For Fiorentino and Canal
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> John Canal in his various representations of his theory re: the BOH (back
> of the head) wound and his theory on the inshoot wound to JFK's skull
> continuously and conspicuously ignores the available photographic
> evidence.
>
> I want to make this post specific, rather than regurgitating the entire
> scenario as proposed by Canal.
>
> Recently, I posted a photo given to me by David Belin before his untimely
> death. It was an exceptionally clear copy of one of the BOH photos.
>
> It shows NO damage behind JFK's right ear, nor any evidence of suturing,
> post scalp reflection which is a routine procedure re: brain removal.
To understand the nature of the damage to the BOH, you should read
Boswell's testimony before the ARRB.
In it, he is very clear that in those photos which appear to show an
undamaged BOH, a large piece of scalp, attached to broken skull pieces,
has been pulled back up and over the defect, to hide the damage.
"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from
the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably
reflect that."
and...
Q. So you're saying that on the fourth view, which are the photographs
that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and
folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way
that they appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that fair?
A. In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's
pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead.
Q. Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp for the photograph to be
taken?
A. There are about three of us involved here, because there are two
right hands on that centimeter scale. I think that I probably was
pulling the scalp up.
(unquote)
You can also learn more about this by studying blowups of Zapruder
frames 335 and 337, and in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
A second headshot from the front, blew out the area that Boswell was
describing, including a large piece of skull which remained attached to
the scalp. As it flipped to the rear, it caused scalp and hair in the
upper-forward part of the head to be ripped out and fold back over the
inner surface, or what used to be the inner surface of that large piece
of skull.
That skull piece can be easily seen in Xrays, BTW, clearly separated
from the rest of the skull.
As to why some witnesses claimed there was a defect in the *right* rear,
I don't know. Perhaps there was additional damage there, or perhaps as
that piece of scalp with attached skull pieces hung down from the back
of the head, while JFK was being treated at Parkland, it created that
illusion.
This is really not conjecture. There is simply no other explanation that
is consistent with what we see those frames, Dr. Boswell's first hand
knowledge, and the Xrays.
And there is no longer a mystery about why the photos that were shown to
the Parkland doctors, totally contradicted their recollections.
Robert Harris
John Fiorentino
Canal's theory extends to a BOH wound. (right rear) and a lower entry.
Neither of which is supported by the evidence.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-5D3EE...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Ben Holmes
>
>I've read Boswell. There's really nothing new here Bob.
>
>Canal's theory extends to a BOH wound. (right rear) and a lower entry.
>Neither of which is supported by the evidence.
In LNT'er fantasyland, that's true.
In the real world, the evidence for a large BOH wound is overwhelming.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
>>> "In the real world, the evidence for a large BOH wound is overwhelming." <<<
And it just so happens that there are ZERO pieces of photographic
evidence (spread across THREE different types of photographic evidence
-- e.g., the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder
Film) to support a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head.
But, in the strange world of conspiracy-loving retards like Benjamin
Holmes (et al), apparently the total LACK of photographic evidence to
support a large BOH wound in Kennedy's head somehow indicates that
there is "overwhelming" evidence to support a large BOH wound in
Kennedy's head.
Go figure.
In other words -- Black is white (and conspiracy nuts like Holmes are
retarded).
Robert Harris
<1bb475ca-7c9b-46f1...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "In the real world, the evidence for a large BOH wound is overwhelming."
> >>> <<<
>
> And it just so happens that there are ZERO pieces of photographic
> evidence (spread across THREE different types of photographic evidence
> -- e.g., the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder
> Film) to support a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head.
David, that is simply untrue. Massive damage to the back of the head, is
easily seen in some of the sharpest frames in the Zapruder frame -
particularly, frames 335 and 337.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
You REALLY need to study this video, David,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
But be forewarned - you are going to run into the same kind of
indisputable evidence that you had to deal with when you bailed out of
our debate on the shot at 285.
And you NEED to read Boswell's testimony before the ARRB. The guy
couldn't have corroborated me better if I had hired him.
