not at ANY TIME on November 22, 1963, have a
great-big hole in the rear of his head.


People who have their own unique (and oddball) PET THEORIES regarding
various aspects of the events surrounding JFK's assassination are
always a bit of a mystery to me. I can't quite figure them out (at
all). And John Canal, a man who has a lot of things right about the
JFK case, is one such person.

But, sadly, Mr. Canal's unique pet BOH/LN theory is something that
he's likely to cling to from now until doomsday. Because John has
invested too much time and effort and computer keyboard strokes to
back away from his impossible pet theory now.

John Canal is very much like the following JFK conspiracy theorists,
who each has his or her own "pet theory" to peddle (each one just as
silly as Mr. Canal's, of course; many of them much, much sillier):


Thomas "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purvis;

David "JFK'S WOUNDS WERE ALTERED BEFORE THE AUTOPSY" Lifton;

James "THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION" Fetzer;

Bonar "GEORGE HICKEY KILLED JFK BY ACCIDENT" Menninger;

John "THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS IN THE DEPOSITORY ON NOVEMBER 22"
Armstrong;

Jim "OSWALD WAS SET UP IN ADVANCE AS A LONE PATSY EVEN THOUGH THERE
WERE 5 GUNMEN FIRING AT JFK IN DEALEY PLAZA" Garrison;

Brian "A FAKE JFK POPPED UP OUT OF A SECRET COMPARTMENT IN THE LIMO"
Andersen;

Joan "GARRISON WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL" Mellen;

Donald "DANNY ARCE KILLED JFK" Willis;

Jack "I NEVER MET AN ASSASSINATION-RELATED PICTURE THAT I DIDN'T THINK
WAS FAKE" White;

Gary "BADGE MAN" Mack;


...etc., etc. to near infinity.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 7:47:17 AM4/1/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1ac6a029de80c10e


>>> "David, I'm going to let Vince [Bugliosi] know that you're announcing to the JFK research community that you're able to predict with virtual certainty whether or not he will reverse his position ("gobs of stuff") regarding the nature of the head wounds after having another look at the applicable evidence...if he has an opportunity to do so. This is what you wrote: "There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy, thus totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not a chance." " <<<


Good, John. Please do send that quote of mine to Mr. Bugliosi. It's a
very good quote too, IMO. And I was, indeed, very careful about the
way I worded that message before I posted it yesterday on both the aaj
and acj forums.

Hence, the words "impeccably-researched book for the ages" were
included by me in my original 3/31/09 quote (linked below), indicating
my belief that Bugliosi has already arrived at the truth regarding
this matter, otherwise it wouldn't be in print in such an "impeccably-
researched book for the ages".

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cc5f6aabfdfda3d6


>>> "Frankly, I believe that Vince has a passion for the truth and, when he can manage the time, will re-investigate the controversies surrounding the head wounds. That said, I'm confident that, if he determines what I have told him about those wounds is correct, and that Baden fed him and the nation a crock of B/S, he will not hesitate to correct himself." <<<


John Canal must think that, incredibly (and magically, it would seem),
the bullet ENTRY HOLE ITSELF on the back of President Kennedy's head
(i.e., the red spot in the autopsy photograph linked below) was
somehow able to FALSELY APPEAR to be high on JFK's head, i.e., in the
area of the COWLICK, even though that HOLE ITSELF is really (per John
Canal) located much lower on JFK's unstretched scalp.

Amazingly, John C. must actually think that in some crazy and magical
way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp (which John C.
insists is taking place to the scalp in the picture linked below)
somehow resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH
THE COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
head).

David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably couldn't
pull off that incredible illusionary feat of having an EOP entry hole
climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=WodQnEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpARZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-


>>> "I thought I'd also send him your answers to the 29 questions listed below....that is if you have the marbles to answer them. Note that you had answered questions that are similar to some of these before--most, though, have been updated and several new ones have been added. .... Here are the questions. Note that I'm prefacing each question with, 'Isn't it true that...?' " <<<

Okay, shoot. This should be fun.

(I guess Mr. Canal doesn't care how many times his silly theory
deservedly gets dragged through the mud. It's kind of like a baseball
player yelling to the pitcher of the opposing team: "Come on, strike
me out again! I dare ya!")

~shrug~

But, anyway...here we go (yet again)....


>>> "1. You cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK's life at PH [Parkland Hospital], or on the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<<


All three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) definitely
described the location of JFK's head wounds fairly accurately--in the
AUTOPSY REPORT, that is.

The later testimony of the autopsy doctors regarding the entry wound
in JFK's head is wrong...that's true (except for Dr. Humes' HSCA
session in 1978, when he decided to use his brains and change his mind
and endorse the cowlick entry location; of course, he decided to
change back to the "white dab of tissue" entry location later on, for
some silly reason that only he could explain).

So, as far as the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT is concerned (the autopsy
report), the locations of JFK's head wounds are reported fairly
accurately.

The autopsy report should have measured the head entry wound from the
top of the head, but for some reason the doctors didn't do that at
JFK's autopsy. So we must be content with this non-exacting
terminology found in the autopsy report -- "slightly above the
external occipital protuberance".

But even that non-exacting description is good enough to prove that
all of the people who love the "low" entry location are 100% wrong.
Because "slightly above" the EOP does not equal LOW ON THE HEAD or AT
THE LEVEL OF THE EOP. Period.

Plus:

It seems to me that I, myself, could have asked you (John Canal) your
first question (with respect to the Parkland doctors anyway)? Because
YOU really don't have ANY Parkland doctors whom you can really say
"GOT IT 100% RIGHT" with respect to locating the head wounds of JFK
accurately.

None of the Parkland people got it right. Not one. Because there's not
a single Parkland witness (to my knowledge) who claimed to see the
large wound of exit on JFK's head (i.e., the wound that we all KNOW
was definitely there...in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP of the head). Nobody
that I am aware of claimed to see that RIGHT-FRONT hole in Kennedy's
head on November 22, 1963.

Yes, a few doctors later changed their minds and said the wound was
located in the "parietal" (right-front) region. Dr. Carrico comes to
mind as one such Parkland witness.

But on 11/22/63, I doubt that we could find a single witness who
claimed to see that wound. And it's a huge 13-centimeter wound that we
KNOW beyond all doubt WAS THERE in the head of JFK when he was at
Parkland. So why nobody saw it remains one of the biggest unsolvable
mysteries of this case (IMHO).

Anyway, you're off to a very poor start with your "Let's Make DVP Look
Bad" test that you're conducting here. Because even you, yourself,
would be hard-pressed to come up with a single Parkland witness who
saw the President's wounds in ALL of the places (including the RIGHT/
FRONT/TOP) where YOU think they were located on JFK's head on
11/22/63.


>>> "2. You cannot name ONE SINGLE PERSON who saw JFK's wounds while he was still clinging to life or after he died who said early on that there was no open "back of the head" (BOH) wound?" <<<


Sure, I can name three such persons -- Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr.
Finck.

Those three men performed the post-mortem exam on President Kennedy's
body, and each of those three men signed the official autopsy report
(on 11/24/63, which is still certainly to be considered "early on").
And none of those three men said that there was any kind of a large
"open back-of-the-head wound".

And you're going to be hard-pressed (again) to prove me wrong here,
John. Because I'm not wrong. And the autopsy report proves it. And the
"somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" language that does,
indeed, appear in the autopsy report doesn't mean I'm wrong about this
point either.

That "somewhat" ambiguous language certainly does not mean that all
three autopsy doctors saw any kind of a large wound (or missing skull)
at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head. And you NEED to have a large-
sized hole present at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR (occipital) of JFK's head in
order for your fantastic BOH/LN theory to have a chance of being true.

Now, let's just have a look at the exact "somewhat" verbiage that
exists in JFK's autopsy report, and let's see if these words add up to
the kind of large, gaping wound in the OCCIPITAL area of President
Kennedy's head that all of the Parkland doctors said they observed:


"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html


Now, does any reasonable person actually believe that the above
verbiage that appears in the autopsy report could possibly translate
to this location for the massive exit wound that existed in JFK's head
(the drawing below is an illustration that was endorsed by Dr. Robert
McClelland of Parkland Hospital)?:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif


>>> "3. You believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<


The skull FRACTURES (i.e., radiating cracks) certainly extended into
the "occipital", yes. No doubt about that. The X-rays prove that fact.
But the X-rays also prove that there was not (and could not have been)
any kind of a large ABSENCE OF SKULL BONE in the occipital region of
JFK's head.

I think this might be merely a matter of semantics (similar to the
"neck vs. back" controversy with respect to JFK's upper-back wound,
with that wound many times referred to as residing in the "neck" or
"back of the neck"; while at other times, the more-accurate word
"back" was used by Warren Commission counsel members).

With respect to the head-wound terminology utilized by Dr. Humes in
the autopsy report, the word "occipital" does appear (after the
important word "somewhat", of course), which has (IMO) falsely led
some conspiracists to believe the incorrect notion that the area of
MISSING skull and scalp extended all the way to the outer-most BACK
portions of JFK's head.

But this autopsy X-ray should cause a reasonable person looking at it
to conclude that there was no HOLE in ANY part of the BACK of
President Kennedy's head at any time on November 22, 1963:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=DUIh_EYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpAaPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-

Also see my answer to #2 above.


>>> "4. You believe Humes was wrong when he testified under oath to the Warren Commission they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<


Funny, though, isn't it, that the actual word "CEREBELLUM" doesn't
appear ONCE in Dr. James J. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony?
Not once:


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Could it be that perhaps John Canal is mixed up about what Humes
thought was "part of the cerebellum"?

~shrug~


>>> "5. You believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head because they were rushed and/or inexperienced and/or for other reasons?" <<<


Those three doctors certainly did NOT "grossly misidentify" the
location of Kennedy's head entry wound in the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT.

The language used to describe the location of the entry wound in JFK's
head certainly could have been more precise and exacting--that's true.
I cannot deny that. And, as mentioned earlier, the doctors probably
should have measured the distance of the wound from the very top of
JFK's head, as Dr. Cyril Wecht says he always does with wounds in the
autopsies he has performed.

But I don't think the wound location is "grossly" inaccurate in the
autopsy report itself. The report gives the location as being "2.5
centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above the external
occipital protuberance".

Now, yes, the three doctors (all of them, incredibly) decided to give
their good sense a breather when they testified in front of the
various U.S. Government investigative bodies (except for Dr. Humes'
HSCA session), and they went off half-crocked and said the wound was
located way down near the hairline -- which is just flat-out silly.

Is the white piece of brain tissue near JFK's hairline supposed to be
"slightly above" the EOP? ~shrug~

That's just crazy. But, for some reason, all three autopsists decided
to be silly whenever talking about the precise location of the entry
wound (save the one time Humes regained his common sense in front of
the HSCA in '78).

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=WodQnEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpARZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-

>>> "6. You believe Humes was mistaken, probably due to his inexperience and/or the suggestion that they were rushed, about his recollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out in the occipital area?" <<<


If Humes ever said those exact things about "bone falling out of the
occipital area", then yes, he was positively mistaken/wrong.

>>> "7. You believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA [National Archives], was wrong when he said that it was possible that some of the pieces of rear skull could have come "unlatched", resulting in the type of wound the PH doctors described?" <<<


Yes. In my opinion, Dr. Chad Zimmerman was wrong if he said that.

But you, John, still have a huge hurdle to jump (besides the "skull"
hurdle). You've got to find a way for the Parkland people to see a
great-big hole in the occipital region of JFK's SCALP (and all of the
witnesses said the hole was quite large and gaping; so don't try to
minimize the size of the hole they described by scaling it down to a
tiny "quarter"-sized defect), even though the occipital region of
President Kennedy's scalp looks like this just a few hours later:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=WodQnEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpARZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=kh2t20gAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpAQoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-

The scalp was stitched up before that picture was taken, eh?

And yet there's not a HINT of any damage to that scalp in the above
photos (except for the entry wound near the cowlick) -- even though
the Parkland witnesses were sure they saw a great-big deficit in
Kennedy's head (including the SCALP, naturally) when JFK was in the
emergency room.

Miraculously, John Canal thinks his strange "BOH/LN" theory can still
float, even though EVERY piece of photographic evidence is telling him
his theory is dead-wrong -- from the X-rays, to the autopsy photos, to
the Zapruder Film.


But, I guess, the IN-TANDEM agreement among those photographic items
(which are spelling out, in unison, "There Was No Large BOH Wound") is
to be considered unimportant or trivial in the mind of one John Canal.

Curious indeed.

But what SHOULD be even more curious to John Canal is the fact that he
endorses an odd theory about the back of John Kennedy's head even
though NONE of those photo/film items agrees with his theory in any
way whatsoever.

Shouldn't John be asking himself -- How can this be (if I'm right)?

>>> "8. You futilely tried to find the trail of opacities (that I told you was seen on the "original" lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area cropped and do not show the
detail that the original shows?" <<<


This is a bunch of gobbledygook, as far as I'm concerned.

John's "trail of opacities" could easily be something OTHER than proof
of a low/EOP entry wound.

Quite obviously, any such "opacities" (whether they be merely make-
believe ones in John's mind or not) MUST indicate something OTHER than
proof of a low/EOP entry hole in JFK's head.

Why?

Because we know that the ONE AND ONLY entry hole in JFK's head was
near the cowlick area.

That's why.

(But I just love that word "opacities", John. And I know you love it
too. You sure use it a lot.)

>>> "9. You find the suggestion of Dr. Joseph Davis, who was a former member of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, that the bullet initially impacted JFK's skull near the EOP ridiculous, even though he had been the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida[,] for decades and had performed hundreds of autopsies on GSW [gunshot wound] victims?" <<<


Yes. Certainly I find such a suggestion by Dr. Davis (or anyone else)
to be "ridiculous". You bet I do.

Here's why (again):


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=WodQnEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpARZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-


>>> "10. You have told us that you can tell from what you see on the published copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractures are only "surface fractures"?" <<<


Those BOH fractures quite obviously do NOT meet your theory's
requirements at all, John. That's for sure.

You need a whole bunch more of those fracture lines in order for your
BOH theory to gain wings. And you need some of those fracture lines to
MEET UP WITH OTHER BOH FRACTURE LINES/CRACKS....which you do not have
here:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=yd1NgUYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpAR1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=DUIh_EYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpAaPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-

Once again, shouldn't John be saying these things to himself -- Why
aren't some more fracture lines visible on this X-ray (even a multi-
generational copy of the X-ray)? If my theory is correct, I would have
to believe that at least SOME additional COMPLETE FRACTURE LINES in
the BOH would be visible, even if it isn't the "original" X-ray.


