Re: JOHN CANAL, VINCENT BUGLIOSI, DVP, AND JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71de23e3afec8b
>>> "Challenge for DVP -- You seem to have good rapport with VB's secretary, right? Yes, of course you do...so here's the challange [sic]: Ask her to ask VB whether or not he intends on re-investigating (when he finishes chasing after Bush) the medical evidence himself to see if he needs to modify his positon [sic] re. the head wounds. Of course you won't do that....for the same reason you won't try to figure out F8 -- because you're afraid that what you find out won't please you. But the challenge stands anyway. /s/ John Canal" <<<
Challenge accepted....and completed (via the e-mail [shown below] that
I sent to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, Rosemary Newton, on the
morning of Sunday, April 19th, 2009):
================================================
Subject: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 2:27:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
-------------------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
It's been a few months since I've contacted you. I hope you are doing
well (and Vince B. too).
Over the course of the last couple of years, a JFK researcher (who is
also the author of the 2000 book "Silencing The Lone Assassin"*) named
John Canal and I have occasionally become involved in a debate
concerning JFK's head wounds. And apparently John has been in touch
with Vince Bugliosi about the "head wounds" subject too.
* = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:
On April 18, 2009, John "challenged"** me to try and find out whether
Vince was going to "re-investigate" and possibly "modify his position"
with respect to the topic of President Kennedy's head wounds.
** = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/047d22f03286b2a4
So, I thought I would accept his "challenge" and write this e-mail to
you and ask you that question. (Plus, it also provides me with a good
excuse to write and say "Hi", too.)
My stance on the "head wounds" subject has been made clear to Mr.
Canal via our many Internet forum discussions, with my position being
that Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need to "modify" anything he has written in
his 2007 book ("Reclaiming History"), nor SHOULD he modify anything he
has already placed in that comprehensive publication.
The subject of the head wounds is thoroughly and logically laid out in
very good detail in Mr. Bugliosi's book, in my opinion. But Mr. Canal
has latched on to a couple of very odd theories concerning JFK's head
wounds, with one of his theories being that the autopsy doctors at
Bethesda hesitated to be totally forthright and truthful about the
extent of damage that really existed in the back ("occipital") area of
JFK's head as a result of the bullet that came out of Lee Harvey
Oswald's gun.
But as I've suggested to Mr. Canal on multiple occasions in our
Internet exchanges, his theory about the three autopsists simply
crumbles into a pile of dust (in my own opinion) when we examine the
theory in a reasonable and logical manner, such as in this excerpt of
an Internet post I wrote in 2007:
"Since the autopsy report and doctors are so vivid and ultra-
clear in the description of the ONE AND ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's
head (with that hole being positively consistent with the "Oswald Did
This Alone" scenario, regardless of exactly WHERE the resulting exit
wound were to reside on the President's head)....why would the doctors
feel there was the slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their
descriptions of any "BOH" [Back Of Head] wound (large or small)?
"You [John Canal] said that the [autopsy] doctors feared that by
revealing a large BOH wound they would be opening up the door to
rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front.
"But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.
"There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None.
So even WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot
adhere to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a
larger BOH hole.
"Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE
bullet striking JFK's head from the rear...could obviously have been
easily explained by the same doctors as merely the extensive
fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet which
entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after entering
the skull." -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2007 (which was, by the way,
one month before I ever laid eyes on Vincent Bugliosi's book,
"Reclaiming History")
Source Link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
If Vince is interested in more of my long-winded opinions concerning
Mr. Canal's strange theories about JFK's head wounds, I've provided a
link below to an Internet post where I am responding to an earlier
message written by John Canal. This post pretty much sums up my whole
position regarding this matter:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi will have a different opinion on the matter after
digesting John Canal's theories. But in my view, Mr. Canal is grasping
for straws in order to try and reconcile (in his own mind) the
discrepancies regarding JFK's head wounds.
There are, indeed, discrepancies when it comes to the topic of JFK's
head wounds. There's no doubt about that. I just don't think Mr. Canal
has the definitive answer to resolve those discrepancies.
And furthermore, the motive that Canal has attached to the three
autopsy doctors for their wanting to hide the full truth about the
condition of the back of President Kennedy's head is--in my own
considered opinion--simply laughable.
Thank you for your time, Rosemary.
Best regards,
David Von Pein
================================================
Subject: Re: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 8:41:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
-------------------------------------
Hi again Rosemary,
Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to include a short (but
important) "Common Sense Addendum" to my last e-mail that I sent you
(regarding the specific subject of the location of the entry wound on
the back of President Kennedy's head).
