CRYSTAL-CLEAR AUTOPSY PHOTO SHOWS NO "BOH" (OCCIPITAL) DAMAGE TO JFK'S HEAD
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2ccff6f0f89d77b5
JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>>> "Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos. It shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH wound) -- back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many) years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never published this before now." <<<
DVP SAID:
>>> "John F., Any chance you can e-mail me that same photo scan? I'd appreciate it." <<<
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "I assume Dave is asking for this because he doesn't have access to binary posts. A lot of people don't. Everybody who uses Google, for example." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yes, exactly.
Anyway, somebody else e-mailed me the photo today. How that person
obtained it, I have no idea. (I guess he got it through those "binary"
posts that .John mentioned.)
That autopsy photo (a B&W one) is a very clear photo indeed (as John
F. pointed out).
And my eyes are seeing absolutely NO DAMAGE whatsoever to John F.
Kennedy's RIGHT-REAR scalp in that autopsy photograph. The right-rear
(occipital) area of JFK's head is perfectly intact.
Photo Footnote---
I've always wondered why some of the autopsy photos were taken in
black-and-white; while some others were in color.
Why weren't they all taken with color film? I've never understood
this. Seems to me that having all of the autopsy pictures in color
would have made more sense....and would have produced better
consistency. (IMO.)
=======================================
MORE AUTOPSY PHOTOS AVAILABLE HERE:
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files?grid=1
=======================================
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein
The kook named Gil thinks that the mess known as F8 "proves" that a
huge hole existed in the back of JFK's cranium.
But, incredibly, the two photos below don't shake Gilbert's faith in a
large BOH wound one bit. Go figure:
I love CT-Kooks. They're "Comedy Central" online.
Gil Jesus
I love proving these idiots liars:
AUTOPSY PHOTO F8
David Von Pein
F8 is worthless and useless.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2ccff6f0f89d77b5
>>> "Ask them [DVP, John F., and John McAdams] sometime if they can recall any one EYEwitness that they think didn't misremember something important about the headwounds....and they'll come up empty." <<<
And John Canal will come up completely "empty" in this regard as well.
Why?
Because there isn't ONE solitary witness whom John Canal can prop up
in the category of:
THIS WITNESS GOT EVERYTHING 100% CORRECT CONCERNING PRESIDENT
KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS.
And that's because John C. doesn't have one single witness who claimed
to have seen BOTH a large "BOH" wound in JFK's head AND the large
FRONT/RIGHT/TOP wound in the President's head on 11/22/63.
And John C. cannot possibly prop up Humes, Finck, and Boswell as being
in the "Everything Correct" category I just mentioned above -- because
not a single one of those three autopsy surgeons ever said they saw a
large-ish hole in the back of JFK's skull.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3235b9a38f468489
>>> "The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is the Dox drawing." <<<
Plus:
1.) This autopsy photo:
2.) This autopsy photo:
3.) This autopsy photo:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
4.) This autopsy X-ray:
5.) Comments like this one made by the head of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel:
"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." --
Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408
of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]
================
All of the above things provide ample evidence and information to back
up the "silly" back-of-the-head-is-intact thinking possessed by
reasonable individuals.
Is all of the above stuff "faked", Paul?
And is Dr. Michael Baden a liar? Was Baden merely trying to pull the
"No BOH Wound" wool over the eyes of Vincent T. Bugliosi when Baden
told Bugliosi on January 8th, 2000, that 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"?
Are the photos and X-rays merely not clear enough to arrive at any
kind of a "The BOH Was Intact" determination? Are ALL of the autopsy
pictures, IN TANDEM, somehow depicting misleading information
concerning the condition of the back of President Kennedy's head?
Come now, let's be reasonable.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/630aa4eb9a682451
>>> "You do know the difference between HAIR & SKULL don't you? I was not debating the condition of the rear hair." <<<
So you're in league with John Canal. (Yes, of course you are.)
Major problem with Mr. Canal's theory is this:
He wants to promote that the Parkland witnesses were correct when they
said they did see a LOSS OF SCALP AND SKULL at the right-rear
(occipital) area of JFK's head.
Of course, the autopsy pictures which show no sign of such SCALP
damage totally knock down Canal's thesis:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
So, what does John Canal do? -- He creates another thesis to add to
the first...i.e., the scalp was magically "sutured" to total
perfection, which conveniently (for John C.) hides the great-big hole
that the Parkland people said they saw.
And John C. then tries to shrink the size of his imaginary hole in the
occipital area of JFK's head, even though nearly every Parkland
witness said the hole was massive in size and not just "quarter"-
sized, as John C. wants to conveniently shrink it down to.
So, you can dodge the IN-UNISON photographic record re. JFK's head
wounds if you wish, Paul Seaton. But the photographic record will
still be the very best evidence to access in order to answer this very
controversial question:
DID JOHN KENNEDY HAVE A BIG HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR OF HIS HEAD AS SO
MANY PEOPLE CLAIMED TO SEE ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
And that photographic record (IN UNISON -- EVERY single item,
including the X-rays and the Zapruder Film) is answering that question
loudly and clearly:
No.
lazu...@webtv.net
does that a rear entrance wound was responsible for JFK's death, but you
don't have a leg to stand on if you say that the head at Autopsy looks
like it did in the BOH photos.
You actually think your opinion is superior to medical professionals?
They are all wrong and you are correct? What a laugh...
David Von Pein
>>> "One can make an argument like John Canal does that a rear entrance wound was responsible for JFK's death." <<<
Yep. That's what happened alright. One bullet hole of entry in the
back of JFK's head.
What's your point in bringing this fact up?
>>> "You actually think your opinion is superior to medical professionals? They are all wrong and you are correct?" <<<
Another classic "Pot Meets Kettle" moment.
As if "Laz" (old or young, take your pick) actually believes ANY of
the 17 "medical professionals" (i.e., the 17 pathologists who looked
into the JFK case and all agreed 100% that JFK was hit by 2 bullets
only, both coming from behind).
"Laz" doesn't think ANY of the "medical professionals" got it right
(except for the Parkland people evidently).
You're "way too much", "Laz".
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7bd31d057b331bed
THE CLARK PANEL SAID IN 1968:
>>> "With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind." <<<
DVP SAID:
IMO, the above Clark Panel quote doesn't really aid Paul Seaton's
"BOH" theory at all. And it certainly doesn't aid John Canal's theory
either....because John C. insists that OCCIPITAL bone was
"fragmented" (broken apart) on JFK's head (not to mention the fact
that John C. needs to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's
head to be extensively damaged in order for his theory to be correct,
which is a theory that has all of the Parkland witnesses being
correct).
The Clark Panel quote above is talking mainly about the "right
frontoparietal region of the skull" (front-right side) and the
"frontal bone" (the front part of Kennedy's skull).
I maintain that the following portion of that Clark Panel
determination about the skull fragmentation is too non-exacting for
these words to be utilized as definitive proof that the VERY BACK
PORTIONS of President Kennedy's head (including "occipital" regions,
which aren't mentioned at all in that quoted Clark Panel passage) were
severely fragmented (i.e., falling to pieces):
"...to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone
behind."
http://www.anatomy.us/gray188.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
YMMV. But that's my opinion.
Regards,
David Von Pein
lazu...@webtv.net
board with repeated crap. Remembering how the head of the President
looked would be permanently etched in the head of any good doctor, or
nurse even if he or she only saw the wound for 30 odd seconds...
David Von Pein
>>> "Remembering how the head of the President looked would be permanently etched in the head of any good doctor, or nurse even if he or she only saw the wound for 30 odd seconds." <<<
Which is all the more reason to know that the kind of multi-gun, 1-
patsy conspiracy plot that a lot of you kooks believe in would never
have been attempted on Nov. 22 in the first place....unless all of the
patsy-plotters were total morons.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/091645bd638daed2
>>> "This is the very same BOH that you, David, on nothing more than an over-confident hunch, describe as 'undamaged'." <<<
I'm not relying on any "hunch", for Pete (Paul) sake!
I'm relying on the autopsy PICTURES and the X-RAYS and THE ZAPRUDER
FILM (in tandem!). And I'm also relying on these words that were
spoken by the chief pathologist for the HSCA's Forensic Pathology
Panel (who MUST certainly be a liar, or just totally incompetent, if
Paul Seaton and John Canal are correct about their head-wound
theories):
"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." --
DR. MICHAEL BADEN; January 8th, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page
#408 of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History"]
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1c7aaaecde8edd2b
F8 is worthless, John. Stop propping it up so much. It's useless for
definitively PROVING anything...and surely you know this is true.
And BTW, you DO need the scalp of President Kennedy to be EXTENSIVELY
DAMAGED in the RIGHT-REAR (occipital) area of his head in order for
your theory to hold together....because if JFK's head is not
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED in the RIGHT-REAR, the Parkland witnesses just
flat-out CANNOT and COULD NOT have possibly seen the type of gaping
wound in the BOH (occipital!) that they each said they saw.*
* = Which is why the "pooling blood toward the back of the head"
theory makes the most (common) sense when trying to answer one of the
big-ticket questions connected to JFK's murder:
WHY DID THE PARKLAND WITNESSES SAY THEY SAW A GREAT-BIG HOLE IN THE
BACK (OCCIPITAL) PART OF KENNEDY'S HEAD?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1c7aaaecde8edd2b
>>> "And you evidently can't read either. I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, THE REAR SCALP was LACERATED [a la "cut"], not "extensively damaged" with none missing. .... Try to remember that the next time you post your silly refutations of what you claim I said. Again, I never said the occipital scalp was "extensively damaged" like you said I claim it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" <<<
I didn't say that you did SAY that (at least I didn't imply that in
the post of mine that you are responding to here).
Here's exactly what I said (in the post you were just replying to):
"John C. needs to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's
head to be extensively damaged in order for his theory to be correct,
which is a theory that has all of the Parkland witnesses being
correct." -- DVP
Now, where in the above statement did I say that YOU SAID that the
right-rear of JFK's head was "extensively damaged"?
Answer -- Nowhere.
What I said is that you "NEED" to have the scalp in the occipital to
be "extensively damaged". And you do "need" that, whether you want to
admit it or not.
Looks like it's John C. who "can't read" (or comprehend) in this
instance, instead of DVP, isn't it now?
>>> "Stop misrepresenting what I say...dammit!" <<<
Again, in this "extensively damaged" instance, I didn't misrepresent
what you said in the slightest. I merely was stating what you truly
NEED to have (i.e., an "extensively damaged" right-rear of JFK's BOH)
in order for your silly theory to have any hope of surviving at all --
and I'm right too....you NEED to have the right-rear "extensively
damaged" in order for your theory to be accurate regarding all of the
Parkland Hospital witnesses.
Or do you, John C., actually want to think that the Parkland witnesses
saw what they SAID they saw (i.e., a huge, gaping hole in the back of
JFK's head), even though there was only merely a fairly-small "cut" or
"laceration" in the scalp?
Via such a screwy scenario, we have many Parkland witnesses (somehow)
supposedly seeing this large-ish, "gaping" wound that would have been
visible through what was (per John A. Canal) only a VERY SMALL
"CUT"/"LACERATION" IN THE RIGHT-REAR SCALP.
Is that the story/theory you're trying to peddle here, John Canal?
At Dr. Robert McClelland's request, this diagram of John F. Kennedy's
head was created:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif
Now, did McClelland supposedly see all of that damage to the back of
JFK's head through just a "quarter"-sized "cut" or "laceration" that
existed in the dead President's scalp? That was quite a feat by
McClelland if John C. is correct.
In short -- John Canal is MAKING UP THEORIES to suit his "BOH"
purposes. It's as simple as that, IMO.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/875e8ac2365565f7
>>> "How do you think they did it [removed JFK's brain at autopsy], David? And further WHY do you think they did it, David, given that they had a saw handy?" <<<
President Kennedy's lead autopsy surgeon, Dr. James J. Humes, provides
us with the answer, plain as day, in the transcript of his February
13, 1996, ARRB testimony/deposition:
DR. HUMES -- "Sure, we had to make an incision to remove the
brain." ....
QUESTION -- "Where was the first incision made?"
DR. HUMES -- "I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the
skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and
to approach the removal of the brain."
QUESTION -- "And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you
need to cut--?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, we had to cut some bone as well."
============================
This chunk of Dr. Humes' ARRB session is worth repeating for both Mr.
Paul Seaton and Mr. John A. Canal:
"WE HAD TO CUT SOME BONE AS WELL." -- DR. J.J. HUMES; 02/13/1996
And we know that the cutting of that "bone" to get JFK's brain out of
his head most certainly occurred AFTER this X-ray was taken (and not
before):
Here is the relevant testimony given by Dr. Humes concerning the
"photo timeline" topic during his 1996 ARRB session:
QUESTION -- "There is one photograph, or one series of photographs,
that shows what looks to be a gaping wound in the head with the scalp
reflected."
DR. HUMES -- "Yeah."
QUESTION -- "Other than that series of photographs, were the remainder
of the photographs all taken at the beginning of the autopsy, do you
recall?"
DR. HUMES -- "Virtually all of them were, yeah. .... There's only
basically two that weren't. One was the inside of the occipital
region, which we interpreted as the wound of entrance, for obvious
reasons, and one that never came--whatever happened to it, I was very
disturbed by it. We took one of the interior of the right side of the
thorax because there was a contusion of the right upper lobe of the
lung. So the missile had passed across the dome of the parietal pleura
and contused the right lobe. I wanted to have a picture of that, and I
never saw it. It never--whether it was under-exposed or over-exposed
or what happened to it, I don't know. And it's three years later when
we were looking at it, of course. But we didn't see that photograph.
So that was taken later, and the one of the inside of the skull was
taken later. But all the rest of them were taken at the onset of
examination."
QUESTION -- "Okay. With regard to X-rays, when were they taken in
relationship to the photographs?"
DR. HUMES -- "I would guess that most of the X-rays were taken prior
to any of the photographs. But, I mean, I just don't have that crystal
clear in my mind. But I think so. I think most of them were taken
before."
QUESTION -- "Were any skull fragments rearranged or put into place or
removed prior to the time that the first X-rays were taken?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Were any skull fragments rearranged or moved at any time
during any time that there was an X-ray of the cranium?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "So there was no reconstruction whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. There was nothing to reconstruct. No."
============================
Of course, to be fair, there's the following ARRB testimony of Dr. J.
Thornton Boswell, which totally contradicts what Dr. Humes said
regarding the removal of JFK's brain:
QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in
order to remove the brain?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the cranium?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
============================
So, I guess it's a matter of: "Who should be believed, Humes or
Boswell?"
But since it was Dr. Humes himself who physically removed the brain
from President Kennedy's head....
QUESTION -- "Who was involved in the process of removal of the brain?"
DR. HUMES (1996; ARRB) -- "I was."
....perhaps it would be best to defer to his testimony on this matter:
"WE HAD TO CUT SOME BONE AS WELL." -- Dr. Humes
============================
For what it's worth, I'd like to add two "bonus" quotes below (just
for the record):
QUESTION -- "Do you recall whether Colonel Finck arrived before or
after the brain was removed?"
DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "Oh, before."
------------------
Via Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History":
"When I spoke to [autopsy photographer John] Stringer, he said
there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the
president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right
ear." .... When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear
of the president's head, he said "No. All there was was a small
entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the
autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."" --
Page 410 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (c.2007) [Via
Telephone interview of John Stringer by Bugliosi on September 21,
2000.]
============================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4a96c7d46db2f7ee
The testimonial record of virtually everyone concerning some of the
details of President Kennedy's autopsy and the exact locations of
JFK's head wounds is, without doubt, a convoluted and (many times)
totally-contradictory record of official testimony (as well as private
statements, like those given by John Stringer to official sources vs.