David, there was a conspiracy. It just didn't go exactly the way that
old-school theorists thought it did.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "David, that is simply untrue. Massive damage to the back of the head is easily seen in some of the sharpest frames in the Zapruder frame - particularly, frames 335 and 337." <<<
Bullshit.
>>> "You REALLY need to study this video, David." <<<
I've seen your precious video, Mr. Bob Harris. It proves nothing, of
course.
Your imagination has been working overtime for years on this thing,
Bob.
The autopsy report and those pesky autopsy pictures and X-rays are the
things that solve the "mystery" surrounding the head wounds. And it's
no mystery at all -- there is simply no large BOH wound....period:
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files?grid=1
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I've read Boswell. There's really nothing new here Bob.
John, I think if you read my article carefully, you will discover that
the age of this concept is not what it's all about.
>
> Canal's theory extends to a BOH wound. (right rear) and a lower entry.
> Neither of which is supported by the evidence.
The BOH wound was not in the right rear, or at least, not the largest of
the wounds in the head.
Boswell was very clear about the nature and location of that wound, and
about the fact that the autopsists pulled the scalp up and over the
large defect, which is why most of it is not visible in most photos that
were taken that day.
That fact is important, because it explains the contradiction between
what the Parkland doctors saw on 11/22/63 and what they saw in the
photos.
And the fact that what we see in frame 337, is that same wound laid
open, is much more important than whether it was on the right or left
side of the head. What is important, is that this particular damage was
not inflicted during the explosion at 313.
Not only is that clear in the Zapruder film, but it is also obvious,
that scalp and hair in the upper front of the head was still in place,
as late as 317. But it was ripped out when that large piece of skull was
blown out and to the rear.
Watch the video I linked for you, and deal with the important issues.
Robert Harris
John Canal
Harris writes:
>Boswell was very clear about the nature and location of that wound, and
>about the fact that the autopsists pulled the scalp up and over the
>large defect, which is why most of it is not visible in most photos that
>were taken that day.
Bob, you're a trip. You're as bad as the hard-line LNers, Fiorentino, DVP,
and McAdams in that you throw the autopsists under the bus claiming they
were so incompetent they didn't know the difference between human anatomy
and an gasoline engine schematic....but, when they rarely say something
you think supports yours (and theirs) silly theory, you want everybody to
heed what they said as being gospel or 100% accurate.
Remember, "all three" autopsists were emphatic that there was only one
bullet that hit JFK in the head.
Robert Harris
<3bfad535-6f38-4df1...@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, that is simply untrue. Massive damage to the back of the head is
> >>> easily seen in some of the sharpest frames in the Zapruder frame -
> >>> particularly, frames 335 and 337." <<<
>
>
> Bullshit.
I don't think so David.
If it really was bullshit, you would have dealt with this image rather
than snipping it.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
And you desperately need to learn about Boswell's first hand
recollections of how he pulled the scalp up and over that damage, which
hid its existence from the camera lense.
This video will show you that David, and you can read his ARRB testimony
at Mcadams website or mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
>
>
> >>> "You REALLY need to study this video, David." <<<
>
> I've seen your precious video, Mr. Bob Harris. It proves nothing, of
> course.
Then please be specific about where I went wrong, so I can pull the
video and correct it.
I think there's enough real bullshit from your camp and the old line
buffs, without me contributing more.
Or is it possible, that you cannot refute a word of what I said, and
that you can only come up with some very lame sarcasm in reply??
>
> Your imagination has been working overtime for years on this thing,
> Bob.
>
> The autopsy report and those pesky autopsy pictures and X-rays are the
> things that solve the "mystery" surrounding the head wounds. And it's
> no mystery at all -- there is simply no large BOH wound....period:
David, would you like me to post the relevant parts of Dr. Boswell's
statement to the ARRB for you?
If I go to that trouble, will you actually read it and admit that you
are wrong??
Or will you again retreat with a slew of personal insults?
Robert Harris
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=gQXeRU
> YAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9QH9svwDN8uQYZ6yJRvT5yqPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uy
> u956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=_Uo1
> fUgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9QH9svwDN8uQYZ6yJRvT5yhZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HB
> P_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files?grid=1
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Harris writes:
>
> >Boswell was very clear about the nature and location of that wound, and
> >about the fact that the autopsists pulled the scalp up and over the
> >large defect, which is why most of it is not visible in most photos that
> >were taken that day.