Researcher John Canal thinks that JFK's scalp is being "stretched"
three or more inches in this autopsy picture linked below (thus
distorting and skewing the true location of the entry wound in
Kennedy's head):
Regarding this particular point, I wrote this message in an Internet
post in early April of 2009 (and these are two very important
questions too, relating to Mr. Canal's "scalp-stretching" theory):
"Why would the [autopsy] doctors have had a desire to document
the TRUE location of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head by
STRETCHING his scalp in such an extreme manner (per John Canal's
theory) that the doctors and photographer John Stringer certainly must
have KNOWN on 11/22/63 that such a photograph would NOT be depicting
the TRUE and ACCURATE location of the entry wound?
"Were the autopsy doctors deliberately TRYING to hide the true
location of the entry hole by "stretching" the scalp in absurd ways
before having a picture taken of the wound (i.e., a picture that was
taken for the specific reason of showing WHERE on Kennedy's head the
entry wound was located)?
"Come now, John [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." --
DVP; April 4, 2009
Source Link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96282f364fca7448
Thank you for allowing me to bother you (and Vince) again.
Regards,
David Von Pein
================================================
Subject: Re: Addendum To My Last E-Mail
Date: 4/19/2009 5:41:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------------------
Hi David,
It was great hearing from you again. It has been a long time. I faxed
Vince your e-mails and got a reply quickly. First off, Vince asked
that I tell you how much he appreciates your continuing support. Here
is his reply:
"In response to his e-mail you can quote me as saying: John
Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the autopsy doctors in
the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who has read my book and
still believes this, there obviously is nothing I can say to him or
her to infuse their mind with common sense. However, in the spirit of
scholarship that guided me while writing Reclaiming History, if it
comes out in a second edition, I will examine and address myself to
any responsible new theory, including Mr. Canal's, that came out
subsequent to the publication of the book." [-- Vincent Bugliosi;
April 19, 2009]
There you have it! I'll be checking on the internet.
Take care & stay cool,
Rosemary
================================================
Subject: Re: VB And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 10:13:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
-------------------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
Thanks for the quick reply...and my thanks to Vince too for his very
fast reply as well.
Best Regards,
David Von Pein
================================================
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7e71d...
>
> >>> "Challenge for DVP -- You seem to have good rapport with VB's secretary, right? Yes, of course you do...so here's the challange [sic]: Ask her to ask VB whether or not he intends on re-investigating (when he finishes chasing after Bush) the medical evidence himself to see if he needs to modify his positon [sic] re. the head wounds. Of course you won't do that....for the same reason you won't try to figure out F8 -- because you're afraid that what you find out won't please you. But the challenge stands anyway. /s/ John Canal" <<<
>
> Challenge accepted....and completed (via the e-mail [shown below] that
> I sent to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, Rosemary Newton, on the
> morning of Sunday, April 19th, 2009):
hon, why do you insist we know about your chit-chat with Rosemary, as
if that coward Vince Bugliosi would show up here...... and you of ALL
people think you play his second.... huh, second to WHAT?
John Canal wants to dual post, fine, you hijacking a thread to here in
order to promote Vinnie is ludicrous..... take a stab at those 45
questions troll, show the world you have nads! They did drop, right?
<snip the nutter nonsense>
David Von Pein
Subject: JFK's Head Wounds And John Canal
Date: 5/19/2009 4:06:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
------------------------------
Hello again Rosemary,
I'm sorry to bother you (and Vincent Bugliosi) with more JFK-related
stuff, but I think you once told me that Vince wanted me to keep him
informed, via these e-mails, of any new Internet developments relating
to the JFK assassination. So I'm doing that now.
Mr. Bugliosi has been in touch with a Mr. John Canal recently
regarding certain issues related to President Kennedy's head wounds.
I've been battling Mr. Canal on the Internet for quite some time
concerning that topic. I've included links to a few of my recent
online duels with John that I think might be of some interest to Mr.
Bugliosi.
As I've stated in previous Internet articles, it's my opinion that
Vince pretty much already has everything correct in his book
"Reclaiming History" when it comes to the subject of JFK's head
injuries. Mr. Canal strongly disagrees however. Hence, these online
arguments continue.
So, if you'd like to send the following Internet posts along to
Vincent, I'd appreciate it. I'm certainly not as much of an expert on
the JFK case as Vince is, but I think I've incorporated a great deal
of common sense into these Internet articles, and that common sense is
(in my personal opinion) totally destroying John Canal's theories at
their core.
Thank you very much, Rosemary, for graciously accepting my e-mails and
for passing some of them on to Mr. B.
Here are the links:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/206d901e1d772b00
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed6f679852c2c6b4
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
Best regards always,
David Von Pein
=================================================
Subject: Re: JFK's Head Wounds And John Canal
Date: 5/20/2009 4:59:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
I'll [be] seeing Vince today or tomorrow and will give him copies of
your internet posts. Do you ever feel frustrated (silly question) with
illogic?
