DVP, Let's finish this questioning
John Canal
clarification regarding these two qustions. If you'll provide me that
clarification, I'd be happy to provide you with the citations for the right-rear
occipital scalp being damaged.
Regarding no. 1 below, since your April answers, we had a specifc discussion in
which I clarified my "theory" about Boswell shoving dslodged rear bone pieces
(still attached to the scalp) back in place before the X-rays. Specifically, I
made it clear that I thought he did that before the scalp was reflected. Prior
to that clarification, you seemed unclear as to my position on that. Ok, so now
that you are clear, has your April answer, which was a "yes" [actually a
"correct"] changed?
1. Are you 100% certain that Boswell did not shove any dislodged rear bone
pieces (that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the lateral
X-rays were taken?
Regarding question no. 2 below, this question, although similar, is different
from the one you answered in April to which you answered, "no". Specifically, I
added the scalp stretching theory to this new version of the question....does it
change your answer?
2. Are you 100% certain that the scalp, as seen in the BOH photographs, was not
stretched and/or repaired prior to those photos being taken?
Thank you.
John Canal
pamela
That is an interesting theory about the bone pieces being put back
into place prior to the x-rays, but where is the missing piece that
would correspond to the Harper fragment not found until the following
day?
John Canal
pamela says...
>
>On May 23, 7:07=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I went to the post where you answered my 20 questions but I still need
>> clarification regarding these two qustions. If you'll provide me that
>ht-rear
>> occipital scalp being damaged.
>>
>ion in
>> which I clarified my "theory" about Boswell shoving dslodged rear bone pi=
>eces
>> (still attached to the scalp) back in place before the X-rays. Specifical=
>ly, I
>> made it clear that I thought he did that before the scalp was reflected. =
>Prior
>> to that clarification, you seemed unclear as to my position on that. Ok, =
>so now
>> that you are clear, has your April answer, which was a "yes" [actually a
>> "correct"] changed?
>>
>e
>> pieces (that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the =
>lateral
>> X-rays were taken?
>>
>> Regarding question no. 2 below, this question, although similar, is diffe=
>rent
>> from the one you answered in April to which you answered, "no". Specifica=
>lly, I
>> added the scalp stretching theory to this new version of the question....=
>does it
>> change your answer?
>>
>as not
>> stretched and/or repaired prior to those photos being taken?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> John Canal
>
>That is an interesting theory about the bone pieces being put back
>into place prior to the x-rays,
Actually I theorize that he "shoved" or "pushed" the dislodged bone pieces that
were still adhered to the scalp back into place, as opposed to "put them back".
It seems like semantics but for me "put back" sounds too much like some pieces
were completely out and not attached to anything and were put back. Truthfully,
I don't know how he would have done that.
>but where is the missing piece that
>would correspond to the Harper fragment not found until the following
>day?
I was talking about dislodged "occipital" bone pieces that were still adhered to
the scalp. The Harper bone fragment was "parietal" and was blown into
DP...whether or not Harper said there was any scalp still ahered to it, I can't
recall.....but now that it comes up, I'm curious if anyone knows.
pamela
> In article <264449e3-ca68-45b0-be90-aa1e12f42...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Shoudn't there have been a hole of the same shape in the skull x-rays?
David Von Pein
>>> "I went to the post where you answered my 20 questions but I still need clarification regarding these two questions. If you'll provide me that clarification, I'd be happy to provide you with the citations for the right-rear occipital scalp being damaged. Regarding #1 below, since your April answers, we had a specifc discussion in which I clarified my "theory" about Boswell shoving dislodged rear bone pieces (still attached to the scalp) back in place before the X-rays. Specifically, I made it clear that I thought he did that before the scalp was reflected. Prior to that clarification, you seemed unclear as to my position on that. Ok, so now that you are clear, has your April answer, which was a "yes" [actually a "correct"] changed? .... 1. Are you 100% certain that Boswell did not shove any dislodged rear bone pieces (that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the lateral X-rays were taken?" <<<
Based on the available photographic evidence (mainly this lateral X-
ray of the right side of JFK's head)....