>>> "11. Regarding the statement in the autopsy report that reads -- "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput...these vary greatly in length and direction...these result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size" -- you think that they didn't intend on giving the impression that numerous fragments were produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the wound in the occiput evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?" <<<


Yes, that's correct.

And it's quite obvious (via that pesky X-ray once again) that there
could not have possibly been any "fragments" produced by the "complete
fracture lines" that extended into the occipital.

And the verbiage you cited there from the autopsy report is not
totally clear on exactly WHERE any of the specific "fragments" were
located. It doesn't say that any "fragments" were SPECIFICALLY located
in the occipital area of the head.


>>> "12. You have said that you don't care about understanding [the autopsy photograph known as] F8...or words to that effect?" <<<


That statement might not be 100% right, but it's pretty much correct,
John.

As stated before, it's my opinion that the F8 autopsy photo is a
complete and utter mess. It's totally worthless for trying to
determine pretty much anything DEFINITIVE with regard to the location
of JFK's head wounds. (IMHO anyway. YMMV.)

>>> "13. The fact that the edge of the intact skull near the level of the EOP, as seen in F8, is severely jagged doesn't even slightly suggest to you that the pieces of bone above that edge "fell out" (just as Humes said) when they reflected the scalp (as opposed to being cut out with a saw which would not have left such a jagged edge)?" <<<

Well, since you're talking about your wholly-subjective opinion about
what can be seen in "F8", I'll refer you to my answer to #12 again.


IOW -- Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8....because
it's an ink blot test as far as I'm concerned. Totally useless.

In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more
"orientation" features within F8, it would sure be more useful. It's
an incredible picture, though, I must say. I've often wondered just
exactly how (and where) the camera was situated and maneuvered in
order to snap that picture?


>>> "14. The odd shaped piece of skull drawn on Boswell's face sheet that he testified included the top portion of the entry and originally fit on the intact skull near the level of the EOP with the bottom portion of the entry, does not even slightly suggest to you that it was one of the pieces of rear skull that fell out when they reflected the scalp?" <<<

Correct.

No "rear skull" could have fallen out. Period.

>>> "15. You are positively certain that the autopsy photos showing a virtually undamaged BOH were taken before any repair could have been done to the BOH scalp in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<<


No, I'm not "positively certain" of that. But I really don't think it
matters a whole lot...because the scalp of JFK looks to be COMPLETELY
UNDAMAGED in any way in the area (right-rear) where you, John, need
there to be a considerable amount of damage.

That must have been one heck of a suturing/clean-up job on JFK's BOH,
I must say (if we're to believe Mr. John Canal's theory anyway).


>>> "16. You think that you'd be able to tell from the copies of the photos that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or not any repairs to the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<<


Yes. Definitely. Especially considering the massive amount of damage
that you need to have "repaired" in the BOH of JFK's head, in order
for your theory to be correct.

There's no way in Hades that we'd find the back of the President's
head in this condition if Mr. John Canal's BOH/LN theory is an
accurate one. Yes, this pic again:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=WodQnEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpARZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-


And, once again, why hasn't John C. asked himself how on Earth the
rear scalp of JFK could look so CLEAN and DAMAGE-FREE if his BOH/LN
theory is to be believed?


It's food for BOH thought anyway....isn't it John?

>>> "17. You have no reasonable explanation whatsoever for why the scalp in the BOH photos is all but undamaged in the area where the bone was blown out (roughly from the cowlick forward into the frontal bone on the right side) into DP [Dealey Plaza] and/or the limo--the area where the autopsists said the scalp and skull were missing?" <<<


My best shot at this one would be -- It's the angle of the photograph,
which is skewing your perception of the scalp/head.

Quite obviously, if bone and scalp had been "blown out" into Dealey
Plaza or into the limousine, we would not (and COULD NOT) possibly
still see such "blown out" areas of JFK's head in ANY of the
photographs taken by John Stringer at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Therefore, SOME LOGICAL EXPLANATION (probably the angle of the photo
or some photographic anomaly of some type) must exist to explain your
17th inquiry.

But I wonder if John thinks he can explain away the total lack of
photographic support for his unique BOH/LN theory by merely stating
(across the gamut of the various photographic items I've discussed
previously) -- It's probably the angle of the photo or some kind of
"photographic anomaly"?


I doubt very much if he can do that.

>>> "18. (This is a long question, so take a deep breath) You are positively certain that, even though I have told you that morticians have stated that, in their opinion, JFK's rear scalp could have been stretched three inches and possibly even a bit more (as evidenced by the portion of his scalp where the hair is much less dense, as seen in the BOH photos)....AND that Humes testified they "undermined" the scalp, which means to seperate [sic] the scalp from the underlying muscles (primarily the Occipitalis muscle) and is a procedure that is done to enable the scalp to be stretched much more than it could otherwise be stretched....the stretching of the scalp could not be a possible explanation for why, in the BOH photos, there appears to be too much scalp between the hairline and the red spot and the scalp in the area where the bone had been blown out into DP and/or the limo and where Humes said the skull AND SCALP were MISSING, appears to be virtually undamaged?" <<<


I talked about this very early in this book-length post. But it's
worth an instant replay here. Here's what I said (and it applies here
as well):

"Amazingly, John Canal must actually think that in some crazy
and magical way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp
(which John insists is taking place to the scalp in the [autopsy]
picture [showing the red spot on the back of JFK's head]) somehow
resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH THE
COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
head). David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably
couldn't pull off that incredible feat of having an EOP entry hole
climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head."
-- DVP


>>> "19. You don't think that it's important that high entry theorists reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone chips from the skull's beveled out inner table around the entry) seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?" <<<


See my answer to #8.


>>> "20. You are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken (even though Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken)?" <<<


Correct. I'm 100% certain of that.

Why?

Well, you know. I'm sure you can guess (sans any links this time),
right? ;)


>>> "21. You find it preposterous that the metal stirrup upon which the back of JFK's head rested BEFORE the head x-rays were taken helped push any dislodged BOH bone pieces back into place prior to the x-rays being taken and that you find the conclusion that dozens of witnesses, including the autopsists, were wrong about seeing a BOH wound much more feasible?" <<<


The autopsists never once said they saw any large-sized BOH wound. Why
you keep insisting that Humes, Boswell, and Finck are in the "I SAW A
LARGE BOH WOUND" camp is a real mystery to me.

~shrug~


In fact, John, you are completely defeating the underlying MOTIVE for
your entire "BOH/LN" theory when you claim that the autopsists saw any
kind of a large BOH wound. (And I'm assuming that you think that the
"autopsists" [plural] made their observations about the presence of a
large-sized BOH wound known to some people fairly "early on", i.e., in
1963 and 1964....correct?)

But isn't it your theory that the whole reason we really don't know
all of the facts surrounding JFK's "BOH" wounds is because those same
autopsists deliberately failed to tell anybody the whole truth
concerning President Kennedy's "BOH" damage?

But are you now insisting that those same three autopsy physicians
really DID claim to see such BOH damage (and that they DOCUMENTED
their BOH findings either on paper or in front of the Warren
Commission, etc., as well!)??


Which is it? -- Were the doctors truth-tellers or cover-up artists?
Right now, you seem to want to sit on both sides of that particular
fence.

But to answer your #21 question more directly -- Yes, it's
"preposterous".


>>> "22. You are sure that the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH photos is directly over the entry hole in the skull...even though prior to the BOH photos being taken, the scalp had been reflected, pieces of bone came/fell out, the brain was removed, and the scalp held back up? And even though the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) and it has not been disputed by any of the experts that the entry wound was 2.5 cm right of midline?" <<<


The red spot might not be TO-THE-MILLIMETER over the area of the skull
that contains the entry hole. Yes, it's possible (or even probable)
that the scalp was in a somewhat-"loose" state/condition at the time
when Stringer took the "red spot" picture of the President's head.

But this is really largely immaterial and a moot point for the most
part....because you, John, still require a crazy, mobile, and freely-
moving BULLET HOLE (an independent MOVEMENT of the bullet hole ONLY,
that is, in relation to the rest of JFK's scalp, including the
underlying cowlick), in order for your "stretching scalp" and "BOH/LN"
theories to be looked upon as accurate.


Bottom Line -- The "red spot" (the bullet hole itself) is going
THROUGH THE COWLICK OF JOHN KENNEDY in the autopsy picture that I've
posted multiple times already.

Nothing you could say or theorize can change the above immutable fact
regarding the perfect LINING UP of these two things---

1.) The physical bullet (entry) hole in JFK's head.

and

2.) The cowlick in JFK's head.


>>> "23. You prefer to use the photos showing the entry in the BOH SCALP instead of the photo showing the entry in the SKULL to determine where the entry in the SKULL was?" <<<

It's much more difficult to even FIND the exact point of entry on the
X-rays. (And if you're talking about F8 here, I'll pass.)


This seems like a good time to interject a quote from Vincent
Bugliosi:

"Not only do the autopsy photos AND X-RAYS [DVP's added
emphasis] definitively show that the entrance wound is in the upper
part of the president's skull, but they show a bullet track..."only in
the upper portion of the skull" [1 HSCA 304, Testimony of Dr. Michael
Baden before HSCA on September 7, 1978]. ....

"The autopsy photographs and X-rays DO locate the [entrance]
wound precisely, though, to Dr. Humes's chagrin, not where the autopsy
report says." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 395-396 OF "RECLAIMING
HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)

>>> "24. Even though you have been invited to explain why Dale Myers' computer analysis showed that any bullet that hit JFK in the cowlick and exited where the HSCA said the "principal" exit was would have had to have been fired from approximately 124 feet above, not the book depository, but the Dal-Tex Building, you have not attempted to do so....but continue, nonetheless, to insist the bullet hit him in the cowlick?" <<<


You should have quoted the remainder of what Dale Myers concluded with
respect to the trajectory of the shot that struck JFK in the head:

"Since the position of JFK's head used in the computer
recreation closely matches Zapruder frame 312...and a trajectory line
based on the HSCA's outshoot wound tracks to an impossible firing
source located 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex Building, it
is concluded that the OUTSHOOT WOUND [DVP's emphasis] used by the HSCA
to calculate a trajectory path was NOT the result of a straight line
trajectory (i.e., the bullet was deflected after making contact with
the skull). ....

"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from
the available evidence, due to the possibility that the bullet
fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and the likelihood that
the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull." -- DALE K.
MYERS; VIA THE WEBPAGE LINKED BELOW


www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm


I'll also add the following observation here -- Dale Myers fully
supports the HIGH ON THE HEAD (cowlick) entry location. And the
animated photo on the webpage linked above verifies that fact (the
second picture from the bottom).


So Dale is saying, in essence, that the House Select Committee GOT IT
RIGHT when it comes to the high location of the entry wound in JFK's
head. He further states (via his computer animation study of the
trajectories involved) that a definitive declaration regarding the
exact trajectory the head-shot bullet took "cannot be calculated".

But based on Myers' website and his sample computer images, he
certainly does NOT believe the entry wound in Kennedy's head was
located "low" on the head near the EOP. He thinks it was very HIGH on
the head, as his sample images illustrate fully.

>>> "25. You believe FBI Agents O'Neill and Siebert, as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?" <<<


Yes. Absolutely.

>>> "26. You believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken when he recollected seeing a right rear gaping wound...even though he said he held the President's head in his hands?" <<<


Yes. Absolutely. No such "right rear gaping wound" existed. Nor COULD
it have existed, given the existing photographic evidence.

>>> "27. You find at best preposterous the theory that Ramsey Clark, who openly criticized Jim Garrison's investigation, tasked Dr. Fisher to examine the autopsy x-rays and photographs (that were unavailable to Garrison) and report that the nature of the head wounds entirely disproved Garrison's Grassy Knoll Shooter theory as well as any suggestions there had been a shot from the rear at near ground level...resulting in Fisher refuting the autopsists' findings that the entry was low and there had been damage to the BOH that, while chiefly parietal on the right side, extended into the temporal and occipital?" <<<


Some of this question seems to be speculation on your part. ("Tasked
Dr. Fisher"?)


Anyway....since there was no large BOH wound (ever), Dr. Fisher and
the Clark Panel could not possibly have seen any "large BOH" wound (or
evidence thereof).

And the entry wound IS where it IS -- in the cowlick. Nothing's going
to change that fact.


>>> "28. You find ridiculous, if not laughable, the notion that "experts" from the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA endorsed Fisher's cowlick entry and "No-BOH-Wound" conclusions, even though they knew the autopsists were correct about those wounds, either in order not to embarrass one of the most credentialed and prominent forensic pathologists in the country [Fisher] or to prevent the rather awkward situation where government panels (Rockefeller Commission and HSCA) would refute the conclusions of an earlier government investigation (Clark Panel) which had already refuted the findings published by an even earlier government investigation (Warren Commission)?" <<<


So, you think that the pathologists who served on the Rockefeller
Commission and the HSCA "knew" that the cowlick entry conclusion was
full of shit -- but they decided to endorse it in their respective
reports anyway....right, John?

In a word -- Nonsense.

Also -- See my answer to #27.

>>> "29. Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi understandably and rightfully accepted much of the information that Dr. Michael Baden provided them or testified to probably because they trusted him and the members of his panel?" <<<


Yes. Absolutely.

Is there any particular reason (or reasons) why Posner and Bugliosi
should NOT have trusted Dr. Baden and the HSCA's Forensic Pathology
Panel (other than the HSCA's ridiculous "upward trajectory" findings
with respect to JFK's upper-back and throat injuries, which are
findings that can be debunked by taking just one look at the photo
linked below)?


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=58G6qEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJiRbVLw2FEFn9Le3RYeVqyHVHd7P92WQT_OogFubXGiaDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

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

[End Quiz. Finally.]

[John Canal will give me his usual "F" grade sometime soon, I'm quite
sure.]

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

Closing DVP Comments:

I'm still perplexed by a few things relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy....with the biggest head-scratcher for me (by far)
being the various witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who insisted
there was a great-big hole in the back of JFK's head.

I still am completely stumped by why none of the Parkland witnesses
could see any sign (at all!) of the large exit wound that was located
where we all KNOW it was located -- at the right/frontal part of
Kennedy's head.