Have a good day and take a couple of aspirins if it gets too much,
Rosemary
=================================================
aeffects
ROTFLMFAO -- a composite DVP getting whimsical messages from Rosemary
(baby) perhaps? LMFAO! What I love about you son? You've been so full
of shit the past 8 years, you're actually believing your own bullshit
posts now, happens with pathological liars, ALL the time...
ya see lurkers: he needs to do this, its called, testing the waters.
Smelling out where the CT's are research, hoping for a pearl so he can
shove it off to .john get a pat on the back, then spend the next few
months fuming over why DMyers gets all the writing jobs while he's
stuck cutting & pasting on ACJ..... ah such is the life of a second
stringer (well, maybe a third stringer). Remember those old days, hon
when you were selling oldtime tv DVD's and baseball games (of all
things)? Now its living in your brother's bedroom at Mom's...... sad
state of affairs, troll!
justm...@gmail.com
There ya have it lurkers...another post by Healy showing his reading
comprehension is that of a tree stump!
Canal asked for DVP to contact VB you moron. DVP is posting the emails
showing that he did what Canal asked. Stop your continual jealously
Healy. The only one you have to worship is Holmes, a noted liar and
deceiver to this newsgroup. I can see why your jealousy of anyone who
actually knows about this case sends you into a frenzy. Where DVP
lives and what he's done in the past to make a living or his hobbies
has nothing to do with the fact that he can wipe the crap off a dogs
ass with you when it comes to debating this assassination. Now
Healy...for your next project, why don't you go find this Zapruder
imposter who filmed a fake Zapruder film the day JFK was assassinated.
Thats John Fitzgerald Kennedy, not John FRANCIS Kennedy. Hop to it
troll, you have your lurkers to impress around here!!!!!
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c4f77d860d1ffe50
RE: The Entry Wound In JFK's Head.......
There is also the testimony (linked below) given by a member of the
HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, Charles Petty, at the 1986 mock trial
in London, where Petty states to the jury (and to the world) that the
brain of John F. Kennedy "did not show the kind of lacerations and
contusions that would be expected if the bullet entered where the
autopsy doctors said it entered" (slightly paraphrased Petty quote).
In other words -- The "EOP" entry cannot be supported by an
examination of the photos that the HSCA/FPP saw of JFK's brain.
And just ordinary, garden-variety common sense would tell a person
that it makes quite a bit MORE sense to have a HIGH-ON-THE-HEAD entry
wound, since we know we've got a HIGH-ON-THE-HEAD exit wound in
President Kennedy's skull.
DR. PETTY IN 1986:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=h6SwWGBBGI0
www.YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=1993B641DFC1CB06
www.RapidShare.com/files/236284041/TESTIMONY_OF_CHARLES_PETTY_AT_1986_TELEVISION_DOCU-TRIAL.wmv
John Canal
to your Petty post.
JF wrote:
>Honestly, John, I believe you have gone over the edge with this.
>
>Your questions are bizarre as your assertions and your speculations as
>meritless as your theory.
"My" theory is meritless? If it were only two or three PH docs/witnesses, out of
the many who said they saw a BOH wound and cerebellum, I could buy the notion,
albeit with some skepticism, that they had been mistaken.....but anyone who
thinks about 20 credble doctors and other medically trained EYEwitnesses, who
corroborted each other each when they said there was a BOH wound, are
collectively "mistaken"....has, as you say, gone "over the top".
>You don't have to "believe" me John, you simply have to look at the
>evidence. Unfortunately none of it supports your theories.
>
>Others thought they saw "cerebellum" and afterward realized they were
>mistaken. "Mistaken" John, that's what can happen to people, not photos.
The mistake [intentional?] was to shove the photos of an undamaged rear scalp in
their faces and ask them if they had any second thoughts regarding their
original claim they had seen a BOH wound. Their choices were: 1) the photos are
fakes, or 2) my recollections must be wrong. Some chose--surprise, surprise--not
to accuse the USG of faking official photos and waivered regarding their
original recollections.
>Unless of course, you believe all those photos are fakes?
The photos are not fakes, they are misleading because the ones showing the BOH
were taken later in the procedure and that was not explained to the witnesses wh
they were shown to.
As far as not seeing the sutures on the underside of the scalp in F8, I wouldn't
expect to. By that time the scalp had been stretched and the tear/s in the rear
scalp (that had been sutured closed) were higher up (in the photo-F8) and would
have been obscured by the ruler and autopsist's hand.
Look at the BOH photos, including the one Belin gave you. Do you see that
laceration extending forward and to the right from the red splotch? That's the
laceration that, pre-scalp-stretching, was once in the right-rear of his
BOH.....and now (in the BOH photos) is closed. How do you think that laceration
was closed, JF?????