Stringer's completely-contradictory remarks that he made to Vincent
Bugliosi in September 2000), as we can see via my newsgroup post
linked below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/197353dc78081624
It's very difficult to know WHO'S GOT THINGS PRECISELY ACCURATE. Each
person in question probably has some stuff right, but also has some
things wrong too.
Human nature and multiple decades of elapsed time since the event took
place would tend to support the logical view that virtually everyone
will make some errors when talking about something that occurred that
long ago, even a President's autopsy, which one would think would have
been seared into each man's memory forever--every last detail--even
several decades later. But apparently that's not the case....not by a
longshot.
But, as quoted previously, I did find a reference to some
"bone" (i.e., skull) of JFK's head having been "cut" (per Dr. Humes in
1996) prior to the removal of the President's brain. And that was the
"meat and potatoes" of this question asked of me by Mr. Paul Seaton on
May 11th:
"How do you think they did it [removed JFK's brain at autopsy],
David? And further WHY do you think they did it, David, given that
they had a saw handy?" -- Paul Seaton; 05/11/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/875e8ac2365565f7
Here's the "Humes Instant Replay", which, whether anyone likes it or
not (and whether anyone chooses to believe it or not), IS a part of
the official deposition given by Dr. James J. Humes to the
Assassination Records Review Board in February of 1996:
"WE HAD TO CUT SOME BONE AS WELL." -- JAMES HUMES; 2/13/96
But.....
With respect to the main and (by far) most important conclusions
reached by the three autopsy doctors concerning President John F.
Kennedy's autopsy, the following conclusions are things that all three
of those doctors have always agreed on (from Day 1 in 1963), and those
conclusions are these:
"It is our opinion that the deceased [John Fitzgerald Kennedy]
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased." -- Via JFK's Official 1963 Autopsy Report,
Signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71de23e3afec8b
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e0c0c5adcc1af46b
To Paul Seaton,
I want to say that you've done a nice job presenting your arguments in
favor of your stated position regarding President Kennedy's head
wounds. Thank you.
But I'd like to add the following comments and observations......
The fractured and fragmented skull of the late President John F.
Kennedy was certainly "falling to pieces" into the hands of the
autopsy doctors at Bethesda, Maryland, on the night of November 22,
1963. From the testimonial record of the autopsy physicians, I think
that point has been made abundantly clear.
But, in my opinion, there is still a question as to exactly what
specific sections of the President's head were severely fragmented
(i.e., "falling to pieces").
I think that that question can be answered (for the most part anyway)
by looking at my favorite lateral X-ray once again (even though it's
only a "copy" of the original X-ray):
We can see from the X-ray linked above that there are some fracture
LINES that extend into the rear portions of JFK's head (even one clear
fracture line that extends into the right-rear, i.e., into the
occipital area of the head).
But these "rear" fracture lines do not seem to MEET UP with any other
fracture lines. Therefore, it's my opinion that these fractures did
not result in any FRAGMENTATION ("falling to pieces") in the rear
portions of President Kennedy's head.
But when we look at the VERY TOP of the head in that X-ray, we can see
extensive and multiple fractures and, indeed, FRAGMENTATION of the top
of the skull. This is quite obvious, with some of the fractured/
fragmented skull bone even overlapping other parts of JFK's skull at
the VERY TOP of his head.
This area, the VERY TOP of the head, where severe fractures and
fragmentation are clearly visible in the lateral X-ray, is where I
believe the bulk of the "pieces" of JFK's head came from when Dr.
Humes (et al) described the head as literally "falling to pieces"
after the scalp was reflected in order to remove the President's
brain.
Now, yes, I suppose that a small amount of skull in the "back" part of
the head could have come loose too...but I still maintain that no part
of the OCCIPITAL region of the head/skull was fragmented or was
"falling to pieces". The X-ray just does not show the kind of severe
fragmentation that is needed for the occipital area of JFK's head to
have been part of Humes' (et al) testimony with respect to their
"falling to pieces" observations.
I still think it's quite likely that Dr. Humes did have to "cut" (or
"saw") some of the bone at the top portions of JFK's head in order to
remove the brain (and, as mentioned, Humes is on record in 1996 [in
front of the ARRB] as saying: "We had to cut some bone" [J.J. Humes;
02/13/96] in order to get the brain out of the President's cranium).
I think it makes a lot of sense (especially when we take another look
at the severely-fragmented condition of the VERY TOP of JFK's head) to
believe that the parts of the President's head that were "falling to
pieces" after the scalp was pulled back were mainly portions of the
VERY TOP of the head, rather than the back parts of the head.
And it makes sense from another standpoint too....a standpoint that
can be prefaced with this question:
What part of a deceased person's head is required to be removed in
order to extract the brain from that person's head?
And the answer is, of course, THE VERY TOP OF THE HEAD.
Yes, I suppose a portion of the "back" of the head would be included
when an autopsist does his usual cutting/sawing to remove a
brain....but the "back/rear" portions of the head in such a case would
certainly NOT include the "occipital" area of the skull. It would only
need to include the TOP portion of the very BACK of the head in order
to extract a brain.
Therefore, if a large portion of the very top of JFK's head was
severely fragmented at the time his scalp was peeled back (and the X-
ray certainly proves that it was), in conjunction with the large
amount of skull that was missing at the RIGHT-FRONT area of the head
(i.e., the actual exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet), then it
seems reasonable that this combination of things that affected the TOP
and RIGHT side of JFK's head could have resulted in a situation where
the autopsy doctors had to perform very little cutting (or sawing) of
the head in order to remove the President's brain.
But I just cannot place any faith at all in the specific head-wound
theories that have been placed on the table by Mr. John A. Canal in
recent years. (And I can only assume, based on Paul's recent Internet
posts, that Paul Seaton does not agree with the bulk of Mr. Canal's
hypothesis concerning the "BOH" wounds and the "scalp-stretching" and
the "lacerated scalp" of JFK, etc.; is that correct, Paul? If I have
misrepresented your position regarding JFK's head wounds by way of my
last remarks, I apologize.)
Anyway, John Canal's theory has the autopsy doctors engaging in a
mini-"cover up" (at least to a certain extent, since John believes
that those doctors were not as forthcoming about certain back-of-the-
head injuries as they could have been). And that's just something that
I bluntly have called "idiotic" in previous Internet posts (and I
still think it is).
And John C. really requires a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear
SCALP to be damaged too, in order for the Parkland Hospital witnesses
to be correct (and John C. has stated that he does think the Parkland
witnesses DID see a large-ish wound in the occipital area of JFK's
head on 11/22/63; but I just cannot agree with John on this point at
all).
And to emphasize my own "BOH" position yet again, I'll once more re-
post the following quote from Dr. Michael Baden, the chief pathologist
on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel:
"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." --
Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408
of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]
Also:
For the benefit of any "lurkers" who might be viewing these endless
"BOH" threads here at the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, I want to
add the following important comment:
Even though there is a considerable amount of disagreement among John
Canal, Paul Seaton, and myself regarding these head-wound issues (but
I think my own disagreement with Mr. Seaton is to a much lesser
extent), these disagreements do not in any way undermine or negate the
BOTTOM-LINE conclusion that all three of us believe -- with that
bottom-line conclusion being: Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only
gunman who struck any victims in Dealey Plaza with rifle bullets on
November 22, 1963.
So, in the final analysis, if I were being forced to summarize all of
this "BOH" talk in just a few words (as impossible as that might be to
believe coming from a windbag named Von Pein ~grin~), I'd sum things
up this way (and I'm guessing that "Reclaiming History" author Vincent
Bugliosi would agree with me here, too):
When it comes to JUST the specific issue of President Kennedy's skull
"falling to pieces" AFTER his scalp was reflected (and after the
President was shot in the head by just ONE bullet fired from the Texas
School Book Depository, with that one bullet undeniably coming out of
the gun owned by Lee Harvey Oswald), I'd sum things up with these
words:
SO WHAT?
But when it comes to the specific "Back-Of-The-Head Wound" and "Scalp-
Stretching" theories that have been espoused by John A. Canal for the
last several years, I'd sum things up with these two words:
NO WAY.
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
============================================
RELATED ARTICLES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bde9244a25dd723d
============================================
lazu...@webtv.net
and an EOP is some 4-5 inches..then naturally the trajectory , the
damage to the head etc. is going to be entirely different...
David Von Pein
There's no "EOP" entry. The bullet entered 10 centimeters above the
EOP, near the cowlick (just as every pathologist has said since 1963).
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>There's no "EOP" entry. The bullet entered 10 centimeters above the
>EOP, near the cowlick (just as every pathologist has said since 1963).
That's a lie, but you're not smart enough to figure out why.
David Von Pein
>>> "That's a lie, but you're not smart enough to figure out why." <<<
So, John Canal's list of "liars" regarding the location of the entry
wound in JFK's head has now reached at least 14 -- i.e., every
pathologist who has investigated JFK's murder for the Clark Panel, the
Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA.
So I guess we've got 14 liars (or total boobs) and 1 truth-teller.
The truth-teller -- John A. Canal.
The arrogance is staggering. Isn't it?
Steve
Canal delusions alone destroy his argument. The very nature of any
alleged conspiracy is that it must keep getting bigger and bigger and
bigger since any time conflicting evidence doesn't agree with some
half-assed conspiracy theory then those who are responsible for the
conflicting evidence must be in on the conspiracy too. If the
Zapruder film doesn't support your dreams of a frontal head shot then
the conspirators must have altered the Zapruder film. If Oswald's
body in 1981 matches the dental x-rays of the pre-assassination Oswald
then someone must have gotten to the x-rays and switched them with the
bogus ones. If the autopsy photographs and x-rays don't agree with
your half-assed theories of a frontal gunman then the photographs must
have been altered also. If Marina's admission that she took the
backyard photographs (as late as 2000) conflict with Crazy Old Jack
White's dreams of altered photographs then the conspirators must have
gotten to her too and forced her to say what she is saying. And on
and on and on...(yawn).
Of course it goes without saying that in 45+ years of "research" not a
single one of these dozens and dozens and dozens of conspirtors have
been identified. Not a single one of them has ever come forth and
confessed. Not a single one of them has even written a book about
what they know. Even though most of these conspirators were not
involved in the murder but insetad with the cover-up and their chances
of prison time after nearly 50 years if zero, none of these invisible
conspirators have been located or have come forth.
This fact alone reveals how far off the track of reality conspiracy
nuts really are.
After a short while the conspiracy mindset gets boring and pedantic.
It is like trying to argue with a child who is afraid of monsters in
their bedroom--no logical rebuttal is good enough for them. They
still think of a way for there to be monsters in their room.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
What's staggering is your inability to comprehend what's being written. You're
the one who lied when you said "all" the pathologists since 1963 said the entry
was in the cowlick.
Slow down and read more carefully.
Are you Ed Cage? If not, your minds work a lot alike.
John Canal
Steve says...
>
>On May 16, 5:42=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "That's a lie, but you're not smart enough to figure out why." <<<
>>
>> So, John Canal's list of "liars" regarding the location of the entry
>> wound in JFK's head has now reached at least 14 -- i.e., every
>> pathologist who has investigated JFK's murder for the Clark Panel, the
>> Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA.
>>
>> So I guess we've got 14 liars (or total boobs) and 1 truth-teller.
>>
>> The truth-teller -- John A. Canal.
>>
>> The arrogance is staggering. Isn't it?
>
>Canal delusions alone destroy his argument. The very nature of any
>alleged conspiracy is that it must keep getting bigger and bigger and
>bigger
Interesting point....but, just for the record, I'm an LN and have been since you
were a child. My book, "Silencing the Lone Assassin", was published by Paragon
House in 2000.
David Von Pein
>>> "Just for the record, I'm an LN and have been since you [Steve Anderson] were a child. My book, "Silencing the Lone Assassin", was published by Paragon House in 2000." <<<
John Canal, however, isn't a typical "LN", because he believes that
the autopsy doctors were part of a limited "cover up" with respect to
the full nature of President Kennedy's head wounds.
Plus, unless I'm mistaken, John C. thinks that the Mob hired Jack Ruby
to "silence the lone assassin", which is another thing that makes John
an unusual "LNer".
I can understand why Steve Anderson doesn't have full knowledge of Mr.
Canal's wacky theories, since John posts mostly on the aaj moderated
forum only.
But, regardless of the forum it appears on, John's theory about the
autopsists being involved in a cover-up of some kind is just plain
silly. And it always will be.
===========================================
PREVIOUS BATTLES WITH JOHN CANAL:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5856e761c980873
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
===========================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>>>>"Just for the record, I'm an LN and have been since you [Steve Anderson] were a
>>>>child. My book, "Silencing the Lone Assassin", was published by Paragon House in
>>>>2000." <<<
>John Canal, however, isn't a typical "LN", because he believes that
>the autopsy doctors were part of a limited "cover up" with respect to
>the full nature of President Kennedy's head wounds.
You are my inspiration. Your gullibility so mind-boggling it inspires me to
re-double my efforts to see that a credible re-investigation is done to resolve
the controversies (and there are some, as VB has acknowledged in writing)
regarding the head wounds, so that you might finally wake up and stop sending
false messages that may be misunderstood as the truth by those not knowng any
better.
That said, can I get you to answer a few questions without you cutting them in a
reply?
1. You do know enough about the medical evidence to realize a photograph of the
BOH wasn't taken when the body was first received, right? Doesn't that raise
even a tiny red flag for you, especially considering they took photos of him
from other angles when the body was first eceived?
OK, assuming you missed that clue, and chock that fact up to an innocent
oversight let's go to the next question.
2. When they described how far posteriorly the large wound extended as
"somewhat" into the occipital, but later, in concert, saying that it extended
down to the EOP, don't you think that the early use of the word, "somewhat" was
an understatement? IOW down to the EOP can hardly be appropriately described
with the modifier, "somewhat."
Ok, assuming you don't connect either of those two events as being a conscious
effort to understate the wounds, let me ask you this.
3. If the autopsy report made no mention whatsoever of them seeing any part of
the cerebellum when the body was first received, doesn't the fact that Humes
innocuously testified four months later that they did see that part of the
cerebellum was severely lacerated, raise even a ittsy-bittsy red flag for you
indicating that earlier they may have wanted to avoid describing a BOH wound in
such a manner [cerebellum exposed] that it could have been misinterpreted as
evidence of a frontal shot?
No red flages, eh, DVP?--that's precisely what I mean by being gullible. VB got
sucked in at first by Baden, because he didn't have the benefit of anyone
supplying him with information that contradicted Baden's B/S...he does now and
you do too. But the sad difference is that he's aware there are issues with the
official story on the head wounds, and, even though a few of us have tried very
hard to make you see the light, we are prevented from doing so successfully
because of your blindness to reality that you so profoundly demonstrate ad
nauseam.
How about this as far as you accepting Baden's crap? He testified under oath
there was no evidence on the x-rays for a near-EOP entering bullet, but an
extremely highly credentialed member of Baden's own panel, Dr. Davis, told him,
on the record, that there WAS evidence for a low hit on the x-rays. Just an
innocent oversight by Baden, right, David? VB missed that in RH, but he's aware
of it now....and, I assure you, will someday do something about it.
How about this one? Baden testified under oath that there was no lower brain
damage, but the damn occipital lobe had a channel-like laceration right through
it. A Baden memory lapse? VB missed that too...but he knows about it now and
realizes it makes Baden's words suspect....but good old DVP has been told about
that conflict over and over again, and still sees nothing unusual. Go figure.
There are more examples of Baden lying or having accute memory lapses while he
testified than you can shake a stick at...but DVP can't connect the dots....even
though they are so close together they almost form a continuous line.
>Plus, unless I'm mistaken, John C. thinks that the Mob hired Jack Ruby
>to "silence the lone assassin", which is another thing that makes John
>an unusual "LNer".
You probably didn't notice the words, "...the case I present here will be
somewhat speculative"...or did you notice them and decide you need not include
them in your comments here? Typical DVP style..