And as far as I am aware, there wasn't a single witness who said they
saw TWO separate head wounds (i.e., a big, gaping wound at the right-
rear of the head AND a large wound at the right-front of Kennedy's
head).

Very strange indeed.

But, faced with this predicament, I do think that both Michael Baden
and Vincent Bugliosi have endorsed the most logical explanation for
how to resolve (at least for the most part) the vast discrepancy that
exists between the Parkland Hospital witnesses and the verified photos
of JFK's body that totally contradict those witnesses.

The Bethesda "BOH" witnesses, however, are a different "head-
scratcher" altogether. Why some of the Bethesda people claimed to see
something that was never there is another layer to this enduring
mystery surrounding the eyewitnesses.

Quoting from Bugliosi's JFK book:


"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs,
and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of
hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the
hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he
was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and
brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound
was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and
photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit
wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or
wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
the upper right part of the head." [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 407 and 408 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html


-------------------

John Canal should now get busy inventing his explanation for how a
bullet hole that obviously penetrated John Kennedy's cowlick can
actually be a bullet hole that penetrated John Kennedy's "EOP".


That "Mobile EOP" essay of John's ought to be a doozy.


I'm also always interested in hearing more of John Canal's cockeyed
theory about how the autopsy doctors were afraid to simply explain the
WHOLE TRUTH about JFK's wounds (for fear that somebody would
incorrectly think that any "BOH" skull damage to JFK's head would
automatically mean that there was a frontal gunman and, hence, a
conspiracy to murder President Kennedy).

Incredibly, per Mr. Canal, the autopsy doctors (who knew beyond all
doubt that only ONE bullet had entered JFK's head, and it entered FROM
BEHIND) elected to hide information concerning the totality of the
"BOH" damage that was done to JFK's head (or the doctors just simply
weren't forthcoming with ALL of the information they had about the
head damage), rather than just simply tell the WHOLE truth about the
wounds they saw in President Kennedy's head -- which would have been
truth that FULLY SUPPORTED THE LONE-ASSASSIN CONCLUSION.


Now just exactly WHY the three autopsists would have wanted to play
such a silly "BOH" game is a bigger mystery to me than Bigfoot.


David Von Pein
April 1, 2009

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 1, 2009, 7:48:48 AM4/1/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/60992549718a2275

>>> "I hope Vincent [Bugliosi] reverses his position on the location of the entry wound in the back of the head (to near the EOP)." <<<


Why on Earth would Mr. Bugliosi want to do a silly thing like that?

There's not a chance in the world that Vince would have any desire to
change his already-correct stance on the location of President
Kennedy's head entry wound.

Why?

Because, as can easily be determined by this autopsy photograph, the
ONLY THING that could POSSIBLY be deemed a "bullet hole" on the back
of JFK's head in this picture is the red spot near the cowlick:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=WodQnEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJs4hq_UlGostqKuwWafTpARZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=l16ZCQsAAACcH2Pmc6v7hYRUU1jPed9-


And John Canal's weird "they stretched the scalp" theory doesn't fly
either. Because even WITH some degree of scalp "stretching", the
actual HOLE (red spot) through John Kennedy's scalp is STILL
PENETRATING THE AREA OF THE COWLICK.

Therefore, regardless of ANY scalp "stretching" that John Canal has
invented to accommodate his oddball BOH/LN theory....the bullet hole
in the back of JFK's head is STILL GOING THROUGH THE AREA OF PRESIDENT
KENNEDY'S COWLICK -- which means (by definition): the entry hole for
Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet was located HIGH on the back of John F.
Kennedy's head.*

* = Unless some inventive theorist now wants to pretend that JFK's
cowlick was located LOW on the back of his head. I doubt anyone wants
to claim that, however.

Or does John Canal perhaps believe that by "stretching" the scalp of
JFK, the entry hole itself (which John insists is located in an area
of JFK's head that is much LOWER than the cowlick area) somehow
magically CLIMBED UP the head of President Kennedy, in order to appear
to be merging with the COWLICK area of the President's head?

There's no possible way that John Canal can logically and reasonably
answer that last question....because there is no logical or reasonable
answer to that question that would support John's "Low/EOP" theory.

Plus:

As I've mentioned in previous posts on this subject (after having had
this forehead-slapping revelation brought to my attention by Dr.
Michael Baden, via his March 12, 1978, tape recorded discussion with
Dr. Pierre Finck, which is linked below)....the autopsy photo linked
above not only depicts just ONE single solitary "thing" that could
conceivably be determined to be a "bullet hole" (the red spot in the
cowlick area of JFK's head), but the MAIN FOCAL POINT of that picture
is quite obviously the RED SPOT near the CENTER of the photograph.
That couldn't be more obvious. (Although, as I said, I never once
thought of using that particular argument to support the "cowlick"
entry until I listened to Baden's very astute comments on the matter
during his 03/12/78 interview with Dr. Finck.)

But it's certainly quite obvious that photographer John Stringer is
NOT centering his camera lens on the HAIRLINE area of President
Kennedy's head in that picture. Stringer is centering his attention on
the red spot in the cowlick area of JFK's head (i.e., the only
possible artifact in the photo that looks anything at all like a
bullet hole).

FINCK & BADEN (MARCH 12, 1978):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d


>>> "But I do predict that if Vincent [Bugliosi] reverses his position, David [Von Pein] will reverse his position." <<<


Not a chance.

But, then too, there's not even the slightest chance that Mr. Bugliosi
will change his mind about the obviously-true "high"/"cowlick"
location of the entry wound in JFK's head, which is a location that
Bugliosi fully endorses in his book "Reclaiming History".

And there's a very good reason why Vincent endorses such a cowlick
entry location, and that reason is -- because it's so obviously the
correct location for that wound:


"The precise location of this [head] entrance wound as stated by
the autopsy surgeons in the autopsy report,...however, has been
established as being incorrect by every pathologist who has
subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and X-rays. ....

"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show


that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull,
but they show a bullet track..."only in the upper portion of the
skull" [1 HSCA 304, Testimony of Dr. Michael Baden before HSCA on
September 7, 1978]. ....

"The autopsy photographs and X-rays DO locate the [entrance]
wound precisely, though, to Dr. Humes's chagrin, not where the autopsy
report says." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 395-396 OF "RECLAIMING
HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)

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

"Error" Addendum:


Vince, though, needs to re-think his stance on the HSCA's "upward
trajectory" through JFK's body for the SBT bullet. He resides,
incredibly, on BOTH sides of the fence (at the same time!) on that
strange issue:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/821069a8ca1e2fcd


And Vince is also wrong about some of the stuff he has said about Dr.
Gregory and the Connally wrist fragments:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996

So you see, WhiskyJoe, I'm not always in complete agreement with
Vincent Bugliosi. (Just MOST of the time; but not 100% of the
time.) ;)


www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html


David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 11:42:20 AM4/2/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/dfa84990fc6c2935


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "This was a bad idea...you refuse to wake up and listen...I'm wasting my time." <<<


DVP SAYS:

Thank God you pulled the plug early on this tedium. I was getting
tired (already) of wading through your silly replies to the very good
post of mine from April 1st, 2009 (linked below):

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

>>> "I'll just send VB the above." <<<

And make sure to also send him all of the details regarding your
"MST" (Magic Scalp Theory)...which is a theory that (incredibly) has
the physical bullet HOLE through John F. Kennedy's scalp moving itself
UP SEVERAL INCHES on JFK's head in order to (incredibly) merge
perfectly with the COWLICK of JFK's head....even though John Canal
insists that that VERY SAME BULLET HOLE is really PENETRATING the
scalp of JFK at the level of the EOP!

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=CJx43UgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJ18FtSNr_YSMZHvetOjkDKhZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=bwSzGhYAAADKw9LwR19K1wFu2Rmgfemn9qsiGP7VMzl2XIyvVF5DGw


Make sure you don't forget to send Vince those MST details, John. OK?

Or, better still, just send him a copy of this post. It succinctly
explains your wackiness regarding the location of the head entry
wound.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 12:27:30 PM4/2/09
to

Simple question for John Canal:

If the bullet that struck President Kennedy's head had really entered
his head where you say it did (near the EOP, instead of near JFK's
cowlick)....then why isn't the COWLICK of Kennedy's head located
several inches ABOVE the physical BULLET HOLE (i.e., the red spot;
which is a red spot that you agree IS the actual bullet hole itself)
in this autopsy photograph:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=IpfCAEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJCzTKIMl1zIc7POUjbeBKGRZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=UNbPphYAAAC0b8T2MZ-DY2Zyy9abQRhd9qsiGP7VMzl2XIyvVF5DGw


Regardless of any "stretching" or "undermining" of the scalp of JFK in
the above picture....if there REALLY was a PHYSICAL difference of
several INCHES between where you claim the bullet hole resides on the
back of JFK's head (near the EOP) and the cowlick of JFK's head (which
is certainly located quite a bit higher on the head than is the
EOP)....then why isn't there a good-sized piece of real estate on the
scalp between the physical bullet hole itself and the cowlick?


Did the "stretching"/"undermining" of the scalp somehow ONLY affect
the BULLET HOLE itself....while not "stretching" (i.e., moving
northward) the COWLICK area of that very same scalp?

aeffects

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 5:55:38 PM4/2/09
to
no free advertising knuckle-dragger....

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 6:25:17 PM4/2/09
to
On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no free advertising knuckle-dragger....

The junkie liked that term so much, he had to copy Loony Lazuli and
use it. To drugged up to think of anything creative on you own red
nose?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 2, 2009, 10:52:56 PM4/2/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/cea79bf7db3c3668


Nice try at sidestepping the very simple question I asked you, John.

I'll repeat it again (even if you don't want to answer; of course, you
cannot possibly answer it in a reasonable and BELIEVABLE fashion, but
I'll ask again anyhow):

If the bullet from Lee Oswald's gun entered President Kennedy's
head very near the level of the EOP, then why isn't there a lot more
real estate on John Kennedy's head visible BETWEEN the cowlick and the
bullet's entry hole (i.e., the red spot) in this autopsy photo?:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=IpfCAEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJCzTKIMl1zIc7POUjbeBKGRZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=UNbPphYAAAC0b8T2MZ-DY2Zyy9abQRhd9qsiGP7VMzl2XIyvVF5DGw


Try again, John. Because your last hunk of long-windedness was pretty
pathetic at trying to explain how the EOP suddenly MERGED PERFECTLY
WITH THE COWLICK on John Kennedy's head.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 3, 2009, 3:09:57 AM4/3/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/12db25ed17339eff/ba5d1c6d60a2453e?hl=en&#ba5d1c6d60a2453e


>>> "This whole [scalp "stretching"] idea [of John Canal's] is a fantasy." <<<

Indeed it is.

And even if the "stretching" theory of John Canal's were
correct....John would still have a huge problem (as I mentioned
several times previously).

I.E.,

Because even if JFK's scalp was being stretched all to hell in the BOH
autopsy picture, we can still see that the BULLET HOLE (red spot) is
still penetrating the area on JFK's head known as the "cowlick".

There's no denying this (although John Canal apparently does want to
deny this ironclad fact).

If John C. didn't believe that the "red spot" was the actual entry
hole, then his theory wouldn't be so incredibly silly. But John C.
DOES believe the red spot is the entry hole.

And at what point on JFK's scalp is that bullet hole PENETRATING
Kennedy's head ("stretched" scalp or otherwise)?

Answer:

In the COWLICK region of JFK's head...that's where.

I guess perhaps John C. wants to believe that when the autopsists
"stretched"/"undermined" Kennedy's scalp, the cowlick (which IS part
of and ATTACHED TO the "scalp" the last time I heard) didn't "stretch"
northward along with the actual bullet hole.

Apparently only the bullet hole itself moved up JFK's scalp to appear
to be "too high" via John's "stretching" theory. Incredibly, however,
the cowlick evidently remained exactly where it's supposed to be on
the unstretched scalp of John Kennedy.

Is that correct, John Canal?

Also:

If we just do the simple math here, it would seem to me (via John's
"stretching" theory) that the cowlick of JFK's head/scalp (which John
insists is NOT the area where the bullet entered JFK's head) should be
located SEVERAL INCHES above the location of the bullet hole (the red
spot) in the autopsy picture linked below.

In fact, the cowlick (per John's "stretched scalp" theory) should
probably be about EIGHT full inches above the bullet hole, because
John already believes that the bullet hole is about FOUR inches below
the cowlick on the UNSTRETCHED scalp of JFK. And when taking into
account the four-inch "stretch" to the north on Kennedy's head that
John says is occurring here, that makes 8 inches total:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=IpfCAEgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJCzTKIMl1zIc7POUjbeBKGRZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=UNbPphYAAAC0b8T2MZ-DY2Zyy9abQRhd9qsiGP7VMzl2XIyvVF5DGw


Instead, we find the cowlick (even if the scalp is being stretched by
the doctors) to be right AT the level of the bullet hole (red spot) in
the above photograph.

Go figure.

aeffects

unread,
Apr 3, 2009, 3:57:42 AM4/3/09
to
On Apr 3, 12:09 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

agaoin..... no free advertising dipshit!

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 4, 2009, 2:24:45 AM4/4/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ce24f74817e23c09

>>> "You're wrong about the red spot being in the cowlick area of the scalp in the photo...unless you have proof? If you do, I might mitigate that statement...but let's hear the proof first." <<<

Come now, John Canal, let's be reasonable here.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that you really think that this
red spot on the back of JFK's head is **NOT** GOING THROUGH the
COWLICK of Kennedy's SCALP?:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=FJZNY0gAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJfDP6E01kTLcl2QpCC8ZF0xZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

Bottom Line (which Baden and the HSCA's FPP agree with, of course):

That red spot is penetrating President Kennedy's SCALP at the area of
the scalp where JFK's hair starts to "diverge" or "go in different
directions" (for lack of better terms to describe the "cowlick" on a
person's head).

Therefore, how can you possibly say that the red spot actually
PENETRATED the "EOP" on John Kennedy's SCALP, when we can see the red
spot merging with the "diverging" hair (aka: the "cowlick") on
Kennedy's SCALP?

If you want to continue to think the red spot really started out at
the EOP, then you've got one "magical floating red spot" there,
John....because that bullet hole ended up GOING THROUGH THE COWLICK
when John Stringer took the above photograph.