>
> Bob, you're a trip.
I'm sorry you have to insult those who disagree with you John - especially
in a newsgroup where you know I cannot reply in kind.
And did you think that I would overlook the fact that you are now
incorporated arguments against Mcadams, that you once ridiculed when I
presented them to you:-)
> You're as bad as the hard-line LNers, Fiorentino, DVP,
> and McAdams in that you throw the autopsists under the bus claiming they
> were so incompetent they didn't know the difference between human anatomy
> and an gasoline engine schematic....
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't recall ever
disputing anything that Boswell said.
> but, when they rarely say something
> you think supports yours (and theirs) silly theory, you want everybody to
> heed what they said as being gospel or 100% accurate.
>
> Remember, "all three" autopsists were emphatic that there was only one
> bullet that hit JFK in the head.
No, they weren't, John. I have asked you before, to post a citation from
Boswell, claiming that there were no other headshots, and I am still
waiting.
Your reasoning is fallacious, unless you are prepared to prove what NONE
of those doctors ever claimed - that they could not have overlooked
additional shots, which passed through a head that was totally devastated
and missing the large majority of brain tissue.
And in fact, three very bright doctors who examined the Xrays expressed
far more certainty that there WERE two headshots than was ever expressed
by the autopsists that there were not.
Why don't you talk about the evidence John, rather than relying on
statements by these doctors, that they never made?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Where's the big hole in the BOH, Robert Harris? Where? Or was this X-
ray "faked"?:
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article <gvk5e...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Harris writes:
>>
>> >Boswell was very clear about the nature and location of that wound, and
>> >about the fact that the autopsists pulled the scalp up and over the
>> >large defect, which is why most of it is not visible in most photos that
>> >were taken that day.
>>
>> Bob, you're a trip.
>
>I'm sorry you have to insult those who disagree with you John - especially
>in a newsgroup where you know I cannot reply in kind.
>
>And did you think that I would overlook the fact that you are now
>incorporated arguments against Mcadams, that you once ridiculed when I
>presented them to you:-)
>
>
>> You're as bad as the hard-line LNers, Fiorentino, DVP,
>> and McAdams in that you throw the autopsists under the bus claiming they
>> were so incompetent they didn't know the difference between human anatomy
>> and an gasoline engine schematic....
>
>I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't recall ever
>disputing anything that Boswell said.
They all said over and over JFK was hit twice from above and behind...once in
the back and once in the head.
Don't you dispute that?
>
>> but, when they rarely say something
>> you think supports yours (and theirs) silly theory, you want everybody to
>> heed what they said as being gospel or 100% accurate.
>>
>> Remember, "all three" autopsists were emphatic that there was only one
>> bullet that hit JFK in the head.
>
>No, they weren't, John. I have asked you before, to post a citation from
>Boswell, claiming that there were no other headshots, and I am still
>waiting.
I posted your citation as soon as you asked for it and you didn't reply. Here it
is again.
"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased died as a
result of two perforating gunshot wounds....."
Autopsy Report, signed by all three autopsists.
What else do you want, Robert?
John Canal
(I'll not dignify the hogwash below with a response)
John Canal
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Harris writes:
>>
>> >Boswell was very clear about the nature and location of that wound, and
>> >about the fact that the autopsists pulled the scalp up and over the
>> >large defect, which is why most of it is not visible in most photos that
>> >were taken that day.
>>
>> Bob, you're a trip.
>
>I'm sorry you have to insult those who disagree with you John - especially
>in a newsgroup where you know I cannot reply in kind.
I responded to this on the other group, but I'll do it again.
Firts, saying you're a trip, isn't much of an insult, especially compared to the
stuff I've seen posted here.
>And did you think that I would overlook the fact that you are now
>incorporated arguments against Mcadams, that you once ridiculed when I
>presented them to you:-)
My arguments for a BOH wound are entirely different from yours.