....my answer to your #1 question above is: Yes, I am confident that
Dr. Boswell could not have shoved any bones back into the REAR of
JFK's head.
If Dr. Boswell shoved any "dislodged" pieces of loose bone back into
the skull of JFK, it's my opinion (or belief) that any such loose bone
pieces/fragments must certainly have come from an area on JFK's head
that wasn't in the "occipital" (or far-right-rear) area of the
President's head.
I will say this, though, John -- If a better-quality photo of the
lateral X-ray ever comes into my possession (or if I should ever be
lucky enough to actually see the original X-ray(s) at the National
Archives some day in the future), I'll be more than eager to re-
evaluate my current position of "There Was No Fragmentation In The
Occipital Portions Of JFK's Skull".
And I would certainly be willing to change my current beliefs
regarding the condition of the back of JFK's skull if, after looking
at any better-quality copies of the X-ray (or the original X-ray), I
am able to see additional fracture lines in the BACK (occipital)
portions of President Kennedy's head -- i.e., fracture lines that
would spell out to me "fragmentation" in the REAR of JFK's skull,
mainly in the RIGHT-REAR of the head, which is where John Canal really
needs there to be a decent-sized area of "fragmentation" (in other
words, the right-rear area of JFK's heads was pretty much "falling to
pieces").
But as it stands right now, I'm of the very firm opinion that the X-
rays I have seen of JFK's skull do not, in any way, reveal the kind of
fragmentation (falling to pieces) in the REAR portions of JFK's head
(particularly the right-rear/occipital areas) that Mr. John A. Canal
certainly requires in order for his unique "LN/BOH" theory to be
accurate.
Also:
The SCALP of President Kennedy, of course, is a totally separate and
different issue. And I cannot see any way for Mr. Canal's theory to be
a correct and true theory with respect to the RIGHT-REAR SCALP of the
late President Kennedy....because JFK's scalp is NOT severely damaged
in this autopsy photograph below -- nor does it appear to be damaged
AT ALL:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
The scalp looks perfect in every way to my eyes in all of the various
autopsy photographs I have seen; and the high-quality autopsy photo of
the back of JFK's head which was supplied to this newsgroup's members
several days ago by John Fiorentino (which I downloaded and examined)
only seems to re-confirm my beliefs regarding the right-rear scalp of
JFK.
Mr. Fiorentino's excellent-quality autopsy image (which is the same
photo as the second image linked above, except that John's version is
clearer with much better resolution) is showing the exact area of the
back of JFK's head (scalp/hair) which Mr. Canal keeps insisting was
damaged on 11/22/63 as a result of Lee Oswald's bullet.
Mr. Canal believes that the scalp was repaired (sutured on the inside
of the scalp) prior to those multiple BOH autopsy photos being taken.
But I'd like to know why on Earth NONE of the autopsy doctors could
confirm such PRE-PICTURE-TAKING REPAIRS being done on JFK's scalp in
the right-rear area of the scalp?
And I'd also like to know why in the world the autopsy doctors, when
they testified in front of the various Governmental commissions and
committees after 1963, didn't recall the scalp being "stretched" all
out of whack when John Stringer was taking the picture of the entry
wound?
Dr. Humes (et al) seemed confused as to the precise location of the
entry wound in JFK's head when they testified before the HSCA and
ARRB, but they never remembered that the scalp had been severely
"stretched" (according to Mr. Canal) prior to the taking of that BOH
photo(s).
Why wouldn't Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck have remembered such a
massive "stretching" of the scalp taking place -- especially when
those doctors were undoubtedly straining their brains to try and
recall what really did take place at Bethesda at the time the BOH
pictures were taken by Stringer?
Food for "scalp-stretching" thought....isn't it?