John, you'd be better off theorizing that the above picture is a
"fake", like almost all conspiracy theorists like to think.

Because if that photo is not a fake (and, of course, it's not; the
HSCA proved that as well), then the bullet hole penetrated JFK's
cowlick region and not the EOP.

~Mark VII~

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 4, 2009, 5:08:06 PM4/4/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/12db25ed17339eff


>>> "How have you determined that the red spot is in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp[?]" <<<

By looking at the autopsy photo that I've posted a thousand times,
John. That's how.

And it couldn't BE more obvious that the area of Kennedy's SCALP known
as "the cowlick" is at the exact same place where the "red
spot" (i.e., the bullet hole) is also located.


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=yu-qkUgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJG-zG8CIABgrC7UQmnWb-SBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=sN_dDAsAAAAvdUS_iylSzN1h6thzjcLQ


For Pete sake, what was the purpose of taking that photograph AT ALL
if it wasn't to document the location of the ENTRY WOUND on the back
of John Kennedy's head/scalp?

In addition, I ask this:

Why would the 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)?

Come now, John....let's be reasonable about this.


>>> "Canal is fully and nervously aware of DVP's wonderous abilities to tell things from photos...that most can't see." <<<

Oh, for Pete sake, John....even the HSCA identified the red spot as
being in THE COWLICK. Therefore, the HSCA obviously saw the light and
used some common sense when they determined that the red spot IS IN
THE COWLICK AREA OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S SCALP.

Maybe John C. should listen to Michael Baden at the beginning of the
following taped interview with Dr. Finck in March of 1978:

www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3


Quoting Baden from that taped interview:


"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; 03/12/78

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d


>>> "He [DVP] told us he could tell from the scans of the lateral x-ray that the fractures were "complete" [all the way through the bone creating fragments]." <<<

A "complete fracture line" does not have to result in "fragments"
coming loose from JFK's skull. Why do you think that, John?

You need some "complete fracture lines" that MEET UP with other
"complete fracture lines" in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head....and
you don't have that in the lateral X-ray. Period. Not even close to
it, in fact.


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=Zh11_EYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJ8iSqDXFzAd3yewN6fKVgcKPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=Cp_jUkYAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJ8iSqDXFzAd3yewN6fKVgcB1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ

Are you going to sit there and try to convince me that due to the fact
that the above autopsy X-rays are not the National Archives
"originals", this means that ALL of the OTHER "complete fracture
lines" that you say are REALLY present in the occipital area of JFK's
skull in the "original" first-generation lateral X-ray are
(incredibly) completely invisible to the naked eye in the above copies
of that X-ray?

Come now, John, let's be reasonable about this. And we're talking
about "complete" fractures too, keep in mind....which would equal VERY
DARK lines on the X-ray. How could so many OTHER "complete fracture
lines" become invisible--even in the "copies" of the X-ray linked
above?

>>> "In the about eight years that I've been studying these issues to include, of course, the BOH photos, no one, yes, not one single person--until you did yesterday--has ever had the gall to say that from the photo they could tell that the red spot was in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp....so, I guess I was in a state of shock at that revelation..and it didn't sink in what you were proposing." <<<


You must be kidding, John! You HAVE to be kidding here!

Michael Baden and the HSCA in 1978 determined that the red spot was
located in the cowlick.

Via the above words spoken by Dr. Baden (the ones I printed out
verbatim above), it couldn't be more obvious that Baden believes that
the "red spot" is, indeed, located in the "cowlick" of JFK's SCALP --
because he's referring to (and undoubtedly also looking at!) the BOH
autopsy photo when he's questioning Dr. Finck in that taped interview.


Plus: author Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History",
undoubtedly believes that the autopsy photo in question is depicting
the red spot as being in the location on JFK's head known as "the
cowlick". How can there be ANY doubt at all as to VB's beliefs in this
regard?

You're in an "EOP" dream world, John.

>>> "Thankfully, my friend wasn't shocked (by anything you say), so he was able to explain to me what your point was." <<<


Which is just plain silly...because my previous posts on this matter
couldn't possibly have been any clearer as to "what [my] point was".

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


ADDENDUM FROM ANOTHER POST:


JOHN CANAL SAID THIS RECENTLY (EVEN THOUGH, FOR SOME REASON, HE THINKS
IT WAS I WHO SAID IT):

>>> "The red spot in the scalp ***IS*** over the cowlick part of JFK's skull in the photo." <<<


JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:


>>> "Yes, you're correct on that...but it's over the cowlick part of his head because the scalp was stretched to put it there." <<<


You're answering yourself, John. I didn't make that first
statement...you did.

But it is a correct statement too, IMO, although we cannot actually
see any of the underlying skull bone in the photo, of course.

But this discussion about the entry wound in JFK's head is more about
the SCALP of JFK, instead of the underlying SKULL/BONE.

And in order for John Canal's theory to hold water, the cowlick of JFK
must certainly be located about 4 to 8 inches (when taking into
account John's "stretch" theory) NORTH of the actual bullet hole in
President Kennedy's SCALP.


Simple Question:

Is John Kennedy's "cowlick" located 4 to 8 INCHES above the red spot
(i.e., the thing even YOU admit IS the "bullet hole") in the photo
below, John? (If your answer is "yes", I suggest you trade in your
current eyeballs for ones that work a little better):


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=yu-qkUgAAAAVlk2Xfx8sVjADRR-uPdeJG-zG8CIABgrC7UQmnWb-SBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=sN_dDAsAAAAvdUS_iylSzN1h6thzjcLQ


John Canal

unread,
Apr 5, 2009, 12:46:34 PM4/5/09
to
In article <22dcb648-e56b-45dc...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/12db25ed173=
>39eff
>
>
>>>> "How have you determined that the red spot is in the cowlick area of JF=

>K's scalp[?]" <<<
>
>By looking at the autopsy photo that I've posted a thousand times,
>John. That's how.

That's not answering my question--what do you see in the photo that you
think indicates the red spot is in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp? Is it
that very distinct, "part-like" defect in the scalp extending from the red
spot at about 45 deg. towards the front right that makes you think that's
the cowlick in his scalp. Because, as I've already posted testimony for
you that states, THAT'S NOT A PART IN JFK'S HAIR!!!!!!!!!! IT'S THE
BEGINNING OF A LACERATION THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE BULLET ENTERING THERE [AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE LACERATION].

>And it couldn't BE more obvious that the area of Kennedy's SCALP known
>as "the cowlick" is at the exact same place where the "red
>spot" (i.e., the bullet hole) is also located.

It's only obvious to you, because you are seeing things, as usual....as we
remember how you were able to somehow tell from the copies of the lateral
x-ray that the occipital fractures were not complete, i.e. they did not go
all the way through the bone causing occipital fragmentation...with your
amazing analysis disagreeing with, not only the autopsists, but also
Zimmerman who examined the original films and reads X-rays on a daily
basis?


>For Pete sake, what was the purpose of taking that photograph AT ALL
>if it wasn't to document the location of the ENTRY WOUND on the back
>of John Kennedy's head/scalp?

They demonstrated the entry wound all right, but should have done that
when the body first arrived, AND NOT AFTER THE BRAIN HAD BEEN REMOVED AND
THE SCALP WAS WORKED ON...DON'T YOU AGREE???????????????

>In addition, I ask this:
>
>Why would the 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?

They simply photographed the wound in the scalp after they were well into
the process of preparing the body for an open casket funeral, a process
that included undermining, stretching, and suturing the scalp
closed.....even you wouldn't have wanted to present JFK's body in a casket
for viewing with a huge hole in his head in the
top/right/front....right??????????????

Oh my God...I hope DVP didn't say to himself, "So, what would have been so
wrong about that?"

>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)?

NO.....as I've repeatedly tried to explain to you, the increased distance
(from about 4 to 7 inches) from the hairline of the red spot, due to
stretching the scalp, was inconsequential to their efforts to close the
huge top/right/front hole.

>Come now, John....let's be reasonable about this.

I am....and I think everyone but you, Fiorentino, and McAdams thinks I am.

>>>> "Canal is fully and nervously aware of DVP's wonderous abilities to tel=


>l things from photos...that most can't see." <<<
>
>Oh, for Pete sake, John....even the HSCA identified the red spot as
>being in THE COWLICK.

But that was Baden, and he's the one who helped continue the perpetration
of Fisher's cowlck entry hoax....wake up, read his testimony...he lied
like a rug more often than you can shake a stick at. Cripes, his own FPP
member, Dr. Joe Davis, who is one of the most highly credentialed forensic
pathologists in our land, tried to tell him the bullet initially impacted
near the EOP...and Baden cut off...BUT, AS STUPID AS THEY WERE, THEY LEFT
ALL THAT IN THE RECORD...TALK ABOUT THE KEYSTONE COPS BEING BLUNDERERS.
DON'T BELIEVE ME? Ok, fine, read it for yourself in 7HSCA, on pages
254-255!

Geeze--you've already admitted that the 6.5 mm opacity didn't represent a
bullet fragment--which is fine, now you're talking intelligently--but both
Fisher and Baden claimed [lied that] it was a real fragment that sheered
of the FMJ bullet that they claimed entered just above it. Again, the
Keystone cops would have less obviously covered-up the low entry
thanFisher and Baden. They had to lie--that 6.5 mm thing was their best
evidence of a high hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Therefore, the HSCA obviously saw the light and
>used some common sense when they determined that the red spot IS IN
>THE COWLICK AREA OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S SCALP.
>
>Maybe John C. should listen to Michael Baden at the beginning of the
>following taped interview with Dr. Finck in March of 1978:
>
>www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
>
>
>Quoting Baden from that taped interview:
>
>
> "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; 03/12/78

Yes, the red spot is over the cowlick portion of JFK's S-K-U-L-L!!!!!!!!
bUT THE RED SPOT IS NOT IN THE COWLICK OF JFK'S SCALP!!!!

>>>> "He [DVP] told us he could tell from the scans of the lateral x-ray tha=
>t the fractures were "complete" [all the way through the bone creating frag=


>ments]." <<<
>
>A "complete fracture line" does not have to result in "fragments"
>coming loose from JFK's skull. Why do you think that, John?

Why, do you think I just made that up? Not hardly..It's because the
autopsy report said that numerous fragments resulted from the complete
fractures extending from both the larger wound and the smaller wound in
the occiput. Furthermore the jagged skull edge as seen in F8 (you ought to
figure that photo out someday) supports Humes' contention that the
occipital was fragmented.

>You need some "complete fracture lines" that MEET UP with other
>"complete fracture lines" in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head....and
>you don't have that in the lateral X-ray. Period. Not even close to
>it, in fact.

There he goes again...Radiologist wanabe, DVP gives up his analysis of the
published copies of the x-rays.

God help us all.

>Are you going to sit there and try to convince me that due to the fact
>that the above autopsy X-rays are not the National Archives
>"originals", this means that ALL of the OTHER "complete fracture
>lines" that you say are REALLY present in the occipital area of JFK's
>skull in the "original" first-generation lateral X-ray are
>(incredibly) completely invisible to the naked eye in the above copies
>of that X-ray?

First Zimmerman examined the originals and said that piece of the
occipital could have become unlatched thereby resulting in a wound
described by the PH docs. Second, see above for what Humes was trying to
get guys like you to believe--that the occipital was fragmented. Custer
said that when he helped to lift JFK onto the autopsy table, his head was
a shifting mass of skull shards being held together by skin.

>Come now, John, let's be reasonable about this. And we're talking
>about "complete" fractures too, keep in mind....which would equal VERY
>DARK lines on the X-ray. How could so many OTHER "complete fracture
>lines" become invisible--even in the "copies" of the X-ray linked
>above?

See above.

>>>> "In the about eight years that I've been studying these issues to inclu=
>de, of course, the BOH photos, no one, yes, not one single person--until yo=
>u did yesterday--has ever had the gall to say that from the photo they coul=
>d tell that the red spot was in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp....so, I gu=
>ess I was in a state of shock at that revelation..and it didn't sink in wha=


>t you were proposing." <<<
>
>
>You must be kidding, John! You HAVE to be kidding here!

I'm not...many people like Fisher, Baden and all the other cowlick entry
theorists have said many times that the entry was in the cowlick, but they
were talking about the cowlick portion of JFK's head.....but no one except
you has ever, at least to the best of my recollection, said the entry is
in the cowlick in his scalp.

>Michael Baden and the HSCA in 1978 determined that the red spot was
>located in the cowlick.

Yes, again, the cowlick portion of his head [skull]...did Baden say that
he could see the cowlick in JFK's hair? No, even he wasn't that stupid.

>Via the above words spoken by Dr. Baden (the ones I printed out
>verbatim above), it couldn't be more obvious that Baden believes that
>the "red spot" is, indeed, located in the "cowlick" of JFK's SCALP --
>because he's referring to (and undoubtedly also looking at!) the BOH
>autopsy photo when he's questioning Dr. Finck in that taped interview.
>
>
>Plus: author Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History",
>undoubtedly believes that the autopsy photo in question is depicting
>the red spot as being in the location on JFK's head known as "the
>cowlick".

For the umpteenth time the red spot ***IS*** in the cowlick portion of his
head....because the scalp was stretched causing the red spot to move from
its original location just above the EOP to over the cowlick [skull-not
scalp] part of his head...a movement of about three inches.


>How can there be ANY doubt at all as to VB's beliefs in this
>regard?

There isn't and he's correct to say that the red spot is over the cowlick
portion of JFK's head [skull]...but VB doesn't claim that he sees the
cowlick in JFK's scalp/hair (only you have claimed that)....for God's sake
he knows the cowlick portion of JFK's scalp had to have suffered some of
the maceration that occurred to the scalp just barely forward of the
cowlick. See the top of the head photos.

>You're in an "EOP" dream world, John.

You'll eventually wake up....VB has.

>>>> "Thankfully, my friend wasn't shocked (by anything you say), so he was =


>able to explain to me what your point was." <<<

[..deleting the nauseating B/S.....]

John Canal


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2009, 2:14:33 PM4/5/09
to


>>> "He [Vince Bugliosi] is correct to say that the red spot is over the cowlick portion of JFK's head [skull]...but VB doesn't claim that he sees the cowlick in JFK's scalp/hair (only you have claimed that)." <<<

John Canal (incredibly) thinks that something that ISN'T visible in
the BOH autopsy photograph (the "cowlick" area of the skull bone of
JFK) can be determined to be in a specific place in the BOH
photo...but something that IS plainly visible in the BOH autopsy photo
(the "cowlick" area of JFK's scalp) CANNOT be determined to be visible
in the photo.