Bizarre theory--yes, I agree. But the SBT is a little bizarre, and it's true,
isn't t? Also, what would be more bizarre than both my theory and the SBT is the
notion that close to 30 credible witnesses were collectively wrong about what
they said they saw....and basing that notion on photos and x-rays!!
John Canal
>John F.
David Von Pein
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "The mistake [intentional?] was to shove the photos of an undamaged rear scalp in their faces [i.e., the faces of 4 Parkland doctors in 1988 for the PBS-TV program "Who Shot President Kennedy?"] and ask them if they had any second thoughts regarding their original claim they had seen a BOH wound. Their choices were: 1) the photos are fakes, or 2) my recollections must be wrong. Some chose--surprise, surprise--not to accuse the USG of faking official photos and waivered [sic] regarding their original recollections." <<<
DVP SAID (ON NOVEMBER 14, 2008):
The comments made by the four Parkland Hospital doctors (McClelland,
Dulany, Peters, and Jenkins) on the NOVA PBS-TV program in 1988 make
no sense whatsoever (when you stop to think about it for more than a
couple of seconds).
They EACH said that the autopsy photos depicted the President's body
in just exactly the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at
Parkland. And yet the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e.,
before viewing the photos at the National Archives, each doctor
pointed to the REAR of their heads for the PBS camera (which is where
they all said the large exit wound was located on JFK's head--with
Dulany actually pointing to the CENTER area of the back of his head,
nearer the cowlick or the EOP area).
They then go and view the photos and then claim, on camera, that the
wounds in the pictures are exactly the same as what they said they saw
at Parkland.
That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher.
And McClelland's possible explanation for why this is the case is just
nuts too (IMO) -- because if McClelland were right about the flap of
scalp being pulled up over the larger wound underneath that scalp...it
would, of course, mean that Kennedy's scalp must have been peeled back
in that manner while JFK was at Parkland....and we know that didn't
happen.
Kennedy's scalp wasn't peeled back like a banana at Parkland...which
means that there was no way in Hades for McClelland and the other
doctors to have seen any underlying hole in the back of Kennedy's head
at Parkland (per McClelland's oddball "the scalp was pulled up, which
hid the large hole" theory).
I don't know what "pressures" those doctors were under in 1988 when
they viewed those autopsy photos for PBS-TV's NOVA program, but their
explanations after seeing the photos do not mesh at all with their
comments and the physical demonstration that each doctor performed for
the camera before going in to see those pictures.
I hate to utter my theory on this -- for fear of being laughed out of
the country. But I will say it anyway:
I think it's possible that those doctors were just flat-out
embarrassed to admit that they were wrong when it came to locating the
true location of JFK's large head wound.
The photos have been authenticated by the HSCA. And the photos
positively depict President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy. And
each doctor surely must have known those facts before viewing the
pictures at the Archives in 1988.
After seeing the various photos which undeniably PROVE that they were
each wrong about where they originally said the large wound on JFK's
head was located, the doctors still could not bring themselves to say
this to the NOVA camera --- "After looking at these photos, I must
admit that I was mistaken when I said that the President's large head
wound was located in the far-right-rear portion of his head. I must
have been in error. And these photographs prove that I was in error."
Instead, the four doctors said that the photos somehow CORROBORATED
their original belief regarding JFK's head wounds. But we know the
photos do not corroborate a single one of those doctors.
I guess the doctors at Parkland don't like to admit they made an
innocent error.
~shrug~
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/813b15ee4ce35148
===================================
IN MAY 2009, ANOTHER LONE-ASSASSIN BELIEVER (NICK KENDRICK) SAID THIS
AT ANOTHER JFK FORUM:
>>> "I think it's simpler than that, David. The doctors [who examined the autopsy photographs at the National Archives in 1988 for the PBS-TV documentary "Who Shot President Kennedy?"] (none of whom examined the head wound in detail, since they had no reason to do so) had an impression that there was a massive wound in the back of the head. With blood congealing at this area when the President was on his back, it was an absolutely understandable reaction from doctors who were working under great pressure, on their own bloodied President, with no time to study the wounds. When they saw the autopsy photographs, they stated the pictures were basically what they saw in the operating room. Essentially, they were simply conceding they were mistaken about where they believed the wound to be. Highly understandable errors, from very decent doctors." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
But I don't understand why the doctors couldn't have been completely
forthright, however, after viewing the photos at the National
Archives.
Let me be clear(er) --- I don't think for a second that the doctors
were part of some "conspiracy", but their comments on the 1988 NOVA
program do not mesh with what they each said about the wounds prior to
seeing the autopsy pictures.
Dr. Pepper Jenkins came the closest to providing a full-fledged "I was
wrong" declaration, when Jenkins conceded that the exit wound was more
to the SIDE of JFK's head, instead of his previously-stated opinion of
the wound being entirely posterior.