>> You're as bad as the hard-line LNers, Fiorentino, DVP,
>> and McAdams in that you throw the autopsists under the bus claiming they
>> were so incompetent they didn't know the difference between human anatomy
>> and an gasoline engine schematic....
>
>I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't recall ever
>disputing anything that Boswell said.
He said there was only one hit to the head...don't you dispute that?
>> but, when they rarely say something
>> you think supports yours (and theirs) silly theory, you want everybody to
>> heed what they said as being gospel or 100% accurate.
>>
>> Remember, "all three" autopsists were emphatic that there was only one
>> bullet that hit JFK in the head.
>
>No, they weren't, John. I have asked you before, to post a citation from
>Boswell, claiming that there were no other headshots, and I am still
>waiting.
I'm sorry you waited, because I gave you your citation as soon as your request
appeared on the board. You want it again--Ok, but write it down this time.
"Based on our oservations it is our opinion that the deceased died as a result
of two perforating gunshot wounds...."
Autopsy Report, signed by all three autopsists.
What else do you want?
As I sated in the other reply to this, I'm not going to dignify the B/s below by
responding to it.
John Canal
Robert Harris
<9fa605f1-4ca5-4b5e...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
David, you are linking to an Xray that is fundamental to my video and my
explanation of what happened. Why are you afraid to look at contrary
evidence???
If you care in the slightest about what really happened, watch this
very, very, very carefully,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
At the top of that Xray, sits a piece of skull, that is clearly, broken
away from the rest of the skull and sitting loosely at the top.
When it was blown out, it flipped backward but remained connected and
suspended in the scalp.
It flipped backward with considerable force - enough to rip out scalp
and hair that was in the upper, forward part of the head. That hair and
scalp folded back over part of the broken piece, resulting in the
devastation we seen in frames in the 330's.
STOP BEING A FUCKING PITCHMAN, LONG ENOUGH TO LISTEN.
What I am telling you is NOT a theory. It is exactly, what happened.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "What I am telling you is NOT a theory. It is exactly, what happened." <<<
LOL.
LOL.
ROFL!!
Yeah, that's why everybody connected with this case (officially) has
declared (officially) that JFK was shot in the head ONE SINGLE TIME,
with that bullet entering JFK's cranium from behind....with NO FRONTAL
SHOT HITTING THE PRESIDENT--PERIOD.
Worth a replay (for the laughs):
>>> "What I am telling you is NOT a theory. It is exactly, what happened." <<<
El-Oh-El!!
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
A quick Google check proves that you never said that to me, but in a
response to Von Pein. I don't know how you could have gotten us mixed up,
John:-)
And you need to concentrate on what you are reading. That statement, by
itself, would allow JFK to have been shot dozens of times, nonfatally.
Now, we both know they weren't saying that, but neither did they ever
exclude the possibility of other shots or wounds that they did not
discover.
To prove me wrong, you only need to cite them stating that there was
"only" one headshot. But I don't think you can do that, and certainly not
with Boswell.
You just wish they had said that:-)
>
> Autopsy Report, signed by all three autopsists.
>
> What else do you want?
A citation saying what you claim he said, that there was ONLY one shot
to the head.
>
> As I sated in the other reply to this, I'm not going to dignify the B/s below
> by
> responding to it.
I'm sorry you choose to evade reason and the evidence, John - not to
mention, experts with far more experience and qualifications with Xrays
than the autopsists whom you have been misrepresenting.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-91A37...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
> >
> >In article <gvk5e...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Harris writes:
> >>
> >> >Boswell was very clear about the nature and location of that wound, and
> >> >about the fact that the autopsists pulled the scalp up and over the
> >> >large defect, which is why most of it is not visible in most photos that
> >> >were taken that day.
> >>
> >> Bob, you're a trip.
> >
> >I'm sorry you have to insult those who disagree with you John - especially
> >in a newsgroup where you know I cannot reply in kind.
> >
> >And did you think that I would overlook the fact that you are now
> >incorporated arguments against Mcadams, that you once ridiculed when I
> >presented them to you:-)
> >
> >
> >> You're as bad as the hard-line LNers, Fiorentino, DVP,
> >> and McAdams in that you throw the autopsists under the bus claiming they
> >> were so incompetent they didn't know the difference between human anatomy
> >> and an gasoline engine schematic....