It's a topsy-turvy world in the John Canal universe.

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

"Quizzed as to what the lesion in the cowlick area could be if
not the entrance wound, the three autopsy pathologists had little to
offer. Dr. Humes suggested that it was some “clotted blood” lying on
the scalp (7 HSCA 256). Dr. Boswell thought it was the back margin of
the lacerated scalp he is seen pulling forward in autopsy color
photograph number 42 (7 HSCA 104–105, 246).

"The HSCA forensic panel disagreed with Boswell’s assertion,
noting that the “margins of the wound [as shown in the photographs]
appear to be intact around the entire circumference” (7 HSCA 115).

"(The HSCA forensic panel erroneously attributed Boswell’s
remark to Humes [7 HSCA 115].) Dr. Finck would say only that he didn’t
know what it was (HSCA Record 180-10097-10338, HSCA interview of
Pierre Finck, March 12, 1978, p.3; also ARRB MD 33). ....

"What are we to make of all this haggling? Well, first and
foremost, it’s clear that the autopsy report was incorrect, despite
the three autopsy pathologists’ refusal to concede their error.

"Second, it’s equally obvious from the record that the autopsy
surgeons decided, in the end, to rely on the language they drafted in
the original autopsy report and not second-guess their contemporaneous
records with recollections that were decades old. Dr. Boswell said as
much in 1994: “All of the measurements and all of the information in
the report were the most valid. And anything that might have been said
subsequent to that had to be taken with a grain of salt...Jim [Humes]
and I sat down a couple of years ago and agreed that the most valid
statements are our original report, because we labored over that long
and hard...I would refer anybody back to that—and swear by
it” (Transcript of interview of J. Thornton Boswell by Gary L.
Aguilar, on March 30, 1994, pp.3–4).

"Despite the confusion caused by their refusal to concede such
an obvious error in the face of overwhelming evidence, there remains
only one glaring, indisputable fact—the fatal bullet that struck the
president’s head was fired from ABOVE AND BEHIND." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 231, 232, and 234 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2009, 3:39:40 PM4/5/09
to

Yet Another Scalp/Cowlick Addendum:


>>> "Yes, the red spot is over the cowlick portion of JFK's S-K-U-L-L!!!!!!!! BUT THE RED SPOT IS NOT IN THE COWLICK OF JFK'S SCALP!!!!" <<<


Repeating (just for the laughs) ......

John Canal (amazingly) thinks that he can give a specific location for
something that we CAN'T see in the BOH photo (i.e., the "cowlick"
portion of Kennedy's SKULL BONE).....but John wants to believe that
something we CAN easily see in the photo (i.e., the "cowlick" in JFK's
scalp) cannot be seen at all.

John C. is unique...I gotta give him that much.


>>> "Did Baden say [in his interview with Finck in '78] that he could see the cowlick in JFK's hair? No, even he wasn't that stupid." <<<


LOL.

What the hell do you think Baden was LOOKING AT when he said this to
Dr. Finck on March 12, 1978?:


"...which is the precise measurement of that area in the cowlick


when we measure it out."


John Canal must think that Baden was referring ONLY to the "cowlick"
in the UNSEEN UNDERLYING SKULL of JFK when he said "that area in the
cowlick".

It's fairly obvious (except to Mr. Canal) that when Baden said "that
area [meaning: red spot/bullet hole] in the cowlick", he was referring
to what he believed to be the "cowlick" of President Kennedy's SCALP
in the autopsy photo that he and Finck were undoubtedly LOOKING
DIRECTLY AT during that 1978 interview.

Also:

If the red spot isn't RIGHT AT the "cowlick" of JFK's SCALP in the BOH
photo in question...then, John, WHERE IS KENNEDY'S COWLICK in relation
to the SCALP in that autopsy picture? Where is it? It must be
somewhere? Do you think the cowlick is completely out of Stringer's
photo? It's not visible at all in the picture?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 4:25:45 PM4/6/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0a7996956f5bc4ac


I've never said the scalp wasn't stretched a little bit. I think I
made a post just a few days ago, in fact, where I forthrightly
admitted that JFK's scalp was probably in a bit of a "loose" condition
when Stringer took the BOH photograph, and hence the entry hole in the
skull possibly wasn't "lined up" perfectly with the entry hole in the
scalp in the BOH picture.

But the type of massive scalp-stretching John C. is talking about is
insane. (IMHO, that is.)

aeffects

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 5:25:16 PM4/6/09
to

focus troll.... answering yourself makes you look the fool.... so
carry on! ROTFLMFAO.... C'mon moron, there 45 questions that demand
Nutter response, nad up hon!

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 5:36:11 PM4/6/09
to

Is Dean Andrews the father of David G. Healy?

Sure sounds like it.

Sam Brown

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 5:51:28 PM4/6/09
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4c71a79-a3b7-4d79...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Is Dean Andrews the father of David G. Healy?
>
> Sure sounds like it.

" Ya got dah right Ta Ta, but duh wrong Ho Ho"
Sure sounds like the junkie!

aeffects

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 6:36:46 PM4/6/09
to
On Apr 6, 2:36 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Is Dean Andrews the father of David G. Healy?
>
> Sure sounds like it.

this is Nutter nadding up? Sure looks like it..... fucking coward! and
is David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes? Everyone thinks so now troll!

aeffects

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 6:37:43 PM4/6/09
to
On Apr 6, 2:51 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:b4c71a79-a3b7-4d79...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > Is Dean Andrews the father of David G. Healy?
>
> > Sure sounds like it.
>
> " Ya got dah right Ta Ta, but duh wrong Ho Ho"
> Sure sounds like the junkie!

hey Sammy, howe they hangin, hon. Rumor has it you took the **tuna**
cure. Ya still love me?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 6:46:44 PM4/6/09
to

>>> "And is David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes? Everyone thinks so now troll!" <<<

I guess that just goes to show how wrong your overstated "everyone"
can be.

But I love it when you pull out your "DVP is Reitzes" card. I can
think of nothing that gives me greater pleasure than that.

Please do keep it up. I need the laughs.

aeffects

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 6:58:14 PM4/6/09
to

all that wish'in and a hop'in, it ain't going away, troll! Ya got
Black Op Radio to thank for that one.....

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 7:12:36 PM4/6/09
to

You'll have to excuse me, Mr. Crackpipe -- but I've got another
message (below this post) to deliver to a person (John Canal) who
actually does something besides call me "hon".

Mr. Canal is dead wrong about some things regarding this case, but
he's an absolute genius when compared to David G. Healy.

Healy should be embarrassed to show his e-face at any JFK forum. But,
incredibly, he actually seems to be proud of the fact that he acts
like a retard 24/7.

Go figure.

~big shrug~

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 7:12:46 PM4/6/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c1c505dc577aea6a/3924b014135c4aea?hl=en%E0%BD%94b014135c4aea


>>> "If they didn't stretch the scalp in an attempt to cover the huge top/right/front hole in JFK's head in preparation for an open-casket funeral (like they said they did), THEN HOW THE F___ DID THEY CLOSE IT...OR DID THEY JUST LEAVE IT OPEN?" <<<

They probably (for the most part) covered the large right/top/front
exit wound in JFK's head by merely closing up the "flap" that Jackie
Kennedy probably also utilized during the drive to the hospital to
temporarily "close up" and hide the large right/front wound.

And, as we all know, not a single Parkland witness (that I am aware
of) claimed to see the large right/front wound (which we KNOW was
there when JFK was in the ER at Parkland)....so, evidently, the "flap"
of skull/scalp that might have been (and probably was) used by Jackie
to help to "hold his hair on" during the ride to Parkland Hospital was
a pretty good device with which to TOTALLY CONCEAL the large wound in
the right-frontal area of JFK's head.

aeffects

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 7:20:38 PM4/6/09
to


my goodness troll, you should nad-up and get into question #1. Tell me
your not a coward and running from a little debate. Especially when it
concerns your idol worship Vincent Bugliosiand his WCR.... tell us it
ain't so, David!


> Go figure.
>
> ~big shrug~

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 7:35:02 PM4/6/09
to

Why not try READING something sometime, Senor Crackpipe. I've
addressed many of Ben Holmes' "Big 45", right here:

LET'S PLAY "21 QUESTIONS" -- AN "LN" RESPONSE TO 21 "CT" INQUIRIES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32

Although, granted, at the time I addressed Holmes' quiz, there were
only 21 questions in it....which grew to 45 when the kook decided it
was time for additional unsupportable nonsense to flow from his
keyboard.

And as far as the "16 Smoking Guns", I assembled the following post
(which took me several days to research and put together), which
proves that Vince Bugliosi does not "ignore" any of the issues that
comprise James H. Fetzer's silly "16 Guns":


16 "SMOKING GUNS"? OR 16 MISFIRES?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/43b260d8af96ca00

Why not actually READ something, Healy, instead of repeating the same
tired "THE LNers HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THIS OR THAT" mantra over and over
again?

Couldn't hurt you, right? After all, your next in-the-alley drug
purchase isn't until midnight tonight...so you've got some time to
kill.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 7:47:22 PM4/6/09
to

>>> "You should nad-up and get into question #1." <<<


BTW, "Question #1" is a very easy one (that even CT-Kooks should be
able to figure out--but they won't) ---

The skulls in the Edgewood Arsenal tests looked slightly different
from JFK's skull due to several contributing factors....one of which
was thoroughly explained by Dr. Olivier in 1964 in front of the WC:

Kennedy's skull, naturally, had a SCALP attached to it...and, hence,
the underlying skull was more-or-less being HELD TOGETHER (to some
degree) by the restricting scalp of the President.

Whereas, the test skulls used by Olivier, et al, did not have any
HUMAN SCALP attached to them, thereby causing the skull to fragment
more extensively than did JFK's skull in Dealey Plaza.

Plus, as mentioned by Bud in previous posts in past years concerning
this very subject (in Bud's normal no-nonsense, always-logical manner)
-- I don't think that the Edgewood/Olivier skull tests attempted to
PERFECTLY re-create the exact angle of President Kennedy's head at the
moment the shot struck him.

Hence, this "angle" difference could very well have produced slightly-
different wounds in the test skull(s).

CTers, of course, really DO know all of this stuff. But, as always,
they want to make mile-high mountains out of nothing but a grain of
sand.

(Did I "nad-up" good enough for you that time, Mr. Crackpipe? Or would
you like to now pretend that I didn't address Q#1 at all?)

tomnln

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 8:11:53 PM4/6/09
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e714b26-6577-4cea...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

No Wonder david Refused to Debate ! ! !

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 8:27:03 PM4/6/09
to


>>> "No Wonder david Refused to Debate!" <<<

Big El-Oh-El!

The kook incorrectly (and needlessly) capitalizes "wonder", "refused",
and "debate"....but the moron doesn't capitalize my name.

Hilarious.

But, as to be expected, everything is "topsy-turvy" in a CTer's world
-- even his grammar and punctuation.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 9:44:01 PM4/6/09
to
In article <e1d93188-cbf3-419b...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...


DVP still can't explain why VB ran from the 16 Smoking Guns. It's a FACT that
VB didn't respond to them, and he provably knew of them.

And no, lying that VB *did* isn't going to convince anyone...


>> Go figure.
>>
>> ~big shrug~


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

tomnln

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 11:08:24 PM4/6/09
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8588de4-0d30-4eba...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> -- even his punctuation.


davis is TOO STUPID to know that Capitalization signifies "Importance".


"No Wonder david Refused to Debate!"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 6, 2009, 11:34:37 PM4/6/09
to

>>> "davis [sic; Davis?] is TOO STUPID to know that Capitalization signifies "Importance"." <<<

Oh....THAT must be the reason you don't have your username capitalized
here at acj!

Thanks for that info, Rosstard.

tomnln

unread,
Apr 7, 2009, 12:46:19 AM4/7/09
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1c37784-2b1b-4cf8...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

You wanna "Pinch-Hit" for McAdams next time around on the radio debate
david???


Bud

unread,
Apr 7, 2009, 1:08:27 PM4/7/09
to
On Apr 6, 7:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You should nad-up and get into question #1." <<<
>
> BTW, "Question #1" is a very easy one (that even CT-Kooks should be
> able to figure out--but they won't) ---
>
> The skulls in the Edgewood Arsenal tests looked slightly different
> from JFK's skull due to several contributing factors....one of which
> was thoroughly explained by Dr. Olivier in 1964 in front of the WC:
>
> Kennedy's skull, naturally, had a SCALP attached to it...and, hence,
> the underlying skull was more-or-less being HELD TOGETHER (to some
> degree) by the restricting scalp of the President.
>
> Whereas, the test skulls used by Olivier, et al, did not have any
> HUMAN SCALP attached to them, thereby causing the skull to fragment
> more extensively than did JFK's skull in Dealey Plaza.
>
> Plus, as mentioned byBudin previous posts in past years concerning
> this very subject (inBud'snormal no-nonsense, always-logical manner)

> -- I don't think that the Edgewood/Olivier skull tests attempted to
> PERFECTLY re-create the exact angle of President Kennedy's head at the
> moment the shot struck him.

Oliver says as much when he says things like .."I don`t know the
angles at which the firing was done or anything...", and ""I think the
best approach is to find the angles of flight, whether it is
possible". When he says "angles of flight", he means trajectory
testing, which he didn`t do. Nowhere does he say he was attempting to
do such testing, or that he had the necessary data available to him to
do such testing (the z-film, the autopsy report and an accurate
topography map of Dealy Plaza, for starters). His testing was to
determine the effect of the body on the bullet(s), and the effect of
the bullet(s) on the body. Period. I don`t know whether Ben
misrepresents this testing out of dishonesty or ignorance, but it is
clear he is misrepresenting the testing. It just wasn`t trajectory
testing, and if the bullets do not faithfully represent the angles the
bullets went in and out, than the wounds are going to be different
than the actual event.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 8, 2009, 9:21:56 PM4/8/09
to

RE: THE LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE BACK OF PRESIDENT
KENNEDY'S HEAD......

The following text excerpts come from two sources -- Dr. Michael
Baden's September 7, 1978, HSCA testimony and the final report issued
by the four members of the Clark Panel in 1968.