And at least two of the doctors did, indeed, say they were mistaken
about seeing "cerebellum" oozing out of President Kennedy's head.
But the doctors could still have been more forthright on the NOVA
program, IMO. And McClelland's explanation about the "scalp pulling"
is just ludicrous. Because, as I mentioned, if that were true, it
would HAVE to mean that JFK's scalp was reflected (peeled) back on his
head in the Parkland ER....and that's nuts, because it wasn't
"reflected" at all.
Anyway, that's my $0.02.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cf9bfe4d0870f9b2
==========================================
PARKLAND DOCTORS VIEW AUTOPSY PHOTOS IN 1988:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU8rU2RmXDQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOEZYiSJKQ
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E9B048A60AFE038A
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
==========================================
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "Bizarre theory--yes, I agree. But the SBT is a little bizarre, and it's true, isn't it? Also, what would be more bizarre than both my theory and the SBT is the notion that close to 30 credible witnesses were collectively wrong about what they said they saw....and basing that notion on photos and x-rays!!" <<<
DVP SAYS:
I disagree, John.
When it comes down to a choice between:
1.) AUTHENTIC (unaltered) photographs and X-rays of President
Kennedy's body;
or:
2.) The observations of witnesses (even though there were a lot of
them in the "Large BOH Wound" camp)....
I think we've got to go with #1, the photographs and X-rays.
And the photographs AND X-rays are particularly impressive in a "No
BOH Wound" and "High (Cowlick) Entry Hole" fashion in this [JFK]
case....because ALL of those photos and X-rays are CORROBORATING each
other with respect to those two conclusions (No Large BOH Wound and
Cowlick Entry)!
Whereas, you (John Canal) have ZERO pieces of photographic evidence to
support EITHER of your "BOH" theories (i.e., Large-ish Hole In The BOH
and EOP Entry).
IMO, the HARD evidence (which are the photos and X-rays--in tandem!)
simply must trump the "BOH" witnesses at Parkland AND Bethesda.
Logical Question:
What was the whole point of even taking any of the autopsy pictures
and X-rays, John, if it wasn't to demonstrate the TRUE AND ACCURATE
NATURE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S WOUNDS AT HIS AUTOPSY?
Can anyone REALLY believe that ALL of the photos and X-rays (in
unison!), not to mention the Zapruder Film to a lesser extent, are
telling a totally-FALSE tale regarding the President's head wounds?
Is that a logical thing to believe? IMO, it is not.
John Canal
>
>
>>>> "The mistake [intentional?] was to shove the photos of an undamaged rea=
>r scalp in their faces [i.e., the faces of 4 Parkland doctors in 1988 for t=
>he PBS-TV program "Who Shot President Kennedy?"] and ask them if they had a=
>ny second thoughts regarding their original claim they had seen a BOH wound=
>. Their choices were: 1) the photos are fakes, or 2) my recollections must =
>be wrong. Some chose--surprise, surprise--not to accuse the USG of faking o=
>fficial photos and waivered [sic] regarding their original recollections." =
><<<
>
>
>DVP SAID (ON NOVEMBER 14, 2008):
>
>
>The comments made by the four Parkland Hospital doctors (McClelland,
>Dulany, Peters, and Jenkins) on the NOVA PBS-TV program in 1988 make
>no sense whatsoever (when you stop to think about it for more than a
>couple of seconds).
>
>They EACH said that the autopsy photos depicted the President's body
>in just exactly the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at
>Parkland. And yet the exact opposite is (of course) true -- i.e.,
>before viewing the photos at the National Archives, each doctor
>pointed to the REAR of their heads for the PBS camera (which is where
>they all said the large exit wound was located on JFK's head--with
>Dulany actually pointing to the CENTER area of the back of his head,
>nearer the cowlick or the EOP area).
>
>They then go and view the photos and then claim, on camera, that the
>wounds in the pictures are exactly the same as what they said they saw
>at Parkland.
>
>That's just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher.
It makes perfect sense to me. They know pictures don't lie, and they were shown
a photo, that had been previously authenticated by the autopsists themselves
[and I'm sure the doctors were told that], that they thought reflected the
condition of JFK's rear scalp...their natural reaction would have been to doubt
their own recollections. Again, they certainly would not have challenged the
authenticity of the photos. That said, some of them stood fast--they knew what
they saw.
But do think for a second that it was explained to them that the BOH photos were
not taken when the body was first received? At best that was irresponsible and,
IMO, more likely, deceptive? And, if you don't think they [Baden et. al.] knew
the brain was already out when those pictures were taken, your're wrong and just
need to read Finck's HSCA deposition to realize that.
The dots couldn't be closer together--I can't connect them for you, but, rest
assured, some day (hopefully sooner rather than later) VB will connect
them....he has certainly given some thought to the notion that he needs to
re-investigate Baden's official line....which has more holes in it than Swiss
cheese.