>>> "Regarding question no. 2 below, this question, although similar, is different from the one you answered in April to which you answered, "no". Specifically, I added the scalp-stretching theory to this new version of the question....does it change your answer? .... 2. Are you 100% certain that the scalp, as seen in the BOH photographs, was not stretched and/or repaired prior to those photos being taken? Thank you." <<<
See my comments above.
But my (fairly) short answer to this question is -- No, but I'm pretty
doggone sure the President's scalp wasn't being stretched several
inches in the BOH photos, and I also do not think that the scalp was
"repaired" in the "BOH" areas where you think it needed to be
repaired. And that's mainly because I just don't think President
Kennedy's right-rear SCALP sustained the damage that you think it did
sustain, John.
John Canal
The Harper Fragment is not there in the X-rays....and there is no bone in the
top/right/front either.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
[...]
>....my answer to your #1 question above is: Yes, I am confident that
>Dr. Boswell could not have shoved any bones back into the REAR of
>JFK's head.
Huh? I asked if you were 100% certain that he didn't shove any dislodged pieces
of rear bone (that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the
x-rays.....and you said "yes". That would have been fine, but you went on to say
you were "confident".... Which is it?...please.....are you "100% certain" or
just "confident" he didn't do that?
[....]
David Von Pein
>>> "Huh? I asked if you were 100% certain that he didn't shove any dislodged pieces of rear bone (that were still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the x-rays.....and you said "yes". That would have been fine, but you went on to say you were "confident".... Which is it?...please.....are you "100% certain" or just "confident" he didn't do that?" <<<
Oh, for Pete sake. Give me a break, will you, John? :)
Okay, let's try this yet again ----
Here's my "official" answer to your question, Mr. Canal:
No, I'm not "100% certain" that Dr. Boswell didn't "shove any
dislodged pieces of rear bone (that were still adhered to the scalp)
back into place before the x-rays".
I'm only approximately 94.775% certain that he didn't do such a thing
(and COULDN'T have physically done such a thing, based on the copy of
the lateral X-ray that I have seen many, many times).*
* = This is very similar to the kind of debate that arises when
somebody asks, "Are you 100% certain that Lee Harvey Oswald acted
alone on 11/22/63?"
When answering that question, I also think it's a good idea to leave
the door open (just a crack) to allow for the very remote possibility
of Oswald having an accomplice. So, I'd have to say that I'm only
approximately 99.94237% certain that Lee H. Oswald was performing a
solo act in Dallas on November 22nd.
aeffects
your like stink on shit aren't you hon? Now twitter... your legacy is
shit read: a ghostly fraud, but you leave behind a database... kinda
reminds me of .john. But with a budget, eh? LMFAO! Mr. Von Pein would
you care to comment for the cameras this evening? Eh? LMFAO
John Canal
>dislodged pieces of rear bone (that were still adhered to the scalp)
>back into place before the x-rays".
Do you still want those citatations for the right-rear of his head being
damaged? Let me know, if so I'll get them tomorrow....there are several.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
I'll work on this tomorrow...I'm getting up at 5 AM to take my Grandson fishing.
Look for my reply in the afternoon.
>>>>"Do you still want those citatations for the right-rear of his head being
>>>>damaged? Let me know, if so I'll get them tomorrow....there are several." <<<
>
>The right-rear SCALP specifically, John.
>
>Yes, please provide those citations....for the SCALP being damaged in
>the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head.
>
>And here's a Boswell quote for you to chew on:
>
>
> "There were a lot of small fragments attached to the scalp as it
>was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of
>which--I think two of which--we subsequently retrieved." -- Dr. J.T.
>Boswell; ARRB; 1996
>
>
>
>Now, I'm sure that John Canal has his own interpretation of the above
>quote by Dr. Boswell....but, IMO, the TOTALITY of Boswell's quote
>above sounds more like Boswell is talking mostly about the TOP and
>RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, and not any part of the BACK or REAR
>portions of the head.