Added emphasis provided by DVP for the instant replays:

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

DR. MICHAEL BADEN [at 1 HSCA 237] -- "The two photographs I have [JFK
Exhibits F-50 and F-51], 8 by 10 glossy prints, have been prepared
from the original photographs in the [National] Archives and show
enlargement of the perforation in the cowlick area of the scalp."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0121a.htm


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

INSTANT REPLAY:

"...and show enlargement of the perforation IN THE COWLICK AREA
OF THE SCALP."

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


DR. BADEN [at 1 HSCA 242] -- "The [HSCA's forensic pathology] panel
concluded, and all of the radiologist consultants with whom the panel
spoke with and met with, all concluded that without question there is
an entrance bullet hole on the upper portion of the skull...where the
bone itself has been displaced, and that this corresponds precisely
with the point in the cowlick area on the overlying skin."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0123b.htm


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

INSTANT REPLAY:

"The panel concluded...that WITHOUT QUESTION there is an
entrance bullet hole on the UPPER PORTION OF THE SKULL...and that this
corresponds precisely with the point in the COWLICK AREA on the
overlying skin."


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

DR. BADEN [at 1 HSCA 250] -- "The panel members unanimously placed the
gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head
approximately 4 inches above the point indicated in the autopsy report
prepared by Drs. Humes and Boswell."

MR. KLEIN -- "So the panel concluded that the autopsy report placed
the wound in the back of the head 4 inches too low?"

DR. BADEN -- "That is correct; as recorded in the original autopsy."

MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, on the basis of the foregoing evidence, the
photographs and X-rays taken of the autopsy, the reports of the
radiologists and the autopsy report, did the panel unanimously
conclude that a bullet entered the President high on the back of his
head and exited on the right side toward the front of his head?"

DR. BADEN -- "All nine members of the panel so unanimously concluded."


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0127b.htm


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

INSTANT REPLAY:

"The panel members UNANIMOUSLY placed the gunshot wound of
entrance in the back of the President's head approximately FOUR INCHES
ABOVE the point indicated in the autopsy report prepared by Drs. Humes
and Boswell. .... ALL NINE MEMBERS of the panel so UNANIMOUSLY
CONCLUDED."

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

CONCLUSIONS OF THE CLARK PANEL (FEBRUARY 1968):

"[President John F. Kennedy's] head was struck from behind [by]
a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 millimeters to
the right of the midline and 100 millimeters above the external
occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the
skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it
passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal
and parietal bones as it emerged from the head."


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt


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


INSTANT REPLAY:

"[The projectile] entered the occipital region 25 millimeters to
the right of the midline and ONE HUNDRED MILLIMETERS [FOUR INCHES]
ABOVE the external occipital protuberance."


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


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MADE BY THE CLARK PANEL:


"The decedent was wounded by two bullets, both of which entered
his body from behind. One bullet struck the back of the decedent's
head well above the external occipital protuberance.

"Based upon the observation that he was leaning forward with his
head turned obliquely to the left when this bullet struck, the
photographs and X-rays indicate that it came from a site above and
slightly to his right.

"This bullet fragmented after entering the cranium, one major
piece of it passing forward and laterally to produce an explosive
fracture of the right side of the skull as it emerged from the head."


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt

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


INSTANT REPLAY:


"One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head WELL ABOVE
THE EXTERNAL OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE."


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

VINCENT BUGLIOSI SUMS THINGS UP:


"Quizzed as to what the lesion in the cowlick area could be if
not the entrance wound, the three autopsy pathologists had little to

offer. .... What are we to make of all this haggling? Well, first and


foremost, it’s clear that the autopsy report was incorrect, despite
the three autopsy pathologists’ refusal to concede their error.

"Second, it’s equally obvious from the record that the autopsy
surgeons decided, in the end, to rely on the language they drafted in
the original autopsy report and not second-guess their contemporaneous

records with recollections that were decades old. ....

"Despite the confusion caused by their refusal to concede such
an obvious error in the face of overwhelming evidence, there remains
only one glaring, indisputable fact—the fatal bullet that struck the

president’s head was fired from ABOVE AND BEHIND." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; Pages 231-232 and 234 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

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


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/files

Ritchie Linton

unread,
Apr 9, 2009, 11:22:59 PM4/9/09
to
There isn't much to argue about the head wound=the right rear portion was
extremely blasted b/c of the tangential strike from Greers bullet
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gr9c6...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <22dcb648-e56b-45dc...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/12db25ed173=
>>39eff
>>
>>
>>>>> "How have you determined that the red spot is in the cowlick area of
>>>>> JF=
>>K's scalp[?]" <<<
>>
>>By looking at the autopsy photo that I've posted a thousand times,
>>John. That's how.
>
> That's not answering my question--what do you see in the photo that you
> think indicates the red spot is in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp? Is it
> that very distinct, "part-like" defect in the scalp extending from the red
> spot at about 45 deg. towards the front right that makes you think that's
> the cowlick in his scalp. Because, as I've already posted testimony for
> you that states, THAT'S NOT A PART IN JFK'S HAIR!!!!!!!!!! IT'S THE
> BEGINNING OF A LACERATION THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE BULLET ENTERING THERE [AT
> THE BEGINNING OF THE LACERATION].
>
>>And it couldn't BE more obvious that the area of Kennedy's SCALP known
>>as "the cowlick" is at the exact same place where the "red
>>spot" (i.e., the bullet hole) is also located.
>
> It's only obvious to you, because you are seeing things, as usual....as we
> remember how you were able to somehow tell from the copies of the lateral
> x-ray that the occipital fractures were not complete, i.e. they did not go
> all the way through the bone causing occipital fragmentation...with your
> amazing analysis disagreeing with, not only the autopsists, but also
> Zimmerman who examined the original films and reads X-rays on a daily
> basis?
>
>
>>For Pete sake, what was the purpose of taking that photograph AT ALL
>>if it wasn't to document the location of the ENTRY WOUND on the back
>>of John Kennedy's head/scalp?
>
> They demonstrated the entry wound all right, but should have done that
> when the body first arrived, AND NOT AFTER THE BRAIN HAD BEEN REMOVED AND
> THE SCALP WAS WORKED ON...DON'T YOU AGREE???????????????
>
>>In addition, I ask this:
>>
>>Why would the 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?
>
> They simply photographed the wound in the scalp after they were well into
> the process of preparing the body for an open casket funeral, a process
> that included undermining, stretching, and suturing the scalp
> closed.....even you wouldn't have wanted to present JFK's body in a casket
> for viewing with a huge hole in his head in the
> top/right/front....right??????????????
>
> Oh my God...I hope DVP didn't say to himself, "So, what would have been so
> wrong about that?"
>
>>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)?
>
> NO.....as I've repeatedly tried to explain to you, the increased distance
> (from about 4 to 7 inches) from the hairline of the red spot, due to
> stretching the scalp, was inconsequential to their efforts to close the
> huge top/right/front hole.
>
>>Come now, John....let's be reasonable about this.
>
> I am....and I think everyone but you, Fiorentino, and McAdams thinks I am.
>
>>>>> "Canal is fully and nervously aware of DVP's wonderous abilities to
>>>>> tel=
>>l things from photos...that most can't see." <<<
>>
>>Oh, for Pete sake, John....even the HSCA identified the red spot as
>>being in THE COWLICK.
>
> But that was Baden, and he's the one who helped continue the perpetration
> of Fisher's cowlck entry hoax....wake up, read his testimony...he lied
> like a rug more often than you can shake a stick at. Cripes, his own FPP
> member, Dr. Joe Davis, who is one of the most highly credentialed forensic
> pathologists in our land, tried to tell him the bullet initially impacted
> near the EOP...and Baden cut off...BUT, AS STUPID AS THEY WERE, THEY LEFT
> ALL THAT IN THE RECORD...TALK ABOUT THE KEYSTONE COPS BEING BLUNDERERS.
> DON'T BELIEVE ME? Ok, fine, read it for yourself in 7HSCA, on pages
> 254-255!
>
> Geeze--you've already admitted that the 6.5 mm opacity didn't represent a
> bullet fragment--which is fine, now you're talking intelligently--but both
> Fisher and Baden claimed [lied that] it was a real fragment that sheered
> of the FMJ bullet that they claimed entered just above it. Again, the
> Keystone cops would have less obviously covered-up the low entry
> thanFisher and Baden. They had to lie--that 6.5 mm thing was their best
> evidence of a high hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>Therefore, the HSCA obviously saw the light and
>>used some common sense when they determined that the red spot IS IN
>>THE COWLICK AREA OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S SCALP.
>>
>>Maybe John C. should listen to Michael Baden at the beginning of the
>>following taped interview with Dr. Finck in March of 1978:
>>
>>www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
>>
>>
>>Quoting Baden from that taped interview:
>>
>>
>> "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; 03/12/78

>
> Yes, the red spot is over the cowlick portion of JFK's S-K-U-L-L!!!!!!!!
> bUT THE RED SPOT IS NOT IN THE COWLICK OF JFK'S SCALP!!!!
>
>>>>> "He [DVP] told us he could tell from the scans of the lateral x-ray
>>>>> tha=
>>t the fractures were "complete" [all the way through the bone creating
>>frag=
>>ments]." <<<
>>
>>A "complete fracture line" does not have to result in "fragments"
>>coming loose from JFK's skull. Why do you think that, John?
>
> Why, do you think I just made that up? Not hardly..It's because the
> autopsy report said that numerous fragments resulted from the complete
> fractures extending from both the larger wound and the smaller wound in
> the occiput. Furthermore the jagged skull edge as seen in F8 (you ought to
> figure that photo out someday) supports Humes' contention that the
> occipital was fragmented.
>
>>You need some "complete fracture lines" that MEET UP with other
>>"complete fracture lines" in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head....and
>>you don't have that in the lateral X-ray. Period. Not even close to
>>it, in fact.
>
> There he goes again...Radiologist wanabe, DVP gives up his analysis of the
> published copies of the x-rays.
>
> God help us all.
>
>>Are you going to sit there and try to convince me that due to the fact
>>that the above autopsy X-rays are not the National Archives
>>"originals", this means that ALL of the OTHER "complete fracture
>>lines" that you say are REALLY present in the occipital area of JFK's
>>skull in the "original" first-generation lateral X-ray are
>>(incredibly) completely invisible to the naked eye in the above copies
>>of that X-ray?
>
> First Zimmerman examined the originals and said that piece of the
> occipital could have become unlatched thereby resulting in a wound
> described by the PH docs. Second, see above for what Humes was trying to
> get guys like you to believe--that the occipital was fragmented. Custer
> said that when he helped to lift JFK onto the autopsy table, his head was
> a shifting mass of skull shards being held together by skin.
>
>>Come now, John, let's be reasonable about this. And we're talking
>>about "complete" fractures too, keep in mind....which would equal VERY
>>DARK lines on the X-ray. How could so many OTHER "complete fracture
>>lines" become invisible--even in the "copies" of the X-ray linked
>>above?
>
> See above.
>
>>>>> "In the about eight years that I've been studying these issues to
>>>>> inclu=
>>de, of course, the BOH photos, no one, yes, not one single person--until
>>yo=
>>u did yesterday--has ever had the gall to say that from the photo they
>>coul=
>>d tell that the red spot was in the cowlick area of JFK's scalp....so, I
>>gu=
>>ess I was in a state of shock at that revelation..and it didn't sink in
>>wha=
>>t you were proposing." <<<
>>
>>
>>You must be kidding, John! You HAVE to be kidding here!
>
> I'm not...many people like Fisher, Baden and all the other cowlick entry
> theorists have said many times that the entry was in the cowlick, but they
> were talking about the cowlick portion of JFK's head.....but no one except
> you has ever, at least to the best of my recollection, said the entry is
> in the cowlick in his scalp.
>
>>Michael Baden and the HSCA in 1978 determined that the red spot was
>>located in the cowlick.
>
> Yes, again, the cowlick portion of his head [skull]...did Baden say that

> he could see the cowlick in JFK's hair? No, even he wasn't that stupid.
>
>>Via the above words spoken by Dr. Baden (the ones I printed out
>>verbatim above), it couldn't be more obvious that Baden believes that
>>the "red spot" is, indeed, located in the "cowlick" of JFK's SCALP --
>>because he's referring to (and undoubtedly also looking at!) the BOH
>>autopsy photo when he's questioning Dr. Finck in that taped interview.
>>
>>
>>Plus: author Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History",
>>undoubtedly believes that the autopsy photo in question is depicting
>>the red spot as being in the location on JFK's head known as "the
>>cowlick".
>
> For the umpteenth time the red spot ***IS*** in the cowlick portion of his
> head....because the scalp was stretched causing the red spot to move from
> its original location just above the EOP to over the cowlick [skull-not
> scalp] part of his head...a movement of about three inches.
>
>
>>How can there be ANY doubt at all as to VB's beliefs in this
>>regard?
>
> There isn't and he's correct to say that the red spot is over the cowlick
> portion of JFK's head [skull]...but VB doesn't claim that he sees the
> cowlick in JFK's scalp/hair (only you have claimed that)....for God's sake
> he knows the cowlick portion of JFK's scalp had to have suffered some of
> the maceration that occurred to the scalp just barely forward of the
> cowlick. See the top of the head photos.
>
>>You're in an "EOP" dream world, John.
>
> You'll eventually wake up....VB has.
>
>>>>> "Thankfully, my friend wasn't shocked (by anything you say), so he was
>>>>> =
>>able to explain to me what your point was." <<<
>
> [..deleting the nauseating B/S.....]
>
> John Canal
>
>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 12:07:38 AM4/10/09
to
In article <49deba6f$3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Ritchie Linton says...

>
>There isn't much to argue about the head wound=the right rear portion was
>extremely blasted b/c of the tangential strike from Greers bullet


Of course, from past experience, you'll refuse to defend such a ridiculous
assertion.

Nor provide any evidence of such...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 17, 2009, 11:19:42 PM4/17/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/14f79c1c404bba67


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):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=j6SeHkgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9VOhlQphRayssnJ4mqrv4yxZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=5PlzsBYAAAAbv-FCprr9hH5Is2siOHnNk-BdbUbR9ixVt8TXtTugTQ

And I'm also curious to know what John's FPP friend would say if he
was asked these two logical questions:

"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 is correct about JFK's scalp being stretched
three inches (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 is 15
millimeters in size (per JFK's autopsy report); while the "width" of
the entry wound is said to be 6 millimeters.