>I can understand why Steve Anderson doesn't have full knowledge of Mr.
>Canal's wacky theories, since John posts mostly on the aaj moderated
>forum only.
I'm going to start posting here more often--someone here has to demonstrate how
very little you know about a subject you very much like to argue about--JFK's
head wounds.
>But, regardless of the forum it appears on, John's theory about the
>autopsists being involved in a cover-up of some kind is just plain
>silly. And it always will be.
You're lucky VB is tied up with Tom Hanks right now...if he wasn't, because he's
got a passion for the truth, and is about a hundred times less oblivious to
clues and red flags than you are, he'd [his exact written words] "get to the
bottom of this"....and when he did you be looking for that hole you crawled out
of to crawl back in.
John Canal
aeffects
> In article <99d6283d-9db9-4b75-a935-75c979356...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
the shithead hasn't a clue about anything he posts, hell he doesn't
even write the stuff. He's what we've coined as a copy-n-paste
arteeeeeeeeest..... He's (David Von Pein) a composite John, a figment
of Dave Reitzes fer-tile mind....
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c7d5183b6974117
>>> "How do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually examining the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the obvious wound and think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance wound?" <<<
The autopsy surgeons didn't "miss" the wound, Tony. On November 22nd,
those doctors obviously saw the entry wound just EXACTLY where we know
it was located (via the photographs AND X-rays) -- high on the head
near the cowlick, 10 centimeters above the EOP.
But, for some silly reason, Humes (et al) decided to NOT measure the
cowlick entry wound from any body landmark. Instead, Humes writes
"slightly above the EOP" in the autopsy report. That was mistake #1.
Also -- "Slightly above the EOP" obviously means that all three
autopsists were crocked when they all later claimed that the piece of
dried brain tissue near the hairline was the location of the bullet's
entry hole. That was mistake #2.
Based on such obvious silliness (regarding the location of the head
entry wound) on the part of Humes, Finck, and Boswell when they
testified in front of the various Governmental organizations in the
years that followed the assassination, I'm of the opinion that the
answer to this "4-inch discrepancy" regarding the exact location of
the entry wound in President Kennedy's head is a fairly simple one:
The autopsy doctors just didn't want to admit that they had made a
mistake about the location of the entry wound. That was mistake #3.
And the photos and X-rays (in tandem!) provide ample proof that the
autopsy doctors definitely DID make a mistake.
Plus, it's possible that Dr. Humes was also embarrassed (as he should
have been) about not measuring the head entry wound from a fixed
landmark on JFK's body. Instead, we're left with the very meager
description of "slightly above the EOP". That's ridiculous.
However, I will add the fact that Dr. Humes actually did come to his
senses for a brief period of time in 1978 when he changed his mind in
front of the HSCA, with Humes saying that the cowlick "red spot" was,
indeed, the entrance perforation.
So, in the final analysis, the three autopsy doctors (quite obviously)
saw the one and only bullet entry hole in JFK's head on 11/22/63
(which was positively located in the cowlick region of the head), but
for one reason or another those three physicians were compelled to
give an incorrect location for that head entry wound whenever they
spoke about President Kennedy's autopsy "on the record" (except for
Humes' reversal in 1978, as I mentioned).
A picture speaks a thousand words (and debunks three autopsy surgeons,
to boot):
aeffects
> In article <cb322aab-5641-4580-9ad9-db8653205...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
John you may just get yourself a seat at the table here..... very
astute observation...
David Von Pein
>>> "I [John Canal] am going to start posting here [at alt.conspiracy.jfk] more often--someone here has to demonstrate how very little you know about a subject you very much like to argue about--JFK's head wounds." <<<
LOL. Thanks for today's laugh, John.
In truth, of course, anybody with a working eye in their head need
only to examine the autopsy photos on the webpage linked below in
order to answer this basic question: WHERE WERE THE WOUNDS LOCATED IN
JFK'S BODY?
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/files?grid=1
A three-year-old could figure out the answer to the above question
from just those photos. Yes, it's true that sometimes a photograph can
be misleading. I don't deny that fact. But, incredibly, John Canal
seems to believe that the autopsy pictures AND X-rays are relatively
MEANINGLESS when it comes to the task of trying to figure out exactly
where on John Kennedy's body the wounds were located.
In other words -- According to John Canal, MULTIPLE AUTOPSY PICTURES
(AND AT LEAST ONE X-RAY) ARE TELLING A FALSE STORY, IN UNISON, WITH
RESPECT TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS.
In-cred-ible.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c7d5183b6974117
>
>>>>"How do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually examining
>>>>the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the obvious wound and
>>>>think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance wound?" <<<
>The autopsy surgeons didn't "miss" the wound, Tony. On November 22nd,
>those doctors obviously saw the entry wound just EXACTLY where we know
>it was located (via the photographs AND X-rays) -- high on the head
>near the cowlick, 10 centimeters above the EOP.
>But, for some silly reason, Humes (et al) decided to NOT measure the
>cowlick entry wound from any body landmark. Instead, Humes writes
>"slightly above the EOP" in the autopsy report. That was mistake >#1.
You are a piece of work, DVP. Firstly, when the wound was one inch right of
midline they measured it to be 2.5 cm...so, you think they' say, "slightly
above" to mean four inches above? Good grief--somebody throw this man a reality
rope.
Now you can cut the following but lurkers will see that you do because you have
no real explanations for:
1. The trail of opacities that Dr. Joe Davis told Baden, on the record, was
evidence of a low hit.
2. The lack of any such trail (which represents the pieces of bone that were
beveled out from the inner skull table around the entry) at the proposed high
sight.
3. The fact that D. Myers' computer analysis revealed the cowlick entry
trajectory pointed back 124' above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building.
4. The fact that a channel-like laceration began at the the tip of the occipital
lobe far from the parietal lobe where a bullet entering in the cowlick would
have been.
5. The fact that a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting at the official
exit site cannot be reconciled with the windshield damage.
6. The fact that F8, the Clark Panel's report, F8, the autopsy report, and the
autopsy descriptive sheet all prove that the area of skull where the high entry
was supposed to be was fragmented....while the HSCA claimed part of the entry
was in intact bone.
7. The fact that one of the HSCA's own radiologists reported that evidence for a
high entry on the x-rays was inconclusive.
8. The fact that another one of the HSCA's own radiologists stated that the
entry was in the right occipital bone.
9. The fact that the HSCA's own witness, NASA's Dr. Thomas Canning, had to fudge
JFK's forward lean by more than half, just to get the cowlick entry trajectory
pointed back even close to the SN.
10. The fact that four researchers and/or JFK authors have independently
replicated the photo of the wound in the SKULL and have all concluded,
scientifically, that Humes' entry was near the EOP.
So other than not explaining these few facts that make it obvious to
third-graders and above that the entry was not in the cowlick, you've done a
yeoman's job at making your case....not! And DVP alls the CTs and me nuts.
Yikes!
>Also -- "Slightly above the EOP" obviously means that all three
>autopsists were crocked when they all later claimed that the piece of
>dried brain tissue near the hairline was the location of the bullet's
>entry hole. That was mistake #2.
How about digging out the citations for me where Boswell and Finck said that
tissue was the entry...considerng that I'm new at this medical evidence stuff
and that you've studied it so thoroughly. Thanks.
>Based on such obvious silliness (regarding the location of the head
>entry wound)...[....]
Yup, sillyness is what I deleted.
Thanks for your explanations and those citations...I'm sure they're forthcoming.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>>>>"I [John Canal] am going to start posting here [at alt.conspiracy.jfk] more
>>>>often--someone here has to demonstrate how very little you know about a subject
>>>>you very much like to argue about--JFK's head wounds." <<<
>
>LOL. Thanks for today's laugh, John.
Good to see you laughing while you are making a total ass out of yourself.
The only ones who really know the medical evidence with regard to the head
wounds (includes Barb, Paul, and I) have told you that you are wrong.
Now, also while you're still laughing how about explaining, and not cutting, the
following:
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2bcf30e4325d2791
>>> "Good to see you laughing while you are making a total ass out of yourself." <<<
The above words were spoken by a person (John Canal) who thinks that
the autopsy doctors decided to deliberately underplay (or under-
represent) the wounds to JFK's head for no good reason whatsoever.
I guess they all decided it would be wise to start misrepresenting the
wounds of the dead U.S. Chief Executive, just for the hell of it. ALL
THREE of them!
Crazy, huh?
Now let's tackle John Canal's list of silliness. This should be fun
(yet again):
>>> "1. The trail of opacities that Dr. Joe Davis told [Dr. Michael] Baden, on the record, was evidence of a low hit." <<<
And yet we have Dr. Davis agreeing to just go along with Dr. Baden and
the remaining FPP members with respect to the "cowlick"
determination....right John?
Or is this another one of Baden's lies?:
DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "This is a drawing [JFK Exhibit F-48] made from
photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the
President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of
discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the
scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation, an
entrance bullet perforation." ....
MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately
represent the location of the wound in the back of the President's
head?"
DR. BADEN -- "Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the
panel members."
>>> "2. The lack of any such trail (which represents the pieces of bone that were beveled out from the inner skull table around the entry) at the proposed high sight." <<<
The ONLY "trail" that can be positively said to be a "trail" in the X-
ray is the "bullet fragment trail" that is HIGH in the head of
JFK...not "low" in the head.
John Canal admits he's never even seen the original X-ray at the
National Archives that shows this supposed "bone trail", and yet he's
convinced that there's a "trail of [bone] opacities" low in the head
on the lateral X-ray.
And, of course, any such "trail of opacities" (i.e., bone fragments),
even if they do exist, couldn't POSSIBLY have been as a result of
something OTHER than an EOP entry wound. Right, John?
BTW, John C. is living in a fantasy world all his own when it comes to
the topic of JFK's head wounds.
>>> "3. The fact that [Dale K.] Myers' computer analysis revealed the cowlick entry trajectory pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building." <<<
Why you're dragging this nonsense out of your stale closet is anyone's
guess. I've discussed this with you previously, and I even included
citations from Dale Myers himself and links to his website where he
talks about this issue (and Myers' explanation is an entirely
reasonable one, and is one that still supports the "cowlick" entry
location for JFK's head wound).
Here's what I said on this matter on April 1, 2009:
"You [John Canal] should have quoted the remainder of what Dale
Myers concluded with respect to the trajectory of the shot that struck
JFK in the head:
[Quoting Dale K. Myers:]
"Since the position of JFK's head used in the computer
recreation ["Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination"] 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."
[/End Myers' Quotes.]
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." -- DVP; 04/01/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/37017b4689a7c5d5
>>> "4. The fact that a channel-like laceration began at the tip of the occipital lobe far from the parietal lobe where a bullet entering in the cowlick would have been." <<<
I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Are you talking about
JFK's brain here?
>>> "5. The fact that a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting at the official exit site cannot be reconciled with the windshield damage." <<<
This one's really silly, John.
As Dale Myers stated (and I completely agree), the bullet could have
easily changed course after striking JFK's head. And it probably did
change course. Common sense would tell a reasonable person that
Oswald's bullet, after striking the hard skull of JFK at full muzzle
velocity [2,100+ fps], would likely have changed direction somewhat
before exiting the head.
>>> "6. The fact that F8, the Clark Panel's report, F8, the autopsy report, and the autopsy descriptive sheet all prove that the area of skull where the high entry was supposed to be was fragmented....while the HSCA claimed part of the entry was in intact bone." <<<
That must be why the Clark Panel said this in 1968, huh John?:
"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole
measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the
skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in
profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed."
Is the above paragraph another "lie", John?
And you're placing way too much faith in F8, IMO. F8 is essentially
useless for determining anything.
Do you deny that many very SMART people have major disagreements about
what F8 depicts?
>>> "7. The fact that one of the HSCA's own radiologists reported that evidence for a high entry on the x-rays was inconclusive." <<<
Big deal.
All NINE of the HSCA's FPP members, including Dr. Joseph Davis (unless
you want to call Dr. Baden a "liar" yet again), were unanimous in
their conclusions about the entry hole in Jack Kennedy's head being
HIGH on his head near the cowlick.
Quoting Dr. Baden:
"We, as the panel members, do feel after close examination of
the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher
perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and
we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-
rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be
immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin.
"And further, although the original examination of the brain was
not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel
members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top
portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain,
which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in
the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact.
"If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion
of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So
that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel
and the original autopsy doctors. ....
"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond
all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of
entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the
cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no
bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's
hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single
gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm
Footnote:
John Canal's explanation for why Dr. Michael Baden wanted to go in
front of the HSCA (on the official record) and tell one lie after
another regarding the entry wound to JFK's head is just downright
laughable.
For anyone who is unaware of John Canal's insane theory about Dr.
Baden, I'll summarize it -- John C. thinks that Baden would have lied
his ass off ("several times", per Canal) in order to have the HSCA's
conclusions match those of the Clark Panel from ten years earlier,
particularly the observations of Dr. Russell S. Fisher of the Clark
Panel, with respect to the "cowlick" location for the entry wound in
JFK's head (which is a wound that the Clark Panel said was "100
millimeters [4 inches] above the EOP").
Canal thinks that Baden would be willing to lie about the true entry
location of JFK's head wound in order to avoid having yet another
contradiction in the official records relating to President Kennedy's
wounds.
And, evidently, Dr. Baden was (according to Mr. Canal) such an
intimidating fellow that he was able to convince his other eight
comrades on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel to jettison their
moral fiber and go along with Baden's "cowlick" lies for the sake of
the HSCA's investigation. Apparently ALL EIGHT of the other FPP
members were willing to do this at the evil Dr. Baden's request.
The "Baden Lied Because He Didn't Want To Rock The Boat Again" theory
of John Canal's is nearly as stupid and inane as John's other "Cover-
Up" theory regarding JFK's three autopsy surgeons. Those three guys
(all of them) decided to not tell the whole truth about the condition
of President Kennedy's head wounds because (per John C.) those doctors
feared World War 3, or they feared that if they revealed information
about ANY "back of the head" damage to JFK's cranium, some people
might think that a bullet hit JFK's head from the front. And that
would never do (per John C.).
That theory, too, is insane, because the irrevocable and immutable
FACT (based on the President's inshoot and outshoot head wounds
discovered at the autopsy on 11/22/63) is that John F. Kennedy was
shot in the head only ONE time, and the bullet came FROM BEHIND the
President....which is a conclusion that apparently John A. Canal
thinks the three autopsists would have been incapable of reasonably
conveying to the world if there had been ANY type of secondary or
collateral damage at all to the rear portions of JFK's head as a
result of only Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet striking Kennedy's head.
John Canal, as you might already have suspected by this time, is a
real piece of work indeed.
>>> "8. The fact that another one of the HSCA's own radiologists stated that the entry was in the right occipital bone." <<<
I guess Baden was lying (yet again) when he said this in 1978, right
John?:
"We were in agreement, as were all of the radiologists that we
consulted with--Dr. Davis, Dr. Seaman, Dr. Chase--that that is the
point of entrance in the right upper back skull with radiating
fractures." -- DR. MICHAEL BADEN
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm
>>> "9. The fact that the HSCA's own witness, NASA's Dr. Thomas Canning, had to fudge JFK's forward lean by more than half, just to get the cowlick entry trajectory pointed back even close to the SN." <<<
Again, the answer to this is pretty simple -- The bullet probably
changed direction after entering Kennedy's head.
And allow me to repeat the following common-sense observation by Mr.
Myers yet again:
"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
>>> "10. The fact that four researchers and/or JFK authors have independently replicated the photo of the wound in the SKULL and have all concluded, scientifically, that Humes' entry was near the EOP." <<<
Oh, good, that crappy, miserable, indistinct F8 picture again.
Wonderful.