Question for you. What do you think that whitish irregular line is that extends
forward and to the right from the red spot in the BOH photos? A part in his hair
or a scalp laceration as Boswell described it?
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "Question for you. What do you think that whitish irregular line is that extends forward and to the right from the red spot in the BOH photos? A part in his hair or a scalp laceration as Boswell described it?" <<<
It's the part in JFK's hair. It looks nothing like a "laceration" at
all, IMO. It looks like his underlying scalp (where his hair is
"parting"):
>>> "The dots couldn't be closer together--I can't connect them for you, but, rest assured, some day (hopefully sooner rather than later) VB [Vincent Bugliosi] will connect them....he has certainly given some thought to the notion that he needs to re-investigate Baden's official line....which has more holes in it than Swiss cheese." <<<
Nonsense. All the dots have already been connected. And it couldn't be
more obvious via the best possible evidence (the photos/X-rays) that
there was no damage to the right-rear portion of JFK's head (and it's
obvious that the entry hole is high on Kennedy's head, near his
cowlick).
Vincent Bugliosi is certainly not going to endorse a theory invented
by John A. Canal which has ZERO pieces of photographic evidence to
support it.
Plus there's the fact that if Vince were to officially endorse Mr.
Canal's crazy theory, VB would be officially calling a whole bunch of
people "liars" (or "boobs") -- e.g., all nine members of the HSCA's
Forensic Pathology Panel, plus all four doctors on the Clark Panel
too.
Here are Vince Bugliosi's choices (in a nutshell):
1.) Continue to endorse the final conclusion concerning the location
of the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was
arrived at by all 9 members of the HSCA's FPP and all 4 members of the
Clark Panel -- that conclusion being: the entry wound was HIGH on
JFK's head, near the cowlick (and the autopsy photos AND X-rays line
themselves up perfectly -- i.e., the cowlick entry wound in the skull
on the X-rays, per the Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP, is located
DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the cowlick entry wound located in the scalp in
the autopsy photos). ....
And continue to endorse the firm conclusion reached by the
leading pathologist on the HSCA's FPP (Michael Baden) concerning the
question of whether or not there was any kind of a large wound in the
back part of JFK's head other than the small wound of entrance near
the cowlick -- this conclusion:
"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)]
Or:
2.) Endorse John A. Canal's theories concerning the head wounds of
John Kennedy, which are theories that have no photographic or
(Zapruder) film evidence to back them up whatsoever, and are theories
which require incredible and extraordinary beliefs, including the
belief that ALL of the photos and X-rays are depicting a misleading
picture regarding the true nature of JFK's head wounds....and the
belief that a minimum of 13 doctors who examined the ORIGINAL autopsy
photographs and X-rays in 1968 and 1978 were either bald-faced liars
or they were ALL totally incompetent and utter boobs when they arrived
at their conclusions re. JFK's head wounds in 1968 and 1978.
Which road should Vincent T. Bugliosi go down? #1 or #2.
IMO, that's not a real difficult decision.
John Canal
>t extends forward and to the right from the red spot in the BOH photos? A p=
>art in his hair or a scalp laceration as Boswell described it?" <<<
>
>It's the part in JFK's hair. It looks nothing like a "laceration" at
Oh I see, the bullet entered precisely where JFK parted his hair. Amazing
coincidence. And of course, Boswell was hallucinating about that whitish line
being a laceration. LOL.
David Von Pein
>>> "Oh I see, the bullet entered precisely where JFK parted his hair." <<<
Why are you saying this? JFK didn't comb ("part") his hair in that
area. The only reason we can see the "part" near the cowlick is
because the doctors have manipulated JFK's hair and scalp in order to
highlight the cowlick entry wound.
Plus: the actual HOLE isn't along that "part" line anyway.
>>> "Amazing coincidence." <<<
What's so amazing about the wound being near the cowlick (i.e., being
near the area where JFK's hair starts to diverge in differing
directions)?
>>> "And of course, Boswell was hallucinating about that whitish line being a laceration." <<<
J. Thornton was confused about a lot of things, it would seem. Not the
least of which is the ridiculously-low place on JFK's head where
Boswell thinks the entry wound is located.
John Canal
>more obvious via the best possible evidence (the photos/X-rays) that
>there was no damage to the right-rear portion of JFK's head (and it's
>obvious that the entry hole is high on Kennedy's head, near his
>cowlick).
Would those be the same photos you admitted you weren't 100% certain whether or
not they were taken after there was some scalp stretching and/or repair
done....and would that x-ray be the one that you admitted you weren't 100%
certain whether it was taken after Boswell shoved some dislodged pieces of rear
skull (still adhered to the scalp) back into place or not?