But if I recall correctly, 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

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2009, 5:59:12 AM4/18/09
to


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:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=j6SeHkgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9VOhlQphRayssnJ4mqrv4yxZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=5PlzsBYAAAAbv-FCprr9hH5Is2siOHnNk-BdbUbR9ixVt8TXtTugTQ

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2009, 8:30:25 PM4/18/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/14f79c1c404bba67

>>> "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:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=j6SeHkgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9VOhlQphRayssnJ4mqrv4yxZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=5PlzsBYAAAAbv-FCprr9hH5Is2siOHnNk-BdbUbR9ixVt8TXtTugTQ

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2009, 9:59:08 PM4/18/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/becff2f0676c496c

>>> "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 to accommodate John Canal's theory, which has
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).

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 19, 2009, 2:45:56 AM4/19/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71de23e3afec8b

>>> "Challenge for DVP --You seem to have good rapport with VB's secretary, right? Yes, of course you do...so here's the challange: Ask her to ask VB whether or not he intends on re-investigating (when he finishes chasing after Bush) the medical evidence himself to see if he needs to modify his positon [sic] re. the head wounds. Of course you won't do that....for the same reason you won't try to figure out F8--because you're afraid that what you find out won't please you. But the challenge stands anyway. /s/ John Canal" <<<


Challenge accepted....and completed (via the e-mail [shown below] that
I sent to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, Rosemary Newton, on the
morning of Sunday, April 19th, 2009):

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


Subject: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 2:27:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton

-------------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

It's been a few months since I've contacted you. I hope you are doing
well (and Vince B. too).

Over the course of the last couple of years, a JFK researcher (who is
also the author of the 2000 book "Silencing The Lone Assassin"*) named
John Canal and I have occasionally become involved in a debate
concerning JFK's head wounds. And apparently John has been in touch
with Vince Bugliosi about the "head wounds" subject too.

* = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:

www.amazon.com/dp/1557787824

On April 18, 2009, John "challenged"** me to try and find out whether
Vince was going to "re-investigate" and possibly "modify his position"
with respect to the topic of President Kennedy's head wounds.

** = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/047d22f03286b2a4


So, I thought I would accept his "challenge" and write this e-mail to
you and ask you that question. (Plus, it also provides me with a good
excuse to write and say "Hi", too.)

My stance on the "head wounds" subject has been made clear to Mr.
Canal via our many Internet forum discussions, with my position being
that Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need to "modify" anything he has written in
his 2007 book ("Reclaiming History"), nor SHOULD he modify anything he
has already placed in that comprehensive publication.

The subject of the head wounds is thoroughly and logically laid out in
very good detail in Mr. Bugliosi's book, in my opinion. But Mr. Canal
has latched on to a couple of very odd theories concerning JFK's head
wounds, with one of his theories being that the autopsy doctors at
Bethesda hesitated to be totally forthright and truthful about the
extent of damage that really existed in the back ("occipital") area of
JFK's head as a result of the bullet that came out of Lee Harvey
Oswald's gun.

But as I've suggested to Mr. Canal on multiple occasions in our
Internet exchanges, his theory about the three autopsists simply
crumbles into a pile of dust (in my own opinion) when we examine the
theory in a reasonable and logical manner, such as in this excerpt of
an Internet post I wrote in 2007:

"Since the autopsy report and doctors are so vivid and ultra-
clear in the description of the ONE AND ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's
head (with that hole being positively consistent with the "Oswald Did
This Alone" scenario, regardless of exactly WHERE the resulting exit
wound were to reside on the President's head)....why would the doctors
feel there was the slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their
descriptions of any "BOH" [Back Of Head] wound (large or small)?

"You [John Canal] said that the [autopsy] 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...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." -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2007 (which was, by the way,
one month before I ever laid eyes on Vincent Bugliosi's book,
"Reclaiming History")

Source Link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3


If Vince is interested in more of my long-winded opinions concerning
Mr. Canal's strange theories about JFK's head wounds, I've provided a
link below to an Internet post where I am responding to an earlier
message written by John Canal. This post pretty much sums up my whole
position regarding this matter:

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

Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi will have a different opinion on the matter after
digesting John Canal's theories. But in my view, Mr. Canal is grasping
for straws in order to try and reconcile (in his own mind) the
discrepancies regarding JFK's head wounds.

There are, indeed, discrepancies when it comes to the topic of JFK's
head wounds. There's no doubt about that. I just don't think Mr. Canal
has the definitive answer to resolve those discrepancies.

And furthermore, the motive that Canal has attached to the three
autopsy doctors for their wanting to hide the full truth about the
condition of the back of President Kennedy's head is--in my own
considered opinion--simply laughable.

Thank you for your time, Rosemary.

Best regards,
David Von Pein

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

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 19, 2009, 8:54:35 AM4/19/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/70cb3c71971dd98a


Follow-up to the above post/e-mail:


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

Subject: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds (Addendum To My Last E-
Mail)
Date: 4/19/2009 8:41:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time


From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton

-------------------------------------

Hi again Rosemary,

Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to include a short (but
important) "Common Sense Addendum" to my last e-mail that I sent you
(regarding the specific subject of the location of the entry wound on
the back of President Kennedy's head).

Researcher John Canal thinks that JFK's scalp is being "stretched"
three or more inches in this autopsy picture linked below (thus
distorting and skewing the true location of the entry wound in
Kennedy's head):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=RNaElkgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z951X4vZeHaOB2QGx_dgvfxxZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

Regarding this particular point, I wrote this message in an Internet
post in early April of 2009 (and these are two very important
questions too, relating to Mr. Canal's "scalp-stretching" theory):

"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)?

"Come now, John [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." --
DVP; April 4, 2009

Source Link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96282f364fca7448


Thank you for allowing me to bother you (and Vince) again.

Regards,
David Von Pein

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 19, 2009, 10:10:21 AM4/19/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7b97dfe9fd988f78

>>> "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:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=j6SeHkgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9VOhlQphRayssnJ4mqrv4yxZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=5PlzsBYAAAAbv-FCprr9hH5Is2siOHnNk-BdbUbR9ixVt8TXtTugTQ

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 19, 2009, 10:20:01 AM4/19/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b2148fb2bde105df


>>> "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.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 19, 2009, 11:02:59 PM4/19/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e4120d63ab21ff6f

>>> "You of all people should know the answer to your very silly question. .... You...dispute Humes' low entry, fragmented BOH, cerebellum siting, and "stretched scalp to close the large wound" claims....and you have the nerve to say that all he had to do was say there had been no frontal entry--even though there was a BOH wound, besides the entry--and everyone would believe him??????????????????" <<<

The crux of John Canal's entire "BOH/LN" theory (or at least a large
part of the "crux") is that the autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM,
not just Humes, since ALL THREE signed that autopsy report on
11/24/63) feared World War 3 breaking out (or something equally as
silly and overblown) if they were to have revealed the true nature of
all of JFK's head wounds.

Therefore, those autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM, not just Humes)
decided it would be better to bury the fact that there was a whole lot
more damage done to the back of President Kennedy's head than just the
one small wound of entrance.

And those autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM) apparently got together
and decided to "hush up" and/or "cover up" the fact that the right-
rear (occipital) portion of JFK's head was fragmented fairly
extensively (apparently out of concerns that people would
automatically assume that "BOH damage" equalled "Conspiracy") -- EVEN
THOUGH THOSE DOCTORS (ALL THREE OF THEM, NOT JUST HUMES!) KNEW BEYOND
ALL DOUBT THAT THE BOH DAMAGE THEY WERE AGREEING TO "SHUT UP" ABOUT
WAS CAUSED BY THE ONE AND ONLY BULLET THAT ENTERED JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD
IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD (WHICH IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE "NO
CONSPIRACY" CONCLUSION)!

To believe that the autopsy doctors (ALL THREE OF THEM) engaged in a
scenario similar to the one that I just laid out above (which is
positively what John A. Canal believes) is akin to believing that the
moon is made out of cream cheese.

In other words, it's totally UNBELIEVABLE.

And to make matters MUCH worse for Mr. Canal's theory about all three
autopsists keeping quiet for decades on end regarding this supposed
BOH damage that Canal thinks existed on JFK's head -- John C. actually
contradicts his whole "The Doctors Were Not Forthright About The BOH
Wounds" theory when he says that the doctors (especially Humes and
Boswell) DIDN'T keep "quiet", after all, about the BOH damage.

Canal cites Humes over and over as having TOLD US, in effect (via
Humes' OWN WORDS to the Warren Commission AND in the autopsy report),
that there WAS, indeed, a big BOH hole in JFK's head....even though
John's whole theory falls apart at this point....because John also
tells us that the doctors were supposedly wanting desperately to HIDE
the fact that any such "Large BOH" wound existed in JFK's head at all!

I'll ask John Canal again.....

Which way do you want to lean here, John? Were the autopsy doctors
truth-tellers? Or were they attempting to hide the "Large BOH" wound?

I contend that John Canal doesn't know which side of the fence he
wants to reside on with respect to that last question.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 19, 2009, 11:18:54 PM4/19/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71de23e3afec8b

Subject: Re: Addendum To My Last E-Mail
Date: 4/19/2009 5:41:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


-------------------------------------

Hi David,

It was great hearing from you again. It has been a long time. I faxed
Vince your e-mails and got a reply quickly. First off, Vince asked
that I tell you how much he appreciates your continuing support. Here
is his reply:

"In response to his e-mail you can quote me as saying: John
Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the autopsy doctors in
the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who has read my book and
still believes this, there obviously is nothing I can say to him or
her to infuse their mind with common sense. However, in the spirit of
scholarship that guided me while writing Reclaiming History, if it
comes out in a second edition, I will examine and address myself to
any responsible new theory, including Mr. Canal's, that came out
subsequent to the publication of the book." [-- Vincent Bugliosi;
April 19, 2009]

There you have it! I'll be checking on the internet.

Take care & stay cool,
Rosemary

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


Subject: Re: VB And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 10:13:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time


From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton

-------------------------------------


Hi Rosemary,

Thanks for the quick reply...and my thanks to Vince too for his very
fast reply as well.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein

www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein

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

aeffects

unread,
Apr 20, 2009, 12:45:53 AM4/20/09
to
never met a dipshit that liked to talk to himself like this shithead
can..... simply amazing, Martha -- the fucking troll must be a
composite of 8 people..... say's nothong simply regurgitates lone nut
bullshit from years past.......

Hang on Davey me boyo, your ship will eventually come in, you'll get
back at Vince for paying Myers all those buckeroos! And you didn't
make a penny, oh-my......

aeffects

unread,
Apr 20, 2009, 12:54:47 AM4/20/09
to
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Do you suppose there is any possible chance that Healy The Crackpipe
> could (just once) pass up the temptation of responding with his say-
> nothing excrement within minutes of my posting a message?
>
> Any chance in Hades of that happening at all, Healy/C-pipe?
>
> Or is your wide-eyed fascination with me and my posts so deep that you
> feel an uncontrolled compulsion to make your daily "NO FREE
> ADVERTISING, TROLL" fool of yourself after each one of my posts?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> And I'm also wondering if the men with the nets from the booby hatch
> have reached the front door of Healy's weed-covered double-wide yet.
> They should be there by now; I called them in 2004 and told them to
> rush right over. Traffic must be heavy there in Drug Alley, I guess.
> Anyway, they'll be arriving soon.

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....

ROTFLMFAO!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 20, 2009, 1:18:36 AM4/20/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9eb07b15c166e5d


>>> "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....ROTFLMFAO!" <<<

Oh, goodie! I get to be Vince Bugliosi again today!

Thanks, Senor Crackpipe!

And we've just learned from the druggie/retard that Rosemary Newton
doesn't even exist at all! She's a "ghost". Isn't that special?

Make sure not to show Kook Healy page 1514 of "Reclaiming History".
That page might make Healy turn all colors.

Tomorrow -- DVP = Steve Keating (again).

On April 22 -- DVP = Dave Reitzes (again).

Right, Mister Retard?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 3:49:18 AM4/21/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e59b593b64cf48ee


>>> "I never even suggested the autopsy docs were trying to hide the true location of the entry wound!" <<<

~sigh~

John Canal,

I never once said that you think that the autopsy doctors were trying
to "deceive" anybody regarding the LOCATION OF THE ENTRY WOUND
SPECIFICALLY.

I worded my post quite carefully on that issue....hence, I couched the
post as two specific QUESTIONS (i.e., I wasn't claiming that you, John
Canal, actually BELIEVED these things; I was merely ASKING YOU if you
believed them). Let's have another replay (for good measure):

"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)?

"Come now, John [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." --
DVP; April 4, 2009


Those 2 questions are still quite valid, in view of John Canal's
beliefs regarding the location of JFK's head entry wound.

In short -- There's no way that the autopsy doctors COULDN'T have
known that the picture of the entry wound on JFK's head would be
TOTALLY WORTHLESS for the purpose of locating the TRUE location of
that entry hole IF JOHN CANAL'S THEORY IS CORRECT (and if the entry
hole had really been located near the EOP on Kennedy's head....instead
of being located, as the autopsy photograph so obviously suggests,
much higher on JFK's head).

And yet the autopsists allowed such a photo to be taken of the entry
wound anyway...huh John? And then ALL THREE autopsy doctors, whenever
they testified about this matter, apparently somehow just FORGOT about
this massive amount of "scalp stretching" that was being done when the
picture was taken of the back of the head. Is that about it, John?

In John Canal's world, it seems that absurdity trumps common sense and
logic every time when it comes to these various "BOH" topics. Curious
indeed.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 9:49:20 PM4/21/09
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b3029b0d3effae1e


JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

>>> "Somehow John [Canal] wants to discount all of the conflicting statements by Humes, et al re: this [head entry] wound. He never mentions that Humes at one point even indicated the small piece of brain matter down by JFK's hairline visible in one of the BOH photos was the "entry." That spot of course is well "below" the EOP, not "slightly above" it. So Humes was apparently one rather mixed up fellow, and amply demonstrated that fact on numerous occasions. .... The scalp "stretching" referred to by John C and alluded to by Sturdivan is simply silly when all of the facts are taken into account, and when one actually views the photo in question [linked below]. The facts show, the photos support a higher entry, the X-rays support a higher entry, the FPP of the HSCA, (not just Baden) concluded the entry was higher, as did the Clark panel, as did John Lattimer. .... I can only say that the readers here should be the judges of what is the overwhelming weight of the evidence." <<<


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=Jy62tEgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9tTUUzR5IrcaaXGexsB7gbBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=Hhx5fAsAAADie3YXsmaFMKTo8rq2TCdh


DVP SAYS:

Well said, John Fiorentino. Excellent.