BTW, John Canal needs all four members of the 1968 Clark Panel to be
total boobs (or liars) too, if we're to believe that the entry hole in
JFK's head was 4 inches below the cowlick....because the four Clark
Panel doctors said this back in '68:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated
near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this
wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray
film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2),
a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface
of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen
in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed."
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2bcf30e4325d2791
>
>
>>>> "Good to see you laughing while you are making a total ass out of yours=
>elf." <<<
>
>
>The above words were spoken by a person (John Canal) who thinks that
>the autopsy doctors decided to deliberately underplay (or under-
>represent) the wounds to JFK's head for no good reason whatsoever.
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. No good reason? How many frickin times
do I have to tell you that they (probably Admiral Burkley) must have been
concerned that a BOH wound with an exposed cerebellum could be misintyerpreted
as evidence of a frontal shot.
>I guess they all decided it would be wise to start misrepresenting the
>wounds of the dead U.S. Chief Executive, just for the hell of it. ALL
>THREE of them!
Unbelieveable--you can't possibly be this naive--or stupid.
>Crazy, huh?
>
>Now let's tackle John Canal's list of silliness. This should be fun
>(yet again):
That implies you've already tackled something which you haven't.
>
>>>> "1. The trail of opacities that Dr. Joe Davis told [Dr. Michael] Baden,=
> on the record, was evidence of a low hit." <<<
>
>
>And yet we have Dr. Davis agreeing to just go along with Dr. Baden and
>the remaining FPP members with respect to the "cowlick"
>determination....right John?
>
>Or is this another one of Baden's lies?:
Undoubtedly. But you think experts brought in by the government would never
never lie. Get real--grow up, mentally!
>DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "This is a drawing [JFK Exhibit F-48] made from
>photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the
>President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of
>discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the
>scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation, an
>entrance bullet perforation." ....
>
>MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately
>represent the location of the wound in the back of the President's
>head?"
>
>DR. BADEN -- "Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the
>panel members."
Idiot! What did you think he was going to say? "Well, some of us disagreed, but
here's what most of us think"? This is worse than arguing with a wall.
>>>> "2. The lack of any such trail (which represents the pieces of bone tha=
>t were beveled out from the inner skull table around the entry) at the prop=
>osed high sight." <<<
>
>
>The ONLY "trail" that can be positively said to be a "trail" in the X-
>ray is the "bullet fragment trail" that is HIGH in the head of
>JFK...not "low" in the head.
So, you're saying that Dr. Davis lied when he told his colleagues on the panel
(n the record) that he could see a trail of opacities on the lateral extending
from near the EOP? Then, when Zimmerman and Sturdivan went to the archives, they
confirmed what Davis saw...but lied when they did? AND IT'S NOT SURPRISING WHAT
BADEN NEVER MENTIONED: THERE WAS INDEED A TRAIL OF OPACITIS EXTENDING FROM NEAR
THE EOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>John Canal admits he's never even seen the original X-ray at the
>National Archives
I've never seen the body either, but I trust that the autopsy docs accurately
described where they saw a BOH wound and the entry.
>that shows this supposed "bone trail", and yet he's
>convinced that there's a "trail of [bone] opacities" low in the head
Are you calling Davis, Zimmerman, and Sturdivan liars?
>on the lateral X-ray.
Evidently!
>And, of course, any such "trail of opacities" (i.e., bone fragments),
>even if they do exist, couldn't POSSIBLY have been as a result of
>something OTHER than an EOP entry wound. Right, John?
Oh ya, good explanation...how about Humes shooting the body while it was on the
autopsy table near the EOP?---that would certainly cause a trail like that. My
God, they ought to not let just anybody post here...you should at least have a
grade school education....what else do you think caused that trail?? List your
alternative explanations here _______.
>BTW, John C. is living in a fantasy world all his own when it comes to
>the topic of JFK's head wounds.
Well, thankfully, I have several others who agree with me, but they're smart
enough not to debate you....because that'd be like debating a monkey....really
not worth the time.
>>>> "3. The fact that [Dale K.] Myers' computer analysis revealed the cowli=
>ck entry trajectory pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex=
> building." <<<
>
>
>Why you're dragging this nonsense out of your stale closet is anyone's
>guess. I've discussed this with you previously, and I even included
>citations from Dale Myers himself and links to his website where he
>talks about this issue (and Myers' explanation is an entirely
>reasonable one, and is one that still supports the "cowlick" entry
>location for JFK's head wound).
>
>Here's what I said on this matter on April 1, 2009:
>
> "You [John Canal] should have quoted the remainder of what Dale
>Myers concluded with respect to the trajectory of the shot that struck
>JFK in the head:
>
>[Quoting Dale K. Myers:]
>
> "Since the position of JFK's head used in the computer
>recreation ["Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination"] 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). ....
HEY SHERLOCK---LOOK AT BADEN'D DOX DRAWING, HE SAID IT FAIRLY ACCURATELY SHOWED
THE TRAJECTORY....AND THERE'S NO DAMN DEFLECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now this experiment will be difficult for you but try visualizing the Dox
drawing and try to imagine a bullet entering in the cowlick and
deflecting....how the hell does it get to the official exit? Think about that
you idiot....it can't.
Myers was trying to give Baden an excuse for a grossly flawed--actually
impossible-- cowlick entry trajectory....wake up.
> "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."
>
>[/End Myers' Quotes.]
Myers was being politically agreeable. In the end Baden's trajectory that he
said was fairly accurate was off-the-charts impossible. Get a monkey to stand in
for you when you argue with me---he'd do better.
>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 didn't Sturdivan and Zimmerman support Baden's cowlick entry.....but they
later realized Baden was selling them out. Unfortunately, some people can't see
that. Dr. Rahn and Whiskey Joe, just to mention a few credible individuals,
support Humes on the entry...do you think they're crazy too? I guess so.
> "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.
I can't believe what I'm reading....quit pretending to know what you're talking
about. Read this slowly: Baden said his straight line trajectory was
right--Myers said it was wrong (must include a deflection). Who's right, Myers
or Baden? Take a pick...you can't have both.
>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".
Because if it was, it'd prove to anyone above a third grade education that the
cowlick entry was impossible. And, if it can't be calculated, why did they call
in Dr. Thomas Canninmg to calculate it, genius?
> "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." -- DVP; 04/01/09
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/37017b4689a7c5d5
If he wanted to keep being hired by the likes of the History and Discovery
Channels, he'd better not call the government liars! Try real hard to join us in
the real world, or how about just visiting us for a while...but go somewhere
besides Florida please?
>>>> "4. The fact that a channel-like laceration began at the tip of the occ=
>ipital lobe far from the parietal lobe where a bullet entering in the cowli=
>ck would have been." <<<
>
>
>I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Are you talking about
>JFK's brain here?
You have no idea because you're grossl unfamiliar with the medical evidence. But
that doesnt slow you down from agruing with those who are failiar with it, does
it DVP? Put down RH and try reading the Supplementry Autopsy Report....although
it's probably way over your head.
>>>> "5. The fact that a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting at the o=
>fficial exit site cannot be reconciled with the windshield damage." <<<
>
>
>This one's really silly, John.
Sill--why? Because the windshield damage cannot be reconciled with a mythical
cowlick entry trajectory? Oh ya, that's a good reason for calling my point
silly.
>As Dale Myers stated (and I completely agree), the bullet could have
>easily changed course after striking JFK's head. And it probably did
>change course. Common sense would tell a reasonable person that
>Oswald's bullet, after striking the hard skull of JFK at full muzzle
>velocity [2,100+ fps], would likely have changed direction somewhat
>before exiting the head.
My God man, stop the bleeding and embarrassing yourself---if a bullet entered in
the cowlick it couldn't have changed course and still exited the official exit.
>>>> "6. The fact that F8, the Clark Panel's report, F8, the autopsy report,=
> and the autopsy descriptive sheet all prove that the area of skull where t=
>he high entry was supposed to be was fragmented....while the HSCA claimed p=
>art of the entry was in intact bone." <<<
>
>
>That must be why the Clark Panel said this in 1968, huh John?:
>
> "On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole
>measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the
>skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in
>profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
>protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed."
>
>Is the above paragraph another "lie", John?
Duh, yes, knucklehead! I'm telling you that a radiologist for the HSCA said
there was no conclusive ev. for a bullet entering at the high site....none,
nada, zero, zilcho........meaning somebody's not telling the truth.
>And you're placing way too much faith in F8, IMO. F8 is essentially
>useless for determining anything.
So that's why the HSCA used F8? You're still not making any sense--are you
really trying to?
>Do you deny that many very SMART people have major disagreements about
>what F8 depicts?
Duh no...only some of them are not smart...one particularly stupid person says
F8 is useless for depicting anything. Others are smart but clever and say what's
politically correct--have you ever heard of that happening in our history? If
not, trying doing some reading...of course that'd required you to learn to read
first. Forget it.
>>>> "7. The fact that one of the HSCA's own radiologists reported that evid=
>ence for a high entry on the x-rays was inconclusive." <<<
>
>Big deal.
>
>All NINE of the HSCA's FPP members, including Dr. Joseph Davis (unless
>you want to call Dr. Baden a "liar" yet again), were unanimous in
>their conclusions about the entry hole in Jack Kennedy's head being
>HIGH on his head near the cowlick.
They were brought on board....just like, for example, Lt. Col. Ollie North's
lieutenant assistant was brought on board with the
original Iran-Gate story. Happens all the time...join reality....it's call doing
whatever it takes as long as it's in the best interests of the country.
And, BTW, Dr. Joe Davis has put it in writing that he will not argue against
Humes being correct and Baden being wrong abut the entry location---IOW, if he
was ever asked to testify on this, you can count on him opining that the bullet
entered where he already told Baden it did--near the EOP.
>Quoting Dr. Baden:
Do you ever get sick of him lying?
VB knows there's a problem..he just can't get to it right now.
> "We, as the panel members, do feel after close examination of
>the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher
>perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and
>we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-
>rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be
>immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin.
>
> "And further, although the original examination of the brain was
>not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel
>members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top
>portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain,
>which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in
>the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact.
But the bullet skirted along the top of the tentorium...the cerebellum wouldn't
have been torn up...just disrupted from the concussion an explosiveness of the
bullet's passing there. Baden knew the bullet passed slightly above the
cerebellum---it channeled through the occipital lobe WHICH IS THE PART OF THE
BRAIN RESTING ON THE CEREBELLUM.
> "If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion
>of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured.
11 eyewitnesses, including Humes said it was, at the very least, exposed. Earth
to DVP, you can't tell from the pictures if the top/forward part of the
cerebellum had been lacerated, because that part of the cerebellum is obscured
from view, in both the basilar and superior views.
Is any of this making sense? No?---OK, I think it does for lurkers, and that's
what counts.
>So
>that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel
>and the original autopsy doctors. ....
>
> "It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond
>all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of
>entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the
>cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no
>bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's
>hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single
>gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- DR.
>MICHAEL BADEN
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm
>
>
>Footnote:
>
>John Canal's explanation for why Dr. Michael Baden wanted to go in
>front of the HSCA (on the official record) and tell one lie after
>another regarding the entry wound to JFK's head is just downright
>laughable.
Idiot! If you tell one lie [the cowlick entry], you have to tell many more to
support it.
>For anyone who is unaware of John Canal's insane theory about Dr.
>Baden, I'll summarize it -- John C. thinks that Baden would have lied
>his ass off ("several times", per Canal) in order to have the HSCA's
>conclusions match those of the Clark Panel's from ten years earlier,
>particularly the observations of Dr. Russell S. Fisher of the Clark
>Panel, with respect to the "cowlick" entry location for the entry
No, DVP, from the private emails I get and even from some of the other posts, it
is well known here who is the idiot.
>>>> "8. The fact that another one of the HSCA's own radiologists stated tha=
>t the entry was in the right occipital bone." <<<
>
>
>I guess Baden was lying (yet again) when he said this in 1978, right
>John?:
>
>
> "We were in agreement, as were all of the radiologists that we
>consulted with--Dr. Davis, Dr. Seaman, Dr. Chase--that that is the
>point of entrance in the right upper back skull with radiating
>fractures." -- DR. MICHAEL BADEN
>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm
Yup, that's like when he said there was no lower brain damage reported, but
there was....and when he said there was no ev. on the x-rays for a low hit and
there was....and when he said his cowlick entry trajectory was accurate and
Myers said it needed a deflection....and when he said all the consulting
radiologists conclusively agreed the x-rays showed a high entry and Dr. Seaman
said the opposite.
I've got a problem David, and I need your help solving it. I've gotten myself
caught up in an arguement with an idiot and don't know how to extricate myself
from it [that argument].
>>>> "9. The fact that the HSCA's own witness, NASA's Dr. Thomas Canning, ha=
>d to fudge JFK's forward lean by more than half, just to get the cowlick en=
>try trajectory pointed back even close to the SN." <<<
>
>Again, the answer to this is pretty simple -- The bullet probably
>changed direction after entering Kennedy's head.
But, for the umpteenth time, Baden said the Dox drawing, which shows NO
deflection, was accurate. Moreover, again, a bullet entering in the cowlick
couldn't have deflected if it exited the official exit point. This isn't rocket
science...in fact, it's something a third grader should understand...it's just
that you're not there yet....and it appears doubtful that you will ever be
there.
[...] deleting repeated rhetoric.
>>>> "10. The fact that four researchers and/or JFK authors have independent=
>ly replicated the photo of the wound in the SKULL and have all concluded, s=
>cientifically, that Humes' entry was near the EOP." <<<
>
>
>Oh, good, that crappy, miserable, indistinct F8 picture again.
>Wonderful.
Just because you're so stupid you can't figure F8 out, it's
crappy??????????????????????
>BTW, John Canal needs all four members of the 1968 Clark Panel to be
>total boobs (or liars) too, if we're to believe that the entry hole in
>JFK's head was 4 inches below the cowlick....because the four Clark
>Panel doctors said this back in '68:
You're in over your head--which isn't saying much. Earth to DVP: Fisher started
this cowlick entry business and the rest of the government experts parroted
him...do you really think Baden was going to refute the conclusions of a
government panel [Clark] that had already refuted the conclusions published by
the earliest government inquiry [WC]??????? Do you think they were going to play
musical entry wound locations?
Wake up...the old saying, "you can ead someone to water, but you can't make him
drink", comes to mind.
I'm going to try something. Everytime you post something stupid on the entry on
Alt.Ass.JFK, and I see it, I'm going to refer those who don't mind reading my
response to look over on this group....and I'm going to simply delete your
bullshit rhetoric
and replace it with this.
Whatcha think, David...good idea?...because this post says it all about your
ineptness and lack of understanding with regard to this issue.
John Canal
[...]
John Canal
aeffects says...
>
>On May 16, 9:15=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <99d6283d-9db9-4b75-a935-75c979356...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> David Von Pein says...
>>
>on] were a
>> >>>>child. My book, "Silencing the Lone Assassin", was published by Parag=
>on House in
>> >>>>2000." <<<
>> >John Canal, however, isn't a typical "LN", because he believes that
>> >the autopsy doctors were part of a limited "cover up" with respect to
>> >the full nature of President Kennedy's head wounds.
>>
>to
>> re-double my efforts to see that a credible re-investigation is done to r=
>esolve
>> the controversies (and there are some, as VB has acknowledged in writing)
>ding
>> false messages that may be misunderstood as the truth by those not knowng=
> any
>> better.
>>
>> That said, can I get you to answer a few questions without you cutting th=
>em in a
>> reply?
>>
>> 1. You do know enough about the medical evidence to realize a photograph =
>of the
>> BOH wasn't taken when the body was first received, right? Doesn't that ra=
>ise
>> even a tiny red flag for you, especially considering they took photos of =
>him
>> from other angles when the body was first eceived?