> >
> >I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't recall ever
> >disputing anything that Boswell said.
>
> They all said over and over JFK was hit twice from above and behind...once in
> the back and once in the head.
How many times did Boswell say that?
Do you have a verbatim citation or two?
>
> Don't you dispute that?
I will reserve judgement until I see your citations, John - particularly
those that were straight out of Boswell's mouth.
>
> >
> >> but, when they rarely say something
> >> you think supports yours (and theirs) silly theory, you want everybody to
> >> heed what they said as being gospel or 100% accurate.
> >>
> >> Remember, "all three" autopsists were emphatic that there was only one
> >> bullet that hit JFK in the head.
> >
> >No, they weren't, John. I have asked you before, to post a citation from
> >Boswell, claiming that there were no other headshots, and I am still
> >waiting.
>
> I posted your citation as soon as you asked for it and you didn't reply. Here
> it
> is again.
>
> "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased died as
> a
> result of two perforating gunshot wounds....."
>
> Autopsy Report, signed by all three autopsists.
>
> What else do you want, Robert?
>
> John Canal
>
> (I'll not dignify the hogwash below with a response)
I think you dodged those same questions in your other "response", John.
I'm sorry you have to substitute insults for reason, especially in
regard to experts who were far more knowledgeable than the autopsists.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "To prove me wrong, you only need to cite them stating that there was "only" one headshot." <<<
From "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (CBS-TV)(June 1967):
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
Robert Harris
<f81b2224-103c-4e70...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "What I am telling you is NOT a theory. It is exactly, what happened." <<<
>
> LOL.
> LOL.
> ROFL!!
>
> Yeah, that's why everybody connected with this case (officially) has
> declared (officially) that JFK was shot in the head ONE SINGLE TIME,
> with that bullet entering JFK's cranium from behind....with NO FRONTAL
> SHOT HITTING THE PRESIDENT--PERIOD.
David, there is only one man who was charged with the responsibility of
measuring and diagramming the wounds to JFK's head. No other opinions
matter.
Can you cite him verbatim, stating that there were no other headwounds?
What you CAN cite him stating verbatim, is that there was massive damage
to the back of the head, which was covered over when the scalp was
pulled back up and over the large defect, which hid the damage from the
camera.
THAT is why the Parkland doctors saw photos that seemed to contradict
their recollections of the wounds.
You need to understand that David, so that you stop misinforming lurkers
about the damage to the head.
Or do you even care whether you are promoting the facts?
Robert Harris
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
Harris wants:
A citation saying what you [that'd be me, John Canal] claim he said, that there
was ONLY one shot to the head.
Autopsy Report:
1) "Based on our oservations it is our opinion that the deceased died as a
result of two perforating gunshot wounds...."
a. "situated in the posterior scalp......is a lacerated wound..."
b. "The second wound....upper right thorax."
Robert, if there had been another gunshot wound to the body they would have
said, "The third wound...." That's common sense.
*********
Humes WC testimony:
"I will label 388 with the letter "A" to indicate our opinion as to the "THE"
[my caps and quotation marks] wound of entrance into the skull." 2WCH, p. 355
Robert, he didn't say "one of the wounds of entrance', just "the" meaning there
was only one.
************
Mr. Specter. Doctor Humes, as to points of entry on the body of the late
President, how any were there in total?"
Commander Humes. Two, sir, as depicted in 385-C and 388-A. 2WCH, p. 371
************
Humes' HSCA testimony.
Dr. Humes. "I had the opportunity to examine the President's skull...with great
care. There was one, an only one, wound of entrance. 1HSCA, p. 329
**************
Humes & Boswell to JAMA
"The fatal missle entered the skull..."
"The "OTHER" missle entered ...posterior thorax."
Robert, they didn't say, "One of the other missles", they said "THE" other
missle....translation being there were only two missles that hit him.