Compare that less than 100% certainty to the chances up to 30 credible witmesses
were wrong about seeing a BOH wound which would have been zero unless you're Dr.
Michael Baden and his "autopsy-docs-and-all-those-who-saw-the-body-were-wrong"
entourage.
Mystifying!
David Von Pein
>>> "Mystifying!" <<<
Yeah, I would expect you to be "mystified" by the whopping difference
between "100% certain" and "94.775% certain".
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "Oh I see, the bullet entered precisely where JFK parted his hair." <<<
>
>Why are you saying this? JFK didn't comb ("part") his hair in that
>area. The only reason we can see the "part" near the cowlick is
>because the doctors have manipulated JFK's hair and scalp in order to
>highlight the cowlick entry wound.
Oh, that's a much better explanation....not. They minipulated his hair in the
area that was forward and towards the right so the entry that was behind that
area could be seen better?
>Plus: the actual HOLE isn't along that "part" line anyway.
Oh I stand corrected--it's not even close, right?
>>>> "Amazing coincidence." <<<
>
>
>What's so amazing about the wound being near the cowlick (i.e., being
>near the area where JFK's hair starts to diverge in differing
>directions)?
Because the whitish line was deemed to have been a laceration by the autopsist
and it departs from the immediate area of, if not precsely from, the entry which
lends support to his explanation.
>
>>>>"And of course, Boswell was hallucinating about that whitish line being a
>>>>laceration." <<<
>
>J. Thornton was confused about a lot of things, it would seem. Not the
>least of which is the ridiculously-low place on JFK's head where
>Boswell thinks the entry wound is located.
Forgive them--after all, they didn't have the photos to look at--they only had
the body to examine. And forgive the others too who said they saw on the body
that the bullet entered near the EOP...mass hallucination--happens all the time,
right?
And you criticize the CTs for their nutty theories...go figure.
David Von Pein
>>> "And you criticize the CTs for their nutty theories...go figure." <<<
The CTers don't have the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays on
their side. And neither do you.
And the CTers don't have every member of the Clark Panel and every
member of the HSCA's FPP on their side either. And neither do you.
Go figure.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "Mystifying!" <<<
>
>Yeah, I would expect you to be "mystified" by the whopping difference
>between "100% certain" and "94.775% certain".
David, I'd love to continue this scholarly exchange but I'm going to watch the
early baseball games. thanks for your enlightening perspectives.
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I'd love to continue this scholarly exchange..." <<<
I wouldn't. Listening to your silliness and your unprovable theories
about JFK's head wounds, day after day, is getting quite boring.
>>> "...but I'm going to watch the early baseball games." <<<
I'm a baseball fan too (the Cincinnati Reds). Well, actually I'm kind
of a "former" fan of the game. I don't watch many games these days.
I'm stuck in the '70s where baseball is concerned.
Do you remember the 1975 World Series? What a great Series. I attended
Game 4 at Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati. Sadly, my Reds lost to the
Red Sox that night. :(
I'll never forget October 22, 1975, though:
David Von Pein
>>> "Cripes, no wonder you just don't get it." <<<
It's John Canal who doesn't get it, IMO. (Cripes.)
For, it's John Canal who wants to believe that every hunk of
photographic evidence, in tandem, is telling the world a false story
regarding JFK's head wounds.
A miraculous and coincidental "Photo Conspiracy", isn't it?*
* = Oh, yes, we must keep in mind John C.'s make-believe "The
Autopsists, On Burkley's Order, Decided To Clam Up About The BOH
Wound" theory.
Because without that made-up theory, John's pretty much left out in
the cold as to why the true extent of the wounds was never revealed --
even DECADES LATER!
BTW, John C. -- Why DIDN'T Humes, Boswell, or Finck ever "come clean"
with respect to ALL of the damage to JFK's head (vs. merely leaving a
few bread crumbs here and there for CTers like you to sift through and
find on their own)?
Were H,B,&F still fearing World War III and/or a Castro/Cuban/Russian
backlash in 1978 and 1996 if they told the "whole BOH truth"?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "Cripes, no wonder you just don't get it." <<<
>
>
>It's John Canal who doesn't get it, IMO. (Cripes.)
>
>For, it's John Canal who wants to believe that every hunk of
>photographic evidence, in tandem, is telling the world a false story
>regarding JFK's head wounds.
Is that the photographic evidence that you aren't 100% certain that they prove
what you'd like to think they prove?
As opposed to the corroborating testmony and statements of about 30 EYEwitnesses
that make it a certainty there was a BOH wound?
>A miraculous and coincidental "Photo Conspiracy", isn't it?*
>
>* = Oh, yes, we must keep in mind John C.'s make-believe "The
>Autopsists, On Burkley's Order, Decided To Clam Up About The BOH
>Wound" theory.