>>
>> OK, assuming you missed that clue, and chock that fact up to an innocent
>> oversight let's go to the next question.
>>
>> 2. When they described how far posteriorly the large wound extended as
>nded
>> down to the EOP, don't you think that =A0the early use of the word, "some=
>what" was
>> an understatement? IOW down to the EOP can hardly be appropriately descri=
>bed
>> with the modifier, "somewhat."
>>
>cious
>> effort to understate the wounds, let me ask you this.
>>
>rt of
>> the cerebellum when the body was first received, doesn't the fact that Hu=
>mes
>> innocuously testified four months later that they did see that part of th=
>e
>> cerebellum was severely lacerated, raise even a ittsy-bittsy red flag for=
> you
>> indicating that earlier they may have wanted to avoid describing a BOH wo=
>und in
>> such a manner [cerebellum exposed] that it could have been misinterpreted=
> as
>> evidence of a frontal shot?
>>
>VB got
>> sucked in at first by Baden, because he didn't have the benefit of anyone
>w and
>> you do too. But the sad difference is that he's aware there are issues wi=
>th the
>> official story on the head wounds, and, even though a few of us have trie=
>d very
>> hard to make you see the light, we are prevented from doing so successful=
>ly
>> because of your blindness to reality that you so profoundly demonstrate a=
>d
>> nauseam.
>>
>> How about this as far as you accepting Baden's crap? He testified under o=
>ath
>> there was no evidence on the x-rays for a near-EOP entering bullet, but a=
>n
>> extremely highly credentialed member of Baden's own panel, Dr. Davis, tol=
>d him,
>> on the record, that there WAS evidence for a low hit on the x-rays. Just =
>an
>> innocent oversight by Baden, right, David? VB missed that in RH, but he's=
> aware
>> of it now....and, I assure you, will someday do something about it.
>>
>ain
>> damage, but the damn occipital lobe had a channel-like laceration right t=
>hrough
>> it. A Baden memory lapse? VB missed that too...but he knows about it now =
>and
>> realizes it makes Baden's words suspect....but good old DVP has been told=
> about
>> that conflict over and over again, and still sees nothing unusual. Go fig=
>ure.
>>
>> There are more examples of Baden lying or having accute memory lapses whi=
>le he
>> testified than you can shake a stick at...but DVP can't connect the dots.=
>...even
>> though they are so close together they almost form a continuous line.
>>
>> >Plus, unless I'm mistaken, John C. thinks that the Mob hired Jack Ruby
>> >to "silence the lone assassin", which is another thing that makes John
>> >an unusual "LNer".
>>
>> You probably didn't notice the words, "...the case I present here will be
>clude
>> them in your comments here? Typical DVP style..
>>
>> >I can understand why Steve Anderson doesn't have full knowledge of Mr.
>> >Canal's wacky theories, since John posts mostly on the aaj moderated
>> >forum only.
>>
>te how
>> very little you know about a subject you very much like to argue about--J=
>FK's
>> head wounds.
>
>the shithead hasn't a clue about anything he posts, hell he doesn't
>even write the stuff. He's what we've coined as a copy-n-paste
>arteeeeeeeeest.....
There's a lot we don't agree on with regard to this case--and that's ok--, but I
agree with you on what you just said.
John Canal
>He's (David Von Pein) a composite John, a figment
>of Dave Reitzes fer-tile mind....
>
>> >But, regardless of the forum it appears on, John's theory about the
>> >autopsists being involved in a cover-up of some kind is just plain
>> >silly. And it always will be.
>>
>> You're lucky VB is tied up with Tom Hanks right now...if he wasn't, becau=
>se he's
>> got a passion for the truth, and is about a hundred times less oblivious =
>to
>> clues and red flags than you are, he'd =A0[his exact written words] "get =
>to the
>> bottom of this"....and when he did you be looking for that hole you crawl=
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a639a602d7146d40
>>> "The fact is that all researchers who can figure out a simple photo [F8] know the entry was near the EOP....unfortunately, you're left out of that group." <<<
LOL time.
John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why Dr. Baden
testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh?
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/f8.jpg
For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major
disagreements concerning F8 over the years among the people who post
on just the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very
smart people posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one
thing, while a different batch of people say that F8 is depicting
something else entirely.
A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and
useless mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph,
more power to ya (I guess).
>>> "Out of all the witnesses who said they saw where the [head] entry was on the body [of JFK], how many said it was in the cowlick and how many said it was near the EOP?" <<<
"Slightly above the EOP" -- 3 (Humes, Finck, Boswell).
All other specific locations on JFK's head (including the "cowlick")
-- 0. (AFAIK.)
But when we get to 1968 and 1975 and 1978, we have these stats:
Approximately "10 centimeters above the EOP" -- Every pathologist who
examined the autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel (in 1968),
the Rockefeller Commission (in 1975), and the HSCA (in 1978).
DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "This is a drawing [JFK Exhibit F-48] made from
photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the
President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of
discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the
scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation, an
entrance bullet perforation." ....
MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately
represent the location of the wound in the back of the President's
head?"
DR. BADEN -- "Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the
panel members."
EXHIBIT F-48:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0119b.htm
>>> "I'll ask him [DVP] to explain "why", "if" the Clark panel reported that the skull was severely fragmented posteriorly to the Lamboid suture and that the entry was several cm anterior to the Lamboid suture, can part of the entry be seen in F8 along the edge of the "INTACT" rear skull? IOW, if it was in the part of the skull that was fragmented, then why did even the HSCA report that part of the entry was in the INTACT bone? DVP will ignore that because he has no clue what I'm talking about...which is due to his lack of understanding of the medical evidence....which doesn't prevent him or even slow him down from arguing with those who do have such an understanding. See if I'm right." <<<
Well, since you're talking about a photograph of the inside of
President Kennedy's head (F8) that I think is completely useless, I'll
have to pass. In my opinion, F8 is worthless for trying to PROVE
exactly where the wounds (or anything!) are located in JFK's head.
You disagree. Okay, fine. So be it.
>>> "If VB [Vincent Bugliosi] would only read these exchanges, well...IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you." <<<
IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you, John -- particularly with respect to
your theory about the autopsy doctors deliberately engaging in some
kind of cover-up regarding JFK's head wounds. THAT'S really an
embarrassing theory, IMO. And Vince thinks so too:
"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." --
Vince Bugliosi; 04/19/09
David Von Pein
May 16-17, 2009
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/57f0b9732b1ab2a9
>>> "I've never seen the body [of JFK] either..." <<<
But you've seen the photos and X-rays of the body. And you've managed
to misinterpret nearly every single one of them in order to prop up
your insane "LN/BOH/EOP" theories.
Granted, John Canal's task has not been an easy one -- i.e., it's not
an easy task to have to try and promote Canal's idiotic "LN/BOH/EOP
ENTRY" theories while looking directly at multiple autopsy photographs
and X-rays of the dead President Kennedy, which are photos and X-rays
that are painting an obvious picture of the truth regarding the
location of JFK's wounds (i.e., "Cowlick Entry" and "No Large Wound In
The Back Of The Head").
But John Canal, for nearly ten years now, has made it his life's work
to promote his singular, impossible theories regarding JFK's wounds.
And while promoting those theories, Mr. Canal has no problem
whatsoever in calling every member of the Clark Panel (4 doctors in
total) liars or boobs. Canal has no choice BUT to believe that all 4
Clark Panel members were either liars or total boobs, because in 1968
those four guys all signed a report that said this (plain as day)
about the entry wound in JFK's head:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated
near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this
wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray
film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2),
a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface
of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen
in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." --
Via Clark Panel Report; 1968
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
In replying to the Clark Panel passage quoted above, John Canal came
back with this incredibly-lame retort:
"[Dr. Russell S.] Fisher started this cowlick entry business and
the rest of the government experts parroted him...do you really think
[Dr. Michael] Baden [of the HSCA] was going to refute the conclusions
of a government panel [Clark] that had already refuted the conclusions
published by the earliest government inquiry [WC]??????? Do you think
they were going to play musical entry wound locations?" -- John A.
Canal; 05/17/09
Just brilliant, huh? Mr. Canal thinks that ALL NINE members of the
HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel would be willing to promote a bunch of
lies about the wounds of an assassinated U.S. President just so that
the boat wouldn't be rocked any further....even though ALL NINE of the
FPP doctors must surely have realized that their "cowlick entry"
determination (which would be in print for ALL TIME in the HSCA
volumes via Dr. Baden's testimony) was pure nonsense and bullshit! (Or
were some of those nine FPP doctors just simply boobs/fools/idiots,
John?)
And, apparently, Mr. Canal must also think that Dr. Russell Fisher of
the Clark Panel was able to strong-arm his three cohorts on that Clark
Panel back in '68 too. Because, per Canal, it was ONLY FISHER who
"started this cowlick entry business and the rest of the government
experts parroted him".
Talk about mindless drones with no backbone or will of their own! I
guess Canal thinks the Clark Panel and the HSCA were full of these
mindless, follow-the-leader drones -- even though each "drone" HIMSELF
was examining the autopsy photos and X-rays too!
And evidently NONE of those 12 people on the Clark and FPP panels who
simply "parroted" Fisher's cowlick-entry conclusion had a lick of
integrity either. They were all willing to "parrot" the cowlick
conclusion merely because Fisher said so. Right, John C.?
As is pretty clear by now, John A. Canal is fairly close to going over
the "deep end". Because believing that a dozen doctors who were
associated with TWO SEPARATE OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIVE
PANELS (who all had access to the same photos) would have all lied and
"parroted" something that they surely must have known was a crock of
shit is a paranoid theory that only a total idiot could begin to
believe.
REPLAY:
>>> "Fisher started this cowlick entry business and the rest of the government experts parroted him...do you really think Baden was going to refute the conclusions of a government panel [Clark] that had already refuted the conclusions published by the earliest government inquiry [WC]???????" <<<
If that panel [the Clark Panel] needed to be refuted, then yes, of
course Baden & Company would have refuted Fisher, et al.
Why is this question even being asked, John? OF COURSE Baden would
have admitted to an "EOP" entry wound IF THE FPP SAW GOOD ENOUGH
REASON TO ENDORSE SUCH AN ENTRY-WOUND LOCATION.
But, quite obviously, the HSCA's FPP (like the Clark Panel ten years
before it), could easily SEE FOR THEMSELVES (via the photos and X-
rays) that there is NO WOUND IN THE EOP AREA. The wound is in the
cowlick...and the X-RAYS VERIFY THAT FACT.
The entry hole in the cowlick was seen by every Clark Panel member and
every HSCA/FPP member. And the COWLICK scalp entry hole LINES UP
PERFECTLY with the COWLICK entry as seen in JFK's skull on the X-rays.
John Canal, however, will no doubt deny (or ignore) that last "lines
up" fact until a few cows show up on his doorstep.
REPLAY:
>>> "Do you think they were going to play musical entry wound locations?" <<<
If that was required -- YES -- of course they would have. Why isn't
this obvious to you, John?
It appears that paranoia has set in on an LNer (John C.). That's very
unusual too, because most LNers are very good thinkers and very good
at assessing and evaluating the evidence.
But John C. has a unique LN/BOH/EOP theory to peddle. So, it appears
that his common sense has gone flying out the window. That fact is
obvious when reading these paranoid remarks uttered by John C.:
"Do you really think Baden was going to refute the conclusions
of a government panel [Clark] that had already refuted the conclusions
published by the earliest government inquiry [WC]???????" -- John A.
Canal
So, as John Canal misinterprets the photos and X-rays and mangles the
head-wound evidence, Mr. Canal has no hesitation (or embarrassment)
whatsoever in calling ALL NINE MEMBERS of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel "liars" too (especially the head of the FPP, Michael
Baden, who, per Canal, was the primary "liar", with Baden lying his
ass off "several times", if we're to believe Mr. Canal's loopy
interpretation of things).
Canal needs ALL NINE FPP members to be "liars", because of these
passages that can be found (plain as day) in the HSCA testimony of the
so-called head "liar", Michael Baden:
"We, as the [FPP] panel members, do feel after close examination
of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher
perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and
we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-
rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be
immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. .... It
is the firm conclusion of the panel members...there is no bullet
perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single
one in the cowlick." -- Dr. Michael M. Baden
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm
So, like almost all conspiracy theorists do, John C. wants to pretend
that a bunch of people "lied" about certain things relating to the
death of President Kennedy. Because without a gang of rotten,
worthless "liars" (spanning a period of many, many years), John's
crazy "EOP entry" theory goes up in smoke -- which is where it belongs
anyway.
David Von Pein
May 17, 2009
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
I�m tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can�t come up with
a reasonable explanation for�and pasting in those you think you have an
explanation for. That said, I�m just going to post this summary of your position
every time you use your �cut and paste� method when you post on either the BOH
wound or entry location issues.
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy�s life and
said:
1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in their
hands and said:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. the BOH skull was fragmented.
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its �stretchability� for the purpose of
closing the large openings in his head..
DVP �DOESN�T� believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and said he
helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the entry and that
he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the BOH photos were taken
after the brain had been removed).
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open casket
funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in order to
close the wounds.
DVP �DOES� believe Baden, who never saw the body and said:
1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower brain
damage reported.
2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though
a. no one can see the top-front of the cerebellum by just viewing either the
basilar or superior photos or drawings of the brain and
b. Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the cerebellum lacerated.
3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly
credentialed member of Baden�s own panel told him, on the record, that he saw
evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.
4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of the
evidence for a cowlick entering bullet�.even though DVP himself acknowledges
that opacity is an artifact.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive
evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who
consulted for Baden�s panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on the
x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate
even though Dale Myers� computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line
trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD,
but the Dal-Tex Building.
The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of many
others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Joe Davis, Barb
J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry and/or existence of a
BOH wound�wacky, he pretty much believes:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were �wrong� regarding their descriptions
of the head wounds�and
2. all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were �correct�
regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.
So, I ask you, who�s the one that�s really wacky?
John Canal
[....] I deleted the usual cut and paste rhetoric.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
John Canal
[...] I deleted all the cut and paste rhetoric...again.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:guqkp...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <a5f6bd6a-5993-4415...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
> I'm tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can't come up
> with
> a reasonable explanation for.and pasting in those you think you have an
> evidence for a cowlick entering bullet..even though DVP himself
> acknowledges
> that opacity is an artifact.
> 5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed
> conclusive
> evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist
> who
> consulted for Baden's panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on
> the
> x-rays for either a high or low entry.
> 6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly
> accurate
> even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry,
> straight-line
> trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the
> TSBD,
> but the Dal-Tex Building.
>
> The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of
> many
> others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Joe Davis,
> Barb
> J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry and/or existence
> of a
> BOH wound.wacky, he pretty much believes:
>
> 1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "wrong" regarding their
> descriptions
> of the head wounds.and
David Von Pein
>>> "Baden said his straight line trajectory was right--Myers said it was wrong (must include a deflection). Who's right, Myers or Baden? Take a pick...you can't have both." <<<
Oh, there's no question that Myers is right on this point and Baden
was wrong. No doubt.
I never said I agree with Baden and the HSCA/FPP on every last thing
connected to this case. Of course I disagree with some things the FPP
said -- the most obvious error, of course, being the incredibly-silly
declaration by Baden's FPP that the exit wound in JFK's throat was
located anatomically HIGHER on Kennedy's body than the entry wound in
JFK's upper back.
Just one look at these two pictures (in tandem) debunks that crazy FPP
determination for all time:
And for Baden, et al, to think that Oswald's Carcano bullet would have
remained on a straight-line trajectory after entering JFK's head at
full velocity is just a crazy determination too (IMO). And even Dr.