*********
IMO, I've wasted enough time trying to prove to you that they didn't see
evidence of more than one head shot. I'm not going to argue with you any more
about it....if you come back disagreeing, then I'll just repeat what I've writen
here.
John Canal
tomnln
"the head goes forward with considerable violence"
Rather's career Started with a Lie & Ended with Another Lie ! ! !
Quite a source you have there David !
No Wonder you RAN from the radio debate with me>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68407aa8-661e-40ff...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
John, what you cannot do, is post a citation from these guys which
excludes the possibility of an additional head shot. It's just that
simple.
BTW, if you had ever bothered to read his ARRB testimony, you would have
learned that Boswell DID make a statement, generally supporting your
argument.
He said that he thought there was only one head shot because he saw no
other entry wounds in the scalp and no other exit wounds.
But a head shot from the right front, would likely have entered the
already blown out area in which the scalp there had fallen out of the way.
And he had already described the massive exit wound in the back of the
head,
"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior
to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and
you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted
the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a
lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of
the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that."
and..
"Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal
area. "
Of course, Boswell undoubtedly, did not realize that this massive damage
was inflicted well after frame 313.
Robert Harris
John Canal
just told me--I gave you citatations for the autopsists saying there was only
one head shot and you say I can't use those citations.
i'LL REPEAT, IF YOU POST THIS NONESENSE AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING TO DELETE WHAT YOU
SAID AND INSERT THE CITATIONS BELOW.....NOW PLEASE GO BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE WITH
THIS CRAZINESS! THANKYOU.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae80f4a3828a8744
>>> "[Dan] Rather's career Started with a Lie & Ended with Another Lie! Quite a source you have there, David!" <<<
The kook known as "Tomnln" thinks I've used Dan Rather as my "source"
for the CBS quotes I printed out earlier in this thread (linked
above). But, of course, I wasn't relying on DAN RATHER at all. I was
relying on the SPOKEN WORDS of Dr. James Humes in that 1967 CBS-TV
quote.
It wasn't Dan Rather who said this to the rolling TV cameras in '67 --
it was Dr. Humes:
"There was only one entrance wound in the head."
Try again, Rossley. Maybe next time you'll actually think before your
aged fingers start typing out more silliness. (Although I wouldn't bet
the farm on this ever happening.)
John Canal
In my 10 years posting here, I've never read anything as bizarre as what
you just told me--I gave you citatations for the autopsists saying there
was only one head shot and you say I can't use those citations.
i'LL REPEAT, IF YOU POST THIS NONESENSE AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING TO DELETE
WHAT YOU SAID AND INSERT THE CITATIONS BELOW.....NOW PLEASE GO BOTHER
SOMEONE ELSE WITH THIS CRAZINESS! THANKYOU.
Autopsy Report:
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/407b3ad6dcd5c104
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "But the issue we are addressing is your claim that the BOH [Back Of Head] was undamaged as is seen in the autopsy photos. Do you still believe that?" <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
As far as your contention that there was a large, gaping HOLE in the
BACK of President Kennedy's head -- then the answer to your question
above is 'Yes', i.e., I believe that there was NO such "large BOH
hole" in JFK's head. No way. No how. And this proves it:
Plus,
From my earlier battles with Mr. Robert Harris, Robert's theory really
doesn't seem to be supporting a large wound in the VERY BACK
(occipital) of JFK's head at all. Bob seems to have the large HOLE
located at the TOP of Kennedy's head.
Now, I don't doubt for a second that a large deficit of skull bone
could have been achieved by the autopsists (and almost certainly WAS
achieved by the autopsy doctors at Bethesda when they reflected the
scalp back on JFK's head; this is the area [the TOP] of the head that
resulted in fragments of loose skull adhering to the scalp upon
reflection of the scalp, IMO).
And the X-ray shown above verifies that the TOP part of JFK's head
was, indeed, extremely damaged and fractured....and the top portions
of JFK's skull appear READY TO BREAK APART AT ANY MOMENT, which is why
it's no surprise to me that those TOP-OF-THE-HEAD fragments broke
apart in the doctors' hands at Bethesda.