And you brought up another great point that I think I have failed to
mention in my past wranglings with John Canal -- and that is the fact
that even Dr. Humes (et al), at one time or another, actually thought
the white dab of brain tissue near JFK's hairline in the autopsy photo
represented the area where the bullet hole actually resided.

Hence, when an observation like that one (where the white splotch
equates to the level of the entry wound) is taken into account, John
Canal's theory makes even less sense and becomes much less plausible,
because it has Humes and company placing the wound very low on what
John Canal insists is a scalp that is being "stretched" northward by
"three inches or more". And yet we're to believe that all of the
autopsists didn't know (or realize) that the scalp was being
manipulated in such a manner at the time of that photo session?

If Mr. Canal's "stretched scalp" theory is correct, then why on this
Earth wouldn't Humes, Finck, and/or Boswell have EVER testified (or
stated in private interviews) that the obvious reason for the bullet
hole being TOO HIGH in the famous autopsy photo in question is due to
the fact that the scalp was, indeed, being stretched and/or some
"undermining" had been done to the scalp, as John C. insists was done,
BEFORE the photo had been taken?

If such "undermining"/"scalp stretching" had actually occurred before
that picture was taken (and that picture is, as I mentioned before,
obviously a photo that was taken for one solitary main purpose--to
show where the ENTRY WOUND was located on the back of the President's
head), then why in the world wouldn't that fact have come out in the
testimony and statements of people like Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and
even John Stringer too).

Did all of these people just FORGET that the scalp had been
manipulated and stretched to a large degree BEFORE a very important
autopsy photo was taken to illustrate where the bullet entered JFK's
head?

That's just silly.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 11:55:38 PM4/21/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b097cd87a5519d9c


>>> "I've been trying to drum home to you the importance of the fact that they photographed [F8] the damn entry in the skull and probably didn't think all you guys would rush to use a photo of the entry in the scalp (just because it's easier to orientate) to determine precisely where the entry was." <<<


LOL.

Yeah, why would I (or anybody else!) ever be caught dead relying on a
much-better and much-clearer and much-easier-to-orient photo like the
BOH color photo to try and determine where the bullet hole was located
on JFK's head....vs. relying more heavily on that mess known as "F8"?

El-Oh-El!!

You're a howl, John C.


Footnote:

John C. has to believe that Michael Baden was a big fat "liar". In
fact, Canal has actually called Baden a "liar" recently on this very
newsgroup, with John claiming that Baden "lied several times" [Canal
quote from his 4/18/09 post linked below]:

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/becff2f0676c496c

And John C. also has to believe that EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST (even
conspiracy theorist Cyril Wecht) who examined the autopsy photos and X-
rays for the HSCA and the Clark Panel was either a liar too, or each
of those pathologists who agreed that the entry wound was "10
centimeters [4 inches] above the EOP" was simply too incompetent and
brain-dead to make such a determination after reviewing the original
autopsy materials.

I guess perhaps Mr. Canal thinks that over a dozen trained
pathologists would be willing to sell their integrity just in order to
not "rock the boat" (so to speak). Over ONE DOZEN pathologists did
this, according to John A. Canal! Incredible.

And the whole purpose of having the various pathologists for the Clark
Panel and the HSCA examine the autopsy photos and X-rays in the first
place was, quite obviously, so that those pathologists could clarify
the facts surrounding the locations of JFK's head wounds as much as
possible.

But if we're to believe John Canal, the exact OPPOSITE was apparently
the goal of those pathologists (more than A DOZEN of them in total!)
-- because evidently the pathologists didn't give a damn about the
TRUTH regarding the specific location of the entry wound in Kennedy's
head. Those doctors were only interested in NOT ROCKING THE BOAT.
Therefore, the muddy waters just got a lot muddier.

Right, John Canal?


As I said....John C. is a "howl".


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

INSTANT REPLAY FROM APRIL 19, 2009:

"John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the
autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who

has read my book ["Reclaiming History"] and still believes this, there


obviously is nothing I can say to him or her to infuse their mind with
common sense. However, in the spirit of scholarship that guided me
while writing Reclaiming History, if it comes out in a second edition,
I will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory,
including Mr. Canal's, that came out subsequent to the publication of

the book." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 04/19/09


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/686e167d7a8d41bc

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 11:39:14 PM4/22/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71de23e3afec8b/7a45bff684852bf9

>>> "DVP, I [John Canal] would give you a big (I'm 6'5" and 310 lbs) hug if I could---something in one of your recent posts has triggered...what promises to be a re-examination of the medical evidence pertaining to the controversies over the head wounds. Indeed, I've been spinning my wheels for a few years now trying to get this done...and, ironically, like a knight in shining armor, DVP saves the day. I can't tell you anymore than this, because someone's getting an exclusive story. It's not VB, regrettably, he's missed out....too busy chasing Bush....George, that is, of course." <<<


You mean "Fantasy Island" is back on the air after all these years!! I
had no idea! Looks like John's "exclusive" belongs to "Tattoo".
Congrats!

>>> "Now, let's turn our attention to that stu[p]id comment you made below. DVP steps on his [man gland] again by uttering: <Quote On> 'Yeah, why would I (or anybody else!) ever be caught dead relying on a much-better and much-clearer and much-easier-to-orient photo like the BOH color photo to try and determine where the bullet hole was located on JFK's head....vs. relying more heavily on that mess known as "F8"?' <Quote Off> Sure, the pictures of the BOH scalp are easy to orientate, but so isn't the Mona Lisa and both are equally useful for determining where the entry was in JFK'S skull....just to remind you that the photo you find so easy to orientate was NOT taken when the body was first received and shows only the entry in a scalp that has been cleaned, reflected, put back, etc. etc. That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a photo of the wound in the skull (F8), which a fifth grader can understand, is the best way (aside from reading the autopsy report) to determine where the entry was in the skull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what we're trying to determine, right? Again, thanks so much David." <<<


John C. likes to totally dismiss and brush aside the fact that the
horrible photo known as "F8" has been the subject of much controversy
over the years -- i.e., there are MANY different interpretations of
what that picture is showing us. Lots of people say one thing; while a
lot of different people say something else concerning F8. In short,
it's not a reliable source of VERIFIABLE INFORMATION when trying to
determine where the specific wounds are located in John F. Kennedy's
head.


But, John, if you want to scoop up F8 (and your interpretation of it)
and race toward the "EOP Endzone" -- more power to you. But I'll pass
on EVERYTHING related to F8, thanks. In my opinion, that photo is
pretty much totally worthless for definitively proving anything. But
if you think otherwise, good for you.


>>> "Again, thanks so much David." <<<

No problem, John. Always glad to help. And please let me know when
"Tattoo" shows up on Fantasy Island with your "exclusive story" in
hand. I look forward to seeing how your exclusive story explains away
the verified "cowlick" entry location that was agreed upon by more
than a dozen different trained pathologists in the 1960s and 1970s.
That should be an "exclusive" riot.

>>> "Would you [DVP] really have simply covered up that roughly five-inch (back to front) top/right/front area of JFK's head...with rubber...FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL? Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting memory of her husband, eh, David? God help us all." <<<


I would have done whatever it was that morticians did to make a banged-
up head look as presentable as possible....via fake "head
material" (whatever they used for this purpose)....and surely they
could also place some fake hair in there too.

Earth to John Canal! --- Wigs and toupees (i.e., artificial hair) DID
exist in November of 1963.

But John C. thinks it makes more sense to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the very back
part of JFK's scalp to ridiculous lengths in order to cover the right-
front part of Kennedy's head.

I guess John C. thinks that having JFK's COWLICK appearing at the
FRONT-RIGHT part of his head (via this stretching act that John
imagines was taking place) would have looked much better than just
merely placing a toupee on Kennedy's head. ~shrug~

After all, most people have their cowlicks at the very front of their
head...right, John C.? Who's gonna notice...right?


REPLAY:

>>> "Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting memory of her husband, eh, David?" <<<


Of course, John Canal no doubt already knows that one of Jackie's last
looks at JFK after he died was certainly far from being one of
satisfaction. Jackie wasn't pleased with the way her husband looked in
his casket at all....and neither was RFK.

Hence, the decision was made by RFK to close the casket for the
funeral. (And this, btw, was JFK's appearance after he had supposedly
been prettied-up via John's proposed "scalp-stretching" activity. A
lot of good that did, huh John?)

After snipping off a lock of the dead JFK's hair in the East Room of
the White House, Jackie was quoted as having said: "It isn't Jack".

I just recently saw something at another JFK forum, where a
conspiracist was mangling that particular "It isn't Jack" statement by
Jackie all out of proportion (as is usually the case with conspiracy
theorists, of course)....with the CTer hinting that Jackie might have
been speaking LITERALLY when she said "It isn't Jack", conjuring up
the Lifton-esque image in the CTer's mind that the body in the casket
wasn't the real John F. Kennedy at all, but an imposter instead.

Of course, as any reasonable person knows, Jacqueline Kennedy's "It
isn't Jack" comment was not meant to be taken literally. She merely
meant that her husband looked like a wax dummy as he lay in his
casket. And RFK thought the same thing as well.

But, as we all know, it doesn't take much to get a conspiracy theorist
to believe in the craziest of things -- like a "JFK Double In The
Casket" theory....or the "Scalp Was Stretched Like A Rubber Band And
Made The Entry Wound Appear Way Too High On JFK's Head Even Though
Every Single Pathologist Who Looked Into This Matter For The HSCA And
The Clark Panel Agreed That The Entry Wound Was Located Four Inches
Above The EOP" theory.


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 11:39:34 PM4/22/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71de23e3afec8b

>>> "DVP hopes like hell VB doesn't examine Canal's theory." <<<


On the contrary....I hope Vince does examine your theories (plural;
both the "Stretched Scalp/EOP" theory and your impossible-to-believe
"There Was A Large-ish BOH Hole" theory).

Because in the final analysis, after examining those two theories, Mr.
Bugliosi will undoubtedly be doing two things:

1.) Laughing himself silly.

and

2.) Wondering why in the world he even wasted time "examining" such
incredible foolishness like those two theories of John Canal's.


You do realize, don't you John C., that if Vincent endorses your
"Stretched Scalp/Wound Is At The EOP" theory, then Vince will have no
choice but to call EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST who examined the original
autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller
Commission, and the House Select Committee either outright LIARS and/
or COVER-UP OPERATIVES of some kind (which I kind of doubt Mr.
Bugliosi is going to do)....

....Or: Vince B. will have to say, in essence, that all of those
pathologists who said the entry wound was located 10 centimeters above
the EOP (numbering more than a dozen doctors in total) were totally
incompetent and/or that EVERY ONE OF THEM blew it big-time when they
said what they said in their various reports for THREE different
Government investigations.


In other words, Vincent T. Bugliosi would have to actually come out
and say (in essence) that John Canal is right and over a dozen trained
medical professionals who examined the autopsy photographs and X-rays
are dead wrong.

Likely? Or not?

And as far as the "BOH" theory of yours is concerned....you, John C.,
don't have a leg to stand on there either, largely due to the fact
that your whole theory explodes in your face when we take a look at
the main REASON that you think we don't today know the whole truth
regarding the "BOH" situation -- i.e., your impossible-to-prove theory
about how the autopsy doctors (and Dr. Burkley too; might as well
throw him into the pot too) were afraid to reveal to the world that
there was ANY kind of a large-ish wound in the back of JFK's head for
fears that any type of large BOH wound would make people think
"conspiracy".

I guess Dr. Humes blew it, though, when you say that he DID tell us
that there WAS a (large-ish) hole in the back of Kennedy's head in
BOTH the autopsy report and in front of the Warren Commission. Oops!
Looks like John's theory just suffered another blow in the "logic"
department.

Plus there's the fact that you possess absolutely no photographic
evidence to support your "BOH" theory whatsoever. In fact, ALL of the
photographic evidence (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the
Zapruder Film) are proving that your theory is complete bunk.

But John, amazingly, thinks that ALL of those photographic items are
NOT TELLING US THE REAL STORY ABOUT JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS. All of
them! And IN UNISON they are not telling the whole story about the
head wounds! That's called "wishful thinking", folks. No two ways
around it.

So, I'd then ask -- Why even HAVE any photos or X-rays taken at all?!
They apparently are showing us exactly the OPPOSITE of the truth (per
John Canal). So why even bother with them at all? The pictures and X-
rays (and the Z-Film too, to a certain extent) are merely clouding the
truth (per John C.).

Right, John?


Anyway, I look forward to VB ripping John Canal's theories (plural) to
shreds. But I doubt that will ever happen (in print form), however.
Because I doubt that a "Second Edition" of "Reclaiming History" will
ever see the light of day.

I hope I'm wrong about that last statement. Because I'd like for a few
of the small errors that appear in the current First Edition of "RH"
to some day be corrected in a future version of the book.

But even if a Second Edition is never published, Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" will probably always remain the most
comprehensive and (overall) accurate book ever released concerning the
assassination of John F. Kennedy.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 3:02:01 AM4/23/09
to
On Apr 22, 8:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

...

> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

'ello, 'ELLO! Is there a John Canal in the house? Will John Canal
present himself for all to see, please......

LMFAO, Von Pein, you're a classic, and I mean CLASSIC egomaniac....
Carry on troll!

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 24, 2009, 1:08:22 AM4/24/09
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9f54a82fb13cbd24

>>> "I get tired of you calling everybody liars." <<<

You should learn to read (and comprehend) better, John. Because I've
never once called anyone relating to these "BOH" issues a "liar".
Never. And you can't cite even ONE TIME where I have called anyone a
"liar" when it comes to the specific topics relating to John Kennedy's
head wounds. A lot of people were wrong. But they weren't
"lying" (i.e., attempting to deceive). They were just....wrong.

But John Canal, on the other hand, hasn't hesitated whatsoever in
calling Dr. Michael Baden a liar ("he [Baden] lied several times" --
John C.; 04/18/2009).

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/becff2f0676c496c

And John Canal also doesn't seem to mind (or blush) when he, in
essence, calls over one dozen trained pathologists liars too (since
ALL of those pathologists said that the entry wound was 10 cm. above
the EOP).

Pot....meet Kettle.

I get tired of John Canal being a hypocrite.

0 new messages