Cyril Wecht of the HSCA's FPP seems to think it's a bit crazy too,
given his testimony reprinted below (via 1 HSCA 342):
"The inescapable fact that unless a bullet--especially one fired
from a high-speed weapon, reasonably high-speed, approximately 2,000
feet per second muzzle velocity--unless it strikes something of firm
substance, such as bone or something else, that that bullet will
travel in a straight line." -- Dr. Cyril H. Wecht
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0173b.htm
Wecht wasn't actually talking about JFK's head wounds when he made the
above remarks to the HSCA in 1978. He was referring to the proposed
SBT and his totally-incorrect diagram that he utilized in front of the
HSCA [JFK Exhibit F-320; linked below]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0173a.htm
That chart/diagram is wrong in several different ways -- e.g., Wecht
has the bullet entering JFK's back in a place that's way too far right
of the true entry point....plus, the lateral (Right-to-Left) angle
shown in the diagram is way, way off....and Wecht doesn't have
Governor Connally turned to his right in his seat in the diagram. So,
essentially, Wecht's F-320 diagram is worthless, because it isn't an
accurate representation of what Bullet CE399 did on 11/22/63.
Sorry, I got sidetracked into talking about Wecht's strange anti-SBT
theory and his nutty diagram. My apologies.
Back to John Canal's lunacy now......
The "EOP Entry" theory is kind of crazy and illogical from another
point-of-view (purely a garden-variety, common-sense POV):
If the bullet entered JFK's head fairly LOW on his head (near the
EOP), and if the bullet didn't change course after entering the head,
then why wasn't the exit wound much LOWER on JFK's head than where the
exit wound really was?
IOW -- How can Oswald shoot the President from six floors above the
street in the back of the head NEAR THE EOP and have the bullet exit
JFK's head much HIGHER on his head IF THE BULLET DIDN'T CHANGE COURSE
QUITE A BIT after entering the head?
We can see via this still picture of Z-Frame 312.....
....that JFK wasn't leaning forward very much. His head certainly
wasn't pitched forward far enough to support a theory that has the
bullet entering the EOP but exiting VERY HIGH on the head in the RIGHT/
FRONT/TOP areas of the head.
But per Dale Myers' website and computer images on this webpage....
www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
....We can see that the COWLICK entry site makes much more sense when
ALL of the facts are put into the mix -- e.g., the position of JFK's
head just prior to the point of impact (Z312), the angle of trajectory
from the sixth-floor window of the TSBD, the known entry-wound
location (the real location, not the make-believe EOP location), and
the exit location for Oswald's bullet.
Via the "cowlick" entry location, the bullet enters HIGH on the
President's head and it exits HIGH on the President's head.
But via the make-believe "EOP" entry site, the bullet enters much
LOWER on JFK's head, but is exiting HIGH on the head.
So, the cowlick entry site makes more sense from nearly every point-of-
view anyone could think of.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>>>>"Baden said his straight line trajectory was right--Myers said it was wrong
>>>>(must include a deflection). Who's right, Myers or Baden? Take a pick...you
>>>>can't have both." <<<
>
>Oh, there's no question that Myers is right on this point and Baden
>was wrong. No doubt.
You're inching along, abeit your cutting and pasting techniques are still
legendary....so:
I�m tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can�t come up with
a reasonable explanation for�and pasting in those you think you have an
explanation for. That said, I�m just going to post this summary of your position
every time you use your �cut and paste� method when you post on either the BOH
wound or entry location issues.
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy�s life and
said:
1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in their
hands and said:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. the BOH skull was fragmented.
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its �stretchability� for the purpose of
closing the large openings in his head..
DVP �DOESN�T� believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and said he
helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the entry and that
he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the BOH photos were taken
after the brain had been removed).
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open casket
funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in order to
close the wounds.
##### BUT #####
DVP �DOES� believe Baden, who never saw the body and said:
1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower brain
damage reported.
2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though:
a. no one can see the top-front of the cerebellum by just viewing either the
basilar or superior photos or drawings of the brain and...
b. Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the cerebellum lacerated.
3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly
credentialed member of Baden�s own panel told him, on the record, that he saw
evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.
4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of the
evidence for a cowlick entering bullet�.even though DVP himself acknowledges
that opacity is an artifact.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive
evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who
consulted for Baden�s panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on the
x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate
even though Dale Myers� computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line
trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD,
but the Dal-Tex Building.
###The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of
many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Zimmerman,
Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry
and/or existence of a BOH wound�wacky, he pretty much believes:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were �wrong� regarding their descriptions
of the head wounds�and
2 all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were �correct�
regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.
So, I ask you, who�s the one that�s really wacky?
John Canal
[....] I deleted all the usual cut and paste rhetoric.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:guqo5...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <68554192-dbd2-4a8a...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
>>>>>"Baden said his straight line trajectory was right--Myers said it was
>>>>>wrong
>>>>>(must include a deflection). Who's right, Myers or Baden? Take a
>>>>>pick...you
>>>>>can't have both." <<<
>>
>>Oh, there's no question that Myers is right on this point and Baden
>>was wrong. No doubt.
>
> You're inching along, abeit your cutting and pasting techniques are still
> legendary....so:
>
> I'm tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can't come up
> with
> a reasonable explanation for.and pasting in those you think you have an
> evidence for a cowlick entering bullet..even though DVP himself
> acknowledges
> that opacity is an artifact.
>
> 5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed
> conclusive
> evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist
> who
> consulted for Baden's panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on
> the
> x-rays for either a high or low entry.
>
> 6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly
> accurate
> even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry,
> straight-line
> trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the
> TSBD,
> but the Dal-Tex Building.
>
> ###The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those
> of
> many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr.
> Zimmerman,
> Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the
> entry
> and/or existence of a BOH wound.wacky, he pretty much believes:
>
> 1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "wrong" regarding their
> descriptions
> of the head wounds.and
David Von Pein
Just to remind/refresh John Canal as to some of the stupid things that
Tom Rossley ("tomnln") believes re. this case:
1.) Tom The Kook believes that John Connally was shot in the chest
FROM THE FRONT.
2.) Tom believes that it was a comment made by Dan Rather of CBS News
that resulted in Ruby being "forced" to kill Lee Oswald.
3.) Tom thinks than it was LHO in the TSBD doorway after all.
4.) Tom has magically turned every entry wound into an exit wound (on
BOTH victims), and vice-versa.
In summary:
Tom R. is a conspiracy-happy fruitcake of the first order.
John Canal
This shows how little you've paid attention to my arguments that ou call crazy.
The frickin bullet hit near the EOP and deflected up appx. 20 degrees as it
penetrated the rear skull and deformed. After it traveled about 3" intact, it
came apart with the two largest fragments staying on course exiting the official
exit.
If you don't believe a FMJ bullet would defect up:
1. Larry Sturdivan, a bonafied wound ballistics expert says it can and he bases
that conclusion on an awful lot of test firing on government ranges.
2. The deceased Dr. lattimer who has probably fired more Carcano rounds than
anyone else since WWII believes the bullet deflected up.....yes, you guessed it
20 deg.
Loyal to Baden, however, as were so many others who consulted for the HSCA,
including Sturdivan, Lattimer wrote that the bullet hit in the cowlick, but said
the major fragments deflected up and went on a course towards the windshield.
IOW, Lattimer was smart enough to know Badens straight-line trajectry was not
reconciliable with the windshield damage. But Lattimer's trajectory wasn't
reconcileable with the official exit (because his major fragments deflected up
and not towards that official exit).
The bottom line is that, the cowlick entry cannot be reconciled with the
windshield damage, the official exit, and the SN, not to mention the brain
damage.
Lattimer's deflecting trajectory reconciled the cowlick entry with the
windshield damage, but not with the official exit. Baden's straight-line
trajectory reconciled the cowlick entry with the official exit, but not with the
windshield damage. Neither Lattimer's nor Baden's cowlick entry trajectory is
reconcilable with the brain damage.
Again, the only trajectory that reconciles the SN, the entry site, the brain
damage, the official exit point, and the windshield damage is the one I
described above.
Lattimer wrote me, and I showed the letter to Barb, praising my work and offered
to help me prove the EOP entry with tests using his Carcano, his ammo, and some
human skulls. I was 100% positive the bullet entered near the EOP, so I
graciously declined.
I've tried to expain this to you before but it just didnt sink in.
Some day it might dawn on you that you've been in way over your head arguing
with me on the head wounds.
Anyway:
I�m tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can�t come up with
a reasonable explanation for�and pasting in those you think you have an
##### BUT #####
evidence for a cowlick entering bullet�.even though DVP himself acknowledges
that opacity is an artifact.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive
evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who
consulted for Baden�s panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on the
x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate
even though Dale Myers� computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line
trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD,
but the Dal-Tex Building.
###The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of
many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Zimmerman,
Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry
and/or existence of a BOH wound�wacky, he pretty much believes:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were �wrong� regarding their descriptions
of the head wounds�and
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"How many frickin times do I have to tell you that they (probably Admiral
>>>>Burkley) must have been
>concerned that a BOH wound with an exposed cerebellum could be
>
>
>Which is precisely why I used these words in a previous post to knock
>down your nonsense regarding this particular issue:
>
> "John Canal...thinks that the autopsy doctors decided to
>deliberately underplay (or under-represent) the wounds to JFK's head
>for no good reason whatsoever." -- DVP
Get this, I believe the autopsy docs were just following Burkley's orders to
understate and not photograph the BOH wound. There's no way they would have made
such decisions on their own.
Just addresss the evidence and quit worrying about who thought what and why they
thought it.
Anyway:
##### BUT #####
John Canal
>
>IOW -- Your reason is not good enough. Not nearly. There was only ONE
>entry wound in President Kennedy's head, and it came FROM BHIND (not
>the front). Burkley knew this; Humes knew this; and so did everybody
>else at Bethesda at the autopsy.
>
>Your theory about Burkley (et al) wanting to cover stuff up relating
>to wounds WHICH WERE ALL PROVABLY CAUSED BY GUNSHOTS FROM A LOCATION
>BEHIND THE PRESIDENT is pure bunk.
>
David Von Pein
>>> "How many frickin times do I have to tell you that they (probably Admiral Burkley) must have been concerned that a BOH wound with an exposed cerebellum could be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot." <<<
Which is precisely why I used these words in a previous post to knock
down your nonsense regarding this particular issue:
"John Canal...thinks that the autopsy doctors decided to
deliberately underplay (or under-represent) the wounds to JFK's head
for no GOOD REASON whatsoever." -- DVP
IOW -- Your reason is not good enough. Not nearly. There was only ONE
entry wound in President Kennedy's head, and it came FROM BEHIND (not
the front). Burkley knew this; Humes knew this; and so did everybody
else at the Bethesda autopsy.
In short -- John Canal's theory about Dr. Burkley (et al) wanting to
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"How many frickin times do I have to tell you that they (probably Admiral
>>>>Burkley) must have been concerned that a BOH wound with an exposed cerebellum
>>>>could be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot." <<<
>
>Which is precisely why I used these words in a previous post to knock
>down your nonsense regarding this particular issue:
>
> "John Canal...thinks that the autopsy doctors decided to
>deliberately underplay (or under-represent) the wounds to JFK's head
>
>IOW -- Your reason is not good enough. Not nearly. There was only ONE
>the front). Burkley knew this; Humes knew this; and so did everybody
>
>to wounds WHICH WERE ALL PROVABLY CAUSED BY GUNSHOTS FROM A LOCATION
>BEHIND THE PRESIDENT is pure bunk.
And you base that revelation on what? Certainly not your vast knowledge of the
medical evidence.
Anyway,
John Canal
David Von Pein
I'll repeat my earlier comment (with a slight revision, to make it
even more accurate):
In short -- John Canal's insane and impossible-to-prove theory about
Dr. Burkley (et al) wanting to cover stuff up relating to wounds WHICH
WERE ALL PROVABLY CAUSED BY GUNSHOTS FROM A LOCATION BEHIND THE
PRESIDENT is nothing but make-believe BULLSHIT!
John Canal
>Dr. Burkley (et al) wanting to cover stuff up relating to wounds WHICH
>WERE ALL PROVABLY CAUSED BY GUNSHOTS FROM A LOCATION BEHIND THE
>PRESIDENT is nothing but make-believe BULLSHIT!
And your opinion around here is about as highly regarded as whale shit, so:
David Von Pein
>>> "And your opinion around here is about as highly regarded as whale shit." <<<
But John A. Canal's brilliant theories are very highly regarded by the
masses, eh Johnny?
Theories like:
Dr. Burkley and all the autopsists covered up information about JFK's
head wounds (even though they knew that all the shots that hit JFK
came from the rear).
and:
The Mob hired Jack Ruby to kill Lee Oswald. (Therefore, the Mob must
have killed JFK...or else why would they have any need to rub out LHO?
And the evidence for the Mob murdering JFK is, of course, non-
existent.)
and:
12 different members of 2 different Govt. panels (Clark & HSCA) were
liars re. their in-unison cowlick entry-wound conclusion.
IOW -- John Canal's theories, like all conspiracy theories, are based
on pure speculation and conjecture.
Whale shit looks more appetizing than the above three theories.
David Von Pein
>>> "This shows how little you've paid attention to my arguments that you call crazy. The frickin bullet hit near the EOP and deflected up appx. 20 degrees as it penetrated the rear skull and deformed. After it traveled about 3" intact, it came apart with the two largest fragments staying on course exiting the official exit." <<<
My main point on that particular "deflection" issue was this (yet
again):
If the bullet entered at the EOP (on the downward trajectory it was on
from Oswald's sixth-floor window), it would have entered fairly LOW on
JFK's head, and exited HIGH on JFK's head.
But if the bullet entered where all reasonable people know it did
enter (and where every pathologist since 1963 says it entered) -- near
the cowlick -- then we have a situation that would appear to make a
lot more (common) sense -- i.e., the bullet entered HIGH on the head
of JFK and it exited HIGH on his head.
Yes, I too think the bullet definitely did change direction (somewhat)
after entering JFK's cowlick area. But the amount of deflection for
the bullet would have been substantially LESS via a "cowlick" entry,
whereas the amount of deflection certainly appears to be a lot more
substantial if the bullet had entered near the EOP and exited where
every reasonable person knows it did exit (in the right/front/top
portion of JFK's cranium), which is, of course, an exit location that
is considerably HIGHER on the head than the make-believe EOP entry
point.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"And your opinion around here is about as highly regarded as whale shit." <<<
>
>
>But John A. Canal's brilliant theories are very highly regarded by the
>masses, eh Johnny?
Hey genius, not many among the masses are knowlegeable about these
issues.....but these indiviuals are: Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr.
Zimmerman, Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton...and, while they
don't agree with all my theories, they're pretty close on most. Sooo, until VB
stops closing his letters with, "Your respectful colleague", and those
aforementioned respected individuals tell me my theories are nuts, I don't give
a shit what you think.
Anyway:
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "This shows how little you've paid attention to my arguments that you c=
>all crazy. The frickin bullet hit near the EOP and deflected up appx. 20 de=
>grees as it penetrated the rear skull and deformed. After it traveled about=
> 3" intact, it came apart with the two largest fragments staying on course =
>exiting the official exit." <<<
>
>
>
>My main point on that particular "deflection" issue was this (yet
>again):
>
>If the bullet entered at the EOP (on the downward trajectory it was on
>from Oswald's sixth-floor window), it would have entered fairly LOW on
>JFK's head, and exited HIGH on JFK's head.
NOTHING SUNK IN....PAR FOR THE COURSE, SO:
David Von Pein
To John Canal,
Since moving these "BOH" discussions over to the acj unmoderated side
of the forum fence, the debates have grown very intense and way too
personal in nature (regarding the invective we've been using). I
apologize for my part in such mud-slinging. There's really no reason
to do that.