As the Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, "There you go
again..."
Burkley didn't have them "clam-up"...if they did they wouldn't ave reported that
the large wound extended nto the occipital...would they David. Lurkers, bet on
that being cut from DVP's reply.
>Because without that made-up theory, John's pretty much left out in
>the cold as to why the true extent of the wounds was never revealed --
>even DECADES LATER!
Can you prove me wrong? Of course you can't...you're not even 100% certain that
the so-called evidence proves what you want it to.
>BTW, John C. -- Why DIDN'T Humes, Boswell, or Finck ever "come clean"
>with respect to ALL of the damage to JFK's head (vs. merely leaving a
>few bread crumbs here and there for CTers like you sift through and
>find on their own)?
Duh, we've been here about a dozen times before, look up what I said previously
to this question.
>Were H,B,&F still fearing WW3 in 1978 and 1996 if they told the "whole
>BOH truth"?
They were certainly a lot more forthcoming to the ARRB, weren't they DVP? Hmmm,
e.g., Boswell: "The bone was missing down to the base of the ear". That would
have been a real shocker in Nov, 63.
ooops, that gets cut too.
David Von Pein
>>> "Burkley didn't have them "clam-up"..." <<<
I guess you'd better change your previous make-believe theory about
Burkley then, huh John?
Oh, yes, "understating" the wounds was the proper word you decided to
attach to Burkley without a shred of proof, right John?
You DO realize how stupid your "Burkley" theory sounds, don't you JAC?
David Von Pein
>>> " "The bone was missing down to the base of the ear". That would have been a real shocker in Nov, 63." <<<
Why? There was only one entry wound in the head, and it was in the
rear, not the front....and everybody at Bethesda knew it.
Down comes Canal's silly theory, via just the above sentence alone.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
This is the response you'll get from me when you post for my attention on either
group:
Anyone who cuts & pastes to the extreme like you do, can't open replies or posts
with graphics attached, doesn't even want to try to understand F8, and is not
even 100% certain the evidence he uses to support his claims does just
that....is not worthy of my time.
Come back when you're more prepared as a researcher.
Bye.
John Canal
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4203f0cbb5ce96cc
>>> "I'd ask DVP to post [a graphic] like that, but he uses Google and can't--so he's got an excuse for not showing how little he knows about the bullet's path through JFK's head, as it relates to the brain and windshield damage. McAdams, meanwhile, is too smart to post something that would reveal to a three year old how stupid the cowlick entry hoax really is. The bottom line here is...that not one of the three most active cowlick entry theorists [DVP, John Fiorentino, and Professor John McAdams] will post a graphic showing us their proposed bullet track. Coincidence? Ya, right." <<<
What difference does it make if any of us posts a "graphic" or not,
John C.?
Whether any of us posts a graphic or not, the entry wound in John
Kennedy's head isn't going to suddenly move from the cowlick location
to any other location on JFK's head:
And you, John Canal, will still never be able to fight the
inconvenient fact that THIRTEEN DIFFERENT PATHOLOGISTS for the Clark
Panel and the HSCA came to the SAME "COWLICK" ENTRY conclusion that
you hate so much.
It's amazing to think that John Canal thinks he is superior to ALL
THIRTEEN of those professional doctors, isn't it?
Just "for the record", let's have another look at what the four
doctors for the Clark Panel said about the way the COWLICK entry wound
in the scalp PERFECTLY LINES UP with the entry hole in the X-rays:
"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."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
Therefore, per Mr. Canal, not only is the famous color BOH photo
totally misleading (due to the 3-inch "scalp-stretching" that Mr.
Canal has invented for himself), but, incredibly, the autopsy X-ray of
JFK's underlying SKULL is misleading too!
And--get this--those two photographic items are, incredibly,
misleading in the EXACT SAME WAY (i.e., the scalp photo is FALSELY
showing the entry wound to be located in the cowlick....and the X-ray
is FALSELY showing the entry wound to ALSO be in the cowlick area of
JFK's head, per John C.).
As I said -- Incredible. (Not to mention....impossible.)
John Canal
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9cddcadd606295b9
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/09b80db51c6d7e7e
>>> "Thanks for chiming in on DVP's side, though...he needs encouragement like that--it'll give him motivation to cut and paste more." <<<
Every time John Canal posts something about me performing a "cut and
paste" act, I think I'll re-post the message below (and I know darn
well that pretty much EVERYTHING in John Canal's "BOH" arsenal is
contained within the 39 questions alluded to below). Or would John C.
now like to add 39 additional flight-of-fancy BOH inquiries to his
quiz?:
======================
<DVP Quote on>
Oh, you mean like when you insisted I hadn't responded to any of the
"Canal 29" and then, later, the 10 questions you asked? All of which I
did respond to, here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
And here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
<DVP Quote off>