>
>Why do I say that?
>
>Because.....
>
>Boswell segues from "small fragments attached to the scalp as it was
>reflected" .... directly to .... "but most of that space, the bone was
>missing".
>
>And WHERE on JFK's head was the bone "missing"? Answer -- the TOP and
>RIGHT SIDE of the head (toward the front of the President's head).
>
>Yes, the word "most" is in Boswell's quote above too. So, yes, there
>can be differing interpretaions about exactly WHERE on President
>Kennedy's head the "small fragments attached to the scalp" came from.
>
>And that's part of the problem with Mr. Canal's overall "BOH" theory,
>IMO -- the testimony of the doctors can seemingly be interpreted in
>various ways regarding the head wounds of JFK.
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you still want those citations for the right-rear of his head being damaged? Let me know, if so I'll get them tomorrow....there are several." <<<
The right-rear SCALP specifically, John.
Yes, please provide those citations....for the SCALP being damaged in
the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head.
And here's a Boswell quote for you to chew on:
"There were a lot of small fragments attached to the scalp as it
was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of
which--I think two of which--we subsequently retrieved." -- Dr. J.T.
Boswell; ARRB; 1996
Now, I'm sure that John Canal has his own interpretation of the above
quote by Dr. Boswell....but, IMO, the TOTALITY of Boswell's quote
above sounds more like Boswell is talking mostly about the TOP and
RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, and not any part of the BACK or REAR
portions of the head.
Why do I say that?
Because.....
Boswell segues from "small fragments attached to the scalp as it was
reflected" .... directly to .... "but most of that space, the bone was
missing".
And WHERE on JFK's head was the bone "missing"? Answer -- the TOP and
RIGHT SIDE of the head (toward the front of the President's head).
There can, indeed, be differing interpretations by different people
when it comes to analyzing the testimony of witnesses. And that's part
of the problem with Mr. Canal's overall "BOH" theory, IMO, because the
testimony of the doctors can seemingly be interpreted in various ways
regarding President Kennedy's head wounds.
aeffects
you get a response from Rosemary yet?
David Von Pein
MR. CRACKPIPE SAID (AT 3:14 AM EDT, 5/24/09):
>>> "I'm through with you [DVP]." <<<
MR. CRACKPIPE SAID (AT 3:37 AM EDT, 5/24/09):
>>> "hey troll.... you get a response from Rosemary yet?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Hey, not bad, Healy/retard!
Your latest "I'm through with you" promise lasted 23 whole minutes
this time.
That's a lot longer than I expected.
aeffects
peeking back through the sands of time aeffects says: you're done
shithead, Rosemary will be contacting you, so I may be seeing you on-
camera someday, could you handle that son? Full-time, bigtime
production, what you've always craved.... no money but you have to cut
your chops somewhere, eh? I'll even drop by the green room before
taping time, but alas, you won't see questions ahead of time, so, its
time to bring on the varsity, a varsity that can put together at least
two coherent sentences on-camera, are you part of that nutter-troll
varsity, TROLL?
David Von Pein
>>> "Rosemary will be contacting you..." <<<
How can she? I thought she was a "ghost", residing only in my
"imagination".
Make up your mind, retard.
Healy, you're a howl!
>>> "So I may be seeing you on-camera someday, could you handle that son?" <<<
ROFL.
As if your retarded posts on this forum (or anywhere else) would make
Rosemary or Vince B. have the SLIGHTEST desire to want to set up some
sort of "media" event with you.
Rosemary was probably holding a crucifix up to her computer screen
while reading the worthless drivel of yours that I mailed her.
Mr. Crackpipe, you're a stitch.
>>> "...a varsity that can put together at least two coherent sentences on-camera..." <<<
Well, that leaves you out, Healy.
Which of the many conspiracy kooks will be filling in for you?
Armstrong? Fetzer? Marrs? Groden?