Although, unless I'm mistake and I don't think I am, I don't think I
have ever once used the proverbial "K" word ["kook"] to describe you
personally. Yes, I love to use that word on many of the conspiracy-
thirsty nuts that populate this unmoderated acj newsgroup on a daily
basis, but I try not to use that word when I'm talking to reasonable
CTers or LNers (in general).
Yes, I think your BOH theories are, indeed, pure bullshit and
nonsense, and I've said so very boldly. But it's your THEORIES that
I've called "bullshit". I've tried not to get too personal, but I'm
sorry to say that it has, in a way, gotten a little too "personal". Of
course, we couldn't get that "personal" even if we wanted to at the
aaj board, because .John won't permit it.
Anyway, I just wanted to make the above statement. And I will make an
effort to tone down the negative nature of any future Internet
exchanges I have with John A. Canal. It might not be easy for me to
do, but I will make that effort. :)
A "BOH"-RELATED NOTE:
I recently added an interesting 1964 NBC-TV program to my extensive
JFK-related YouTube video channel (it's the 9/27/64 NBC program called
"The Warren Commission Report"), and I took note of something kind of
strange---
While summarizing the evidence in the JFK case (and NBC did a very
nice and succinct job of doing that, btw, in the limited time
available during that 9/27/64 program), Robert MacNeil of NBC News
shows us a hand-drawn diagram of JFK's head wounds....and the entry
hole is placed fairly high on the head of the President.
The diagram actually shows the entry wound from two different
perspectives (a profile POV and a "directly from behind" vantage
point)....with the "from behind" view depicting the entry hole in what
looks to me like a VERY HIGH place on Kennedy's head. (The wound is
shown too far to the right of the midline, but that's another story.)
But the profile view shows the entry hole to be a bit lower on JFK's
head (with the President's head also leaning forward way too far, but,
again, that's another argument entirely).
It could just be the angle, or maybe the illustrator of the sketch
made an error somewhere, but I found it interesting that NBC-TV would
be reporting that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's
head was located fairly HIGH on his head (based on one of the views
presented in that diagram anyway).
I have no idea where NBC would have arrived at any HIGH entry point
(as of September '64). They certainly didn't get that kind of
information from the autopsy report or the just-released Warren
Report.
Anyhow, it's a very interesting NBC-TV program nonetheless, which can
be seen at the links below (the head-wound diagram is shown at the
8:45 mark in Part 1 of this video series):
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=3cdHgzD5qDo
tomnln
on the radio.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
David is the Coward who "threw John Mcadams under the bus.>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
David is the guy who HATES his/her own evidence/testimony that I post on
that website.
That website is the CLOSEST he'll ever get to the 26 volumes.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9f999bcc-81de-46c0...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9f999bcc-81de-46c0...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
KOOK-SUCKER! KOOK-SUCKER! KOOK-SUCKER!
David doesn't even recognize material from her own official records.
Perfect example for WHY she RAN from the radio debate with me.
Then, Cowardly threw McAdams under the bus>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
No wonder David is the ONLY one who quotes herself !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:guqsn...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I'm tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can't come up
> with
> a reasonable explanation for.and pasting in those you think you have an
> evidence for a cowlick entering bullet..even though DVP himself
> acknowledges
> that opacity is an artifact.
>
> 5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed
> conclusive
> evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist
> who
> consulted for Baden's panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on
> the
> x-rays for either a high or low entry.
>
> 6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly
> accurate
> even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry,
> straight-line
> trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the
> TSBD,
> but the Dal-Tex Building.
>
> ###The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those
> of
> many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr.
> Zimmerman,
> Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the
> entry
> and/or existence of a BOH wound.wacky, he pretty much believes:
>
> 1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "wrong" regarding their
> descriptions
> of the head wounds.and
John Canal
theorize the autopsy doctors were in on a cover-up. Frankly, if he now believes
that, I wouldn't blame him if he ignored any letters I sent him AFTER he got
that misimpression.
Just so you don't misunderstand or misrepresent my beliefs, one more time: I
believe Burkley ordered the autopsy docs to not photograph the back of Kennedy's
head when the body was first received and to "understate" [that's different than
stating there was NO BOH wound], in their report, the "extent" of the large
wound that they eventually said extended, not "somewhat", but all the way down
to near the EOP. No bone rear missing, but loose pieces there dislodged.
> "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." --
>Vince Bugliosi; 04/19/09
Now as far as toning down any insults, Ok.
But, IMO, you are, at least when it comes to this case, DELUSIONAL.
The symptoms are obvious and one doesn't have to be a psychiatrist to know
that--your cut and paste technique, IMO, shows that you must ignore (cut
out)valid points made against your position in order to protect your psych from
being injured (damaging your self-confidence).
Let's try something to see if I'm right. I'll make a point and see if you ignore
it...or really try to provide an explanation for it that others would agree is
reasonable. Ready? Let's go:
You agree that the 6.5 mm opacity doesn't represent a real bullet fragment,
right? Ok, at least we agree on that. With that in mind, I'd like you to imagine
the odds against an artifact ending up:
1. that size-about, if not precisely, the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo LHO
used.
2. the same precise distance right of midline (2.5 cm) as the autopsists' entry.
3. just barely under the proposed high entry site.
4. on the AP film just after (about a month after the assassination) Dr.
Ebersole, had been called to the White House to use allegedly the x-rays to take
measurements from for a 'bust" of JFK's head. This little job was especially
interesting because of two reasons: 1) the project was given a code name (Aunt
Margret's Skirts), and 2) the only person who was supposed to have access to the
autopsy photos and x-rays, whch were secured like the Crown Jewels were, was
Chief Justice earl Warren.
What did you come up with? Even Sturdivan, who is an expert in calculating
probabilities and, because he worked for the government for 50 years, hates the
word, "conspiracy", admits all of that would be "one Hell of a coincidence".
Now, IMO, any person who isn't delusional would agree the possibility exists
that the 6.5 mm thing was added to the x-rays.
Ok, for those that agree so far--I assume that leaves you out--that the thing
was added, the question is begged, "why?"
A question like that is as interesting as it is important, because of the
implications it carries with it.
For me the only possible reasonable reason for adding that thing would have bee
because someone (above Ebersole in rank) believed that the autopsists' low entry
was problematic--meaning it was going to be hard to reconcile an entry that low
with a shot from six floors up....and added the thing in an attempt to show that
the entry was near it and high enough up on the head to make it more
reconcileable with a shot from six floors up.
If you think that's a wacky explanation, then tell me yours. Anybody else want
to offer an opinion? If you feel "froggy" then jump at this opportunity to
demonstrate your wisdom.
In any case if you think MY theories are wierd you really ought to read this
dialog below for comprehension:
I'm tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can't come up
with a reasonable explanation for and pasting in those you "think" you have
an explanation for. That said, I?m just going to post this summary of your
position every time you use your "cut and paste" method when you post on
either the BOH wound or entry location issues.
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy's
life and said:
1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in
their hands and said:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. the BOH skull was fragmented.
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its "stretchability" for the purpose of
closing the large openings in his head..
DVP "DOESN'T" believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and
said he helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the
entry and that he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the
BOH photos were taken after the brain had been removed).
DVP "DOESN'T" believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open
casket funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in
order to close the wounds.
DVP "DOES" believe Baden, who never saw the body and said:
1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower
brain damage reported.
2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though
a. no one can see the top-front of the cerebellum by just viewing either
the basilar or superior photos or drawings of the brain and
b. Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the cerebellum
lacerated.
3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly
credentialed member of Baden's own panel told him, on the record, that he
saw evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.
4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of
the evidence for a cowlick entering bullet, even though DVP himself
acknowledges that opacity is an artifact.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed
conclusive evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a
radiologist who consulted for Baden's panel clearly said the was no
conclusive evidence on the x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly
accurate even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry,
straight-line trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the
roofline of, not the TSBD, but the Dal-Tex Building.
The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of
many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Zimmerman,
Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry
and/or existence of a BOH wound wacky, he pretty much believes:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "wrong" regarding their
descriptions of the head wounds and
2. all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were
"correct" regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.
So, I ask you, who's the one that's really wacky?
John Canal
[...] I deleted all the cut and paste rhetoric.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3d9ecdb5fc2c88fb
>>> "The obvious connection is that Burkley, unnecessarily--we know that now--decided to understate and not photograph a BOH wound that about three dozen witnes[s]es say existed for fear such a wound might be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot.....EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CERTAIN THE BULLET THAT CAUSED THAT BOH WOUND WAS FIRED FROM BEHIND." <<<
John Canal, of course, still has a huge hurdle to climb....that hurdle
being, of course:
THERE WAS NO LARGE "BOH" WOUND IN THE **SCALP** OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
ON 11/22/63 (and the photos below prove it):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
And John's whole "LN/BOH" theory crumbles into a pile of dust when
just a tad bit of common sense and logic are applied to it (in
conjunction with the three photos linked above)....and that's because:
John wants to believe that a bullet from Oswald's gun (fired from the
TSBD) entered the back of JFK's head and (somehow) caused a good-sized
chunk of the RIGHT-REAR SCALP AND SKULL of the President to break open
(even though John will readily acknowledge that the RIGHT-REAR of
Kennedy's head was not part of the EXIT wound at all for Lee Oswald's
bullet).
Therefore, if the bullet actually EXITED in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP area
of JFK's head, then why on Earth would the OCCIPITAL SCALP in the
RIGHT-REAR of his head suddenly crack wide open?
It doesn't make any logical (or anatomical or ballistic) sense at all
(except to John Canal--who desperately NEEDS a gaping BOH wound
extending through President Kennedy's SCALP, in order to peddle the
silly theory that John's been peddling for the last ten years).
John C. positively requires such a gaping SCALP wound in JFK's head on
11/22/63 in order for him to believe that the Parkland witnesses were
correct about seeing such a gaping (or at least large-ish) wound in
the right-rear (occipital) area of JFK's head.
Without the SCALP of JFK being severely damaged while the President
was at Parkland (in order to expose a HOLE that nearly all of the
Parkland witnesses said they saw), then John Canal's "LN/BOH/THE
PARKLAND WITNESSES WERE RIGHT" theory goes sliding down the drain
immediately.
So, once again, when the facts and the photos (and some common sense)
are applied to the theories of John A. Canal, those theories vaporize
into nothingness.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a98a15ad90bddd68
>>> "For me [John A. Canal] the only possible reasonable reason for adding that [6.5 mm.] thing [to JFK's X-ray] would have been because someone (above Ebersole in rank) believed that the autopsists' low entry was problematic--meaning it was going to be hard to reconcile an entry that low with a shot from six floors up....and added the thing in an attempt to show that the entry was near it and high enough up on the head to make it more reconcileable with a shot from six floors up." <<<
LOL.
Oh, yes, that's right, I forgot about you being a "conspiracy
theorist" with regard to the "6.5 mm. thing" too. Thanks for the
reminder.
Your "reasonable reason" stated above for someone wanting to "plant" a
"6.5 mm. thing" onto one of President Kennedy's X-rays is an extremely
stupid reason.
The FACTS of the autopsy would speak for themselves, John. There's no
reason for ANYONE (Dr. Burkley or anyone else) to want to start
covering stuff up or planting things onto X-rays or even
"understating" the true nature of JFK's wounds.
And that's because of the ironclad and immutable FACT that President
Kennedy was struck in the head by just ONE bullet, and that bullet
came from BEHIND the President. And that is a FACT that everyone who
was present at JFK's autopsy positively HAD to be readily aware of on
the night of November 22, 1963.
So, John, your stated reasons for people wanting to become involved in
such a crazy limited cover-up and/or planting-of-evidence operation
are just ludicrous, IMO. But you seem to REQUIRE such a limited cover-
up operation in order for your impossible LN/BOH theory to work out
properly.
And why in the world would anyone in their right mind think it would
be "hard to reconcile an entry that low with a shot from six floors
up"?
For Pete sake, we know that ALL of the back side of Kennedy's head was
exposed to Oswald's bullet, both the UPPER portions of his head and
the LOWER portions of his head (including the EOP)....
....So why would some boob(s) think that a LOW entry wound in JFK's
head would be completely incompatible with a shot from Oswald's
window? ~shrug~
Didn't your make-believe planters of the "6.5 mm. object" know any of
the trajectories and the alignments from the TSBD by the time they
supposedly planted the object onto the X-ray--which was quite a while
AFTER 11/22/63, right?
Plus: Anybody who would have planted such an object on the X-ray
surely also knew that JFK was hit in the UPPER BACK by one of Oswald's
bullets from the sixth floor of the Depository. And the UPPER BACK is
certainly quite a bit LOWER on Kennedy's body than the EOP in JFK's
head!
Did these goofy "6.5 mm. object planters" for some reason think that
Oswald was capable of hitting JFK in the upper back with a bullet from
the sixth floor, but he somehow wasn't able to hit a HIGHER point on
JFK's body--his EOP?
Plus: I'd like for somebody to tell me HOW anyone could "plant" some
kind of a fake "object" onto an X-ray in the first place (so that it
would fool everybody into believing it wasn't planted there)?
David Mantik probably has explained this "planting fake objects onto X-
rays" technique somewhere within his pro-conspiracy writings, but I'm
not willing to dive into his cesspool of fantasy again right now.
Plus: If the "object" is really a "fake" or was "planted", I'm
wondering why the HSCA's photographic panel declared all the autopsy
photos AND X-rays to be "unaltered in any manner"? Were those HSCA
photo experts incompetent, or were they part of some kind of "cover-
up" too?
And yet John Canal calls ME "delusional". Geesh.
My advice to John Canal is this -- Step back from the abyss of your
own absurd make-believe "BOH" theories that have been festering in
your brain for about 10 years and re-evaluate things -- from a COMMON-
SENSE perspective.
That type of a re-evaluation is a good idea, IMO, because "common
sense" is NOT on your side, John (and that goes for all of your BOH/
EOP theories). And the hard physical PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence isn't on
your side either, John.
The photographic evidence, in fact (in triplicate form), is proving
that you are wrong about all your theories, with that photographic
record including the autopsy photographs, the autopsy X-rays, and the
Zapruder Film (not to mention the fact that every pathologist since
1963 disagrees with your BOH assessments as well).
As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no
explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on
the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet)
fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that
simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know.
But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have
wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.
If it had been planted by somebody for the purpose of making people
think it was a chunk of Lee Oswald's bullet that struck JFK in the
head (with those planters certainly aware that the autopsists and
other people would say it WASN'T THERE at all in '63), then didn't the
people planting it realize that they would be in for a lot of backlash
from many conspiracy theorists in the future...i.e., conspiracists who
would be saying just exactly what they ARE saying about that "6.5 mm.
object" today -- that it is an obvious "planted" object on the X-ray?
FOOTNOTE/ADDENDUM ABOUT THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS:
You, John C., HAVE indeed implied that all three autopsy doctors
(Humes, Boswell, and Finck) were involved in a limited "cover-up" with
respect to their reporting of JFK's head wounds. And I find it quite
disingenuous on your part to try and wiggle out of your position that
the AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES were an active part of your insane
limited "cover-up" operation relating to JFK's head wounds.
You said (and I quote you) that "Burkley ordered the autopsy docs to
not photograph the back of Kennedy's head when the body was first
received and to "understate"...in their report, the "extent" of the
large wound that they eventually said extended, not "somewhat", but
all the way down to near the EOP".
So, John, you've got all of the autopsy doctors OBEYING Dr. Burkley's
"order" (at least for a while)--which is an order that never was
given, of course; you're just making up this shit from whole cloth to
suit your LN/BOH/EOP needs, as we all know.
Therefore, you have to also believe that all three autopsy doctors
WERE, indeed, involved in the limited cover-up concerning JFK's
wounds. How can the doctors THEMSELVES not be "involved", since they
are the ones carrying out Burkley's order (i.e., the "order" you've
made up in your own mind)?