And it's also no surprise that some of those fragments from the TOP of
the head adhered to the scalp upon the scalp's reflection....which
also easily explains why the doctors said that very little "sawing" of
the skull was required in order to extract JFK's brain from his
cranium.
I'll again replay the words of the chief pathologist for the HSCA's
Forensic Pathology Panel, Dr. Michael Baden:
"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)]
www.Amazon.com/RECLAIMING-HISTORY/review/RZD82270D69E8
===============
Plus, let me add these 1978 quotes from Dr. Baden as well:
"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
===============
So, we can no doubt add Robert Harris to the list of people who think
that Dr. Michael Baden was full of nothing but shit when he uttered
the above-quoted words to Vincent Bugliosi nine years ago and when he
gave the above testimony to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations in 1978. Right, Bob?*
* = Although, in actuality, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Harris has
considered Dr. Baden to be a useless/worthless "liar" well before
today's date of May 30th, 2009. Right, Bob?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f25932e8-b3d4-4a61...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-1467A...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>
> In my 10 years posting here, I've never read anything as bizarre as what
> you just told me--
That's a pretty foolish claim, John.
I cited Boswell, verbatim.
>I gave you citatations for the autopsists saying there
> was only one head shot
You did no such thing, John.
You need to stop making things up.
Robert Harris
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
Will somebody tell RH these are good citations for the autopsists saying there
was only one hit to the head............pleeease.
Autopsy Report:
John Canal
>Robert Harris
>
John Canal
John Canal
Will somebody tell RH these citations are for the autopsists saying there
was only one hit to the head............pleeease.
Robert Harris
John, let me try to make this a little clearer for you.
No-one is disputing the fact that the autopsy report only described one
shot to the head and two bullet strikes in total. And whether they said
so or not, I am quite sure that they believed those were the only shots
that hit the President.
But you want to dismiss the possibility of a second headshot, based
purely on those opinions.
To be able to do that, and setting aside the question of whether those
guys were infallible, you at the very least, need them to state that
additional shots were not possible.
This is somewhat analogous with situations in which a bullet is found to
be consistent with a suspect's weapon, but not to the exclusion of all
others.
The analyst might believe the bullet was fired by the suspect, but he
cannot exclude other possibilities.
LIkewise, these doctors discovered evidence of one headshot and probably
thought that was all there were. But they could never be sure that there
were not others.
Ergo, your argument does not refute the possibility of a second
headshot, and it certainly does not trump the opinions of much better
qualified experts and the very clear evidence that massive damage was
inflicted in the upper rear of the head, some time after frame 313.
I hope that makes things a little clearer for you.
Robert Harris
In article <gvuke...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal
From: John Canal
Subject: Re: Will somebody tell RH these citations....... Re: For Fiorentino and
Canal
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009 3:03 PM
In article <reharris1-15641...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...
>
>John, let me try to make this a little clearer for you.
Clear up your nonsensical theory?
>No-one is disputing the fact that the autopsy report only described one
>shot to the head and two bullet strikes in total.
It's not sinking in Robert, is it? They not only described one hit to the head,
they said that's all there was...ONE DAMN HIT TO THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And when you dreamed up your scenario, i.e. a wound high in the BOH, you should
have at least made it come close to fitting the evidence: 11 witnesses said they
saw cerebellum....TRANSLATION THERE WAS A BOH WOUND, BUT ITS LOWER MARGIN WAS
DOWN NEAR THE EOP WHERE THE CEREBELLUM IS. MAKE SENSE? HELL NO IT DOESN'T,
BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT THIS SILLY SENARIO FOR SO LONG NOW YOU CAN'T
LET IT GO...JUST LIKE LINTON CAN'T WITH HIS GREER DID IT THEORY....or Purvis,
Marsh, Speer, and Blenner can't with their theories.
>so or not, I am quite sure that they believed those were the only shots
>that hit the President.
>
>But you want to dismiss the possibility of a second headshot, based
>purely on those opinions.
OPINIONS? HOW ABOUT AUTOPSY FINDINGS.....USUALLY ACCEPTED AS DEFINITIVE
EVIDENCE. You've got some nerve, having not ever even seen