Obviously, you DO need Humes, Finck, and Boswell to be deeply
"involved" in your make-believe cover-up....and not just Dr. George
Burkley.
BTW, if such a crazy order had been issued by Burkley to Humes &
Company, then why on Earth did Humes even want to put the words
"somewhat" and "occipital" in the November 1963 final autopsy report?
The logical answer, of course (if Burkley gave such an order to Humes,
et al), is that Humes would never have put those two words in his
completed autopsy report at all.
What the heck was the ever-obedient and subservient Dr. Humes trying
to do anyway, John? Was he deliberately leaving a few bread crumbs for
future conspiracy theorists to munch on by putting just a HINT of the
full truth in the autopsy report via the "somewhat into the occipital"
language, even though Humes was supposedly ORDERED not to mention
anything about "occipital" or back-of-the-head damage to JFK's cranium
at all?
Once again, when common sense enters the equation, John Canal's
theories collapse like a severely-weakened bridge.
David Von Pein
May 19, 2009
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>[Canal's] theories collapse like a severely-weakened bridge.
>
>David Von Pein
>May 19, 2009
Yes indeed, Von Pein has shown me I was wrong. All along I thought he was of
average intelligence and understood the obvious--that the HSCA's Baden had lied
more times than you can shake a stick at, but that he only supported Baden's
false, "NO-BOH-WOUND" and "COWLICK ENTRY" conclusions because he was just trying
to be loyal. ### NOW
Yes, I was wrong--I KNOW NOW THAT VON PEIN SUPPORTS BADEN'S CRAP BECAUSE HE'S AN
IDIOT.
For example, he thinks an artifact could miraculously appear by accident on the
AP x-ray:
1. the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo LHO used...
2. precisely the same distance right of midline as the autopsists' entry (2.5
cm)...
3. just below the HSCA's alleged cowlick entry...
4. and after the Navy Radiologist, Ebersole, admitted having possesion of the
x-rays (when only Chief Justice Warren was supposed to have access to them)...
##### AGAIN, BY FRICKING ACCIDENT ####### Only a bonafied idiot would consider
that scenario plausible....and Von Pein does exactly that.
Then, if there was a chance he was smarter than a rock, he says more to prove
that he isn't. get this:
He thinks the near EOP entry was not problematic for those running the
investigation (for the Warren Commission)....IOW, that low, near-EOP entry
seemed to be nicely consistent with a shot from six floors up. Hmmmm, then why,
I would ask Mr. Rock brain why, in WC Exhibit CE-388, they had to draw JFK
leaning forward about 50 degrees WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY (see Z-312) LEANING
FORWARD ONLY ABOUT 27 DEGREES??????????????????????
I've deleted his bullshit rhetoric but when I offered the following explanation
for why the 6.5 mm opacity as added to the AP x-ray, he laughed.
Obviously (see CE-388) realizing the low, near-EOP didn't "appear" to be
consistent with a shot from six floors up, someone ordered Ebersole to add the
6.5 mm opacity to the AP x-ray in the cowlick......undoubtedly (for anyone with
a lick of common sense) as a means to "adjust" the entry up on the back of his
head about 4".......thereby making the "new" (revsed/corrected), higher entry
location seem more consistent with a shot from six floors up than Humes' low,
near-EOP entry.
It's apparent, however, that Humes et. al. would not go along with any little
plan to move the entry up---they weren't going to look like idiots who had been
mistaken when they reported that low entry....thus, Humes stuck to his guns with
his near-EOP entry and attmpted to resolve the percieved problem (with that low,
near-EOP entry not being consistent with a shot from six floors up) his own way.
Indeed, he simply fudged, by almost double, JFK's lean forward in CE-388.
Now, again, Von Pein laughs at my explanation, but does he offer a more
reasonable one? Of course not...he's too busy laughing for one thing and for
another is so unfamiliar with the medical evidence (other than Bugliosi's going
along with Baden's B/S), he can't come up with a reasonable alternative
explanation.
BTW, if Humes had only realized that the bullet deformed and deflected up about
20 deg. as it penetrated the rear skull near the EOP, he could have drawn that
bullet path and showed JFK's lean accuately in CE-388.
Anyway, DVP calls my theories wacky, but read below what he thinks to see who's
really wacky:

I�m tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can�t come up with
a reasonable explanation for�and pasting in those you think you have an
explanation for. That said, I�m just going to post this summary of your position
every time you use your �cut and paste� method when you post on either the BOH
wound or entry location issues.
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy�s life and
said:
1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in their
hands and said:
1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. the BOH skull was fragmented.
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its �stretchability� for the purpose of
closing the large openings in his head..
DVP �DOESN�T� believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and said he
helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the entry and that
he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the BOH photos were taken
after the brain had been removed).
DVP �DOESN�T� believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open casket
funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in order to
close the wounds.
##### BUT #####
DVP �DOES� believe Baden, who never saw the body and said:
1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower brain
damage reported.
2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though:
a. no one can see the top-front of the cerebellum by just viewing either the
basilar or superior photos or drawings of the brain and...
b. Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the cerebellum lacerated.
3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly
credentialed member of Baden�s own panel told him, on the record, that he saw
evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.
4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of the
evidence for a cowlick entering bullet�.even though DVP himself acknowledges
that opacity is an artifact.
5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive
evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who
consulted for Baden�s panel clearly said the was no conclusive evidence on the
x-rays for either a high or low entry.
6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate
even though Dale Myers� computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line
trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD,
but the Dal-Tex Building.
###The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of
many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Zimmerman,
Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry
and/or existence of a BOH wound�wacky, he pretty much believes:
1. all the witnesses who saw the body were �wrong� regarding their descriptions
of the head wounds�and
2 all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were �correct�
regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.
So, I ask you, who�s the one that�s really wacky?
John Canal
[....] I deleted all the usual cut and paste rhetoric.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b546912e160ea12
>>> "Obviously (see CE-388) realizing the low, near-EOP [entry] didn't "appear" to be consistent with a shot from six floors up, someone ordered Ebersole to add the 6.5 mm opacity to the AP x-ray in the cowlick......undoubtedly (for anyone with a lick of common sense) as a means to "adjust" the entry up on the back of his head about 4".......thereby making the "new" (rev[i]sed/corrected), higher entry location seem more consistent with a shot from six floors up than Humes' low, near-EOP entry." <<<
LOL.
John Canal's silliness never stops flowing, does it?
Of course, John cannot come even close to proving any of his
ridiculous theories. But that never stops a good conspiracy theorist,
does it now? (And make no mistake, John Canal IS a conspiracy
theorist. He thinks there were multiple "cover-up" operations in place
in the aftermath of JFK's assassination...hence, he is a "conspiracy
theorist".)
REPLAY (JUST FOR THE LAUGHS):
>>> "Someone ordered Ebersole to add the 6.5 mm opacity to the AP x-ray in the cowlick." <<<
LOL.
So, rather than merely rigging the hand-drawn CE388 diagram in some
way to make it appear that an EOP entry wound could easily have
created the large exit wound at the right/front of JFK's head,
somebody decided it would be better to physically add in a "6.5 mm.
opacity" to an existing X-ray of JFK's head. Is that about the size of
the situation, Mr. Canal?
In short -- That's just nuts!
Rydberg could have easily drawn CE388 to meet all the necessary "EOP
Entry" requirements (and without the ridiculously-skewed "leaning
forward" position of Kennedy's head in CE388). The bullet simply was
deflected after entering JFK's head, with the bullet then changing
course to exit where we know the bullet did exit -- at the Right/
Front/Top of the head.
Heck, even John Canal thinks that DID occur, with the bullet
deflecting upward to exit the Top/Right of the head. I wonder why
Rydberg and the "6.5 mm. object planters" didn't think of doing that
instead of planting an "object" onto an X-ray?
Were the "object planters" of the opinion (for some stupid reason)
that Oswald's FMJ bullet could not POSSIBLY have changed course after
entering JFK's head at full muzzle velocity of 2,165 fps?
The bullet, of course, could easily have deflected after striking the
skull, and there's no possible way to know for sure how a bullet is
going to behave after striking a hard object like Kennedy's head at
full velocity. That bullet almost certainly was deflected to some
extent, which CE388 does not depict at all, which is just plain silly.
CE388:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm
Also:
John C., why do you continually ignore the following determination
made by the Clark Panel in 1968 (re: the high point of entry in JFK's
head)? Do you really think that ALL FOUR Clark Panel doctors would
have signed a report that contained the following verbiage if they
really ALL didn't believe it was the truth?:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated
near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this
wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray
film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2),
a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface
of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen
in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." --
From Clark Panel Report
John Canal
### "ACCIDENTLY" ### appear on the AP x-ray that was:
1. the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo LHO used...
2. precisely the same distance right of midline as the autopsists' entry (2.5
cm)...
3. just below the HSCA's alleged cowlick entry...
4. and after the Navy Radiologist, Ebersole, admitted having possesion of the
x-rays (when only Chief Justice Warren was supposed to have access to them)...
BUT I WAS WRONG--THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT STUPID--DAVID VON PEIN.
Anyway, DVP calls my theories wacky, but read below what he thinks to see who's
really wacky:
I�m tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can�t come up with
John Canal
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "I [John A. Canal] honestly didn't think anyone could be so stupid they'd think an artifact could "ACCIDENTLY" appear on the AP x-ray. .... BUT I WAS WRONG--THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT STUPID--DAVID VON PEIN." <<<
Where within my Internet messages did I ever once say that I think the
6.5 mm. object "accidentally" appeared on the AP X-ray?
For anyone interested, here's what I said recently about the "6.5 mm.
thing" on the X-ray:
"As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no
explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on
the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet)
fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that
simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know.
"But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would
have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.
"If it had been planted by somebody for the purpose of making
people think it was a chunk of Lee Oswald's bullet that struck JFK in
the head (with those planters certainly aware that the autopsists and
other people would say it WASN'T THERE at all in '63), then didn't the
people planting it realize that they would be in for a lot of backlash
from many conspiracy theorists in the future...i.e., conspiracists who
would be saying just exactly what they ARE saying about that "6.5 mm.
object" today -- that it is an obvious "planted" object on the X-ray?"
-- DVP; 05/19/09
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Here's one David Von Pein [DVP #1] on April 4, 2009, discussing the 6.5 mm
opaciy:
<quote on>
It's not a "bullet" fragment at all.
<quote off>
Now I know Von Pein's not the brightest bulb on the tree, but we know he's not a
liar....right? So, another David Von Pein [DVP #2] must have said this today:
<quote on>
"As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no
explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on
the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet)
fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply
was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know.
<quote off>
Seems like DVP #1 was pretty definitive about the 6.5 mm opacity not being a
real bulet fragment, but DVP #2 says maybe it's an artifact. Well, earth to both
DVPs, it's either a real bullet fragment or an artifact...get together you two
and decide which it is.
Now neither DVP appears to be all that bright because here's what DVP #2 just
wrote:
<quote on>
Where within my Internet messages did I ever once say that I think the 6.5 mm.
object "accidentally" appeared on the AP X-ray?
<quote off>
Think man.....if it didn't get on the x-ray "accidently", then it must have been
added/planted [by a human], right?
But to that you say here it wasn't "planted":
<quote on>
"But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would
have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.
<quote off>
DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THOSE READING YOUR B/S ARE STUPID ENOUGH
TO THINK THE 6.5 MM THING WAS "ADDED" BUT NOT "PLANTED"?
This below is for your benefit, again if you think it "accidently" got on the
x-ray.
I honestly didn't think anyone could be so stupid they'd think an artifact could
### "ACCIDENTLY" ### appear on the AP x-ray that was:
1. the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo LHO used...
2. precisely the same distance right of midline as the autopsists' entry (2.5
cm)...
3. just below the HSCA's alleged cowlick entry...
4. and after the Navy Radiologist, Ebersole, admitted having possesion of the
x-rays (when only Chief Justice Warren was supposed to have access to them)...
But if you think it was just innocently "added" and not "planted", then you're
beyond anyone's help.
John Canal
lazu...@webtv.net
worth regular reading....
John Canal
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Excellent posts John Canal- you are the only diehard lone nutter that is
>worth regular reading....
Thanks for the kind words. Compliments like this are rare....so rare, I printed
it out. :-)
I've been pushing for a re-investigation of the medical evidence in this case
and, if that happens [it will some day, but, unfortunately, probably after my
time], I honestly believe my wierd sounding theories will be proven to be fact.
It's frustrating for me to have attained more than a fair amount of recognition
i my time as someone who is open-minded and analytical (hestitating to toot my
own horn but I was awarded two Air Force Meritorious Service Medals and recieved
a personal letter of gratitude from the President of the United States) to be
called crazy [and worse] by some hard-line LNs, not to mention some CTs, after
studying this case for 17 years, focusing almost exclusively on the head wounds
for the last 10.
It's somewhat satisfying that I've gotten Vince Bugliosi's, but he's so busy he
can't look into the matters that I've brought to his attention at least for the
forseeable future.
Comments like yours help soften the this frustration.
Thanks again.
John Canal
aeffects
> Excellent posts John Canal- you are the only diehard lone nutter that is
> worth regular reading....
We do need more of the Lone Nut Varsity around here, that's for sure!
And yes Laz, you're correct, John Canal is (and always has been) a
class act!
John Canal
David Von Pein
A COUPLE OF VERY GOOD 2004 QUOTES FROM JOHN McADAMS CONCERNING JFK'S
HEAD WOUNDS:
"Anybody can see that that defect is well above the EOP --
indeed about four inches above. And anybody can see that the fractures
in the AP x-ray radiate from a point about four inches above the EOP.
You guys just have too much to explain away." -- John McAdams; May 13,
2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/daceaec260a0442a
"John [Canal], let me be frank. You and your fellow Back of the
Head Buffs are just amateurs trying to interpret materials you don't
understand. Indeed, most of the materials you have [are] quite poor
compared to those that the HSCA FPP had.
You need to explain all of the following:
1.) The back of the head photo.
2.) The lateral x-rays.
3.) The AP x-ray.
4.) The pair of photos that included F8, showing the entry.
You and Barb just huff and puff but you can't really interpret away
ALL of that."
-- John McAdams; May 13, 2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e619e898d1a36649
David Von Pein
DVP SAID (RE: THE "6.5-MM. OBJECT" ON JFK'S X-RAY):
>>> "It's not a "bullet" fragment at all." <<<
DVP THEN LATER SAID:
>>> "As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet) fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know. But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray." <<<
JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>> "DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THOSE READING YOUR B/S ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THE 6.5 MM THING WAS "ADDED" BUT NOT "PLANTED"?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS (WHILE HEAVING A DEEP ~SIGH~):
John Canal should learn how to READ. I never ONCE said that I am of
the opinion that the 6.5-millimeter "object" on the X-ray was "added"
to the X-ray after 11/22/63 ("accidentally" or otherwise).
I'm admitting I have no idea what it is. But I specifically stated my
belief that WHATEVER it is, it certainly was not "planted" or "added"
to the X-ray film after the autopsy.
Whatever the "thing" is, it was certainly THERE ON NOVEMBER 22ND when
Dr. Humes (et al) looked at the X-rays at Bethesda.
I now give you Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):
"But if Dr. [David] Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit
the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of
cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which
enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an
actual bullet fragment?
"Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have
gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that
they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a
case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected
to the assassination is irrational on its face.
"One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were
willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary
to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the
attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
"Surely Dr. Mantik doesn’t want us to believe the “fragment” was
superimposed on the X-rays after the Warren Commission had already
concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman. Indeed, in his 2001 writing
on the subject, Mantik says the forgery was accomplished “shortly
after the autopsy,” which would be before the Warren Report came out,
ten months after the assassination.
"Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the
sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time
thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book
"Assassination Science"? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes section of "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton
& Co.)(c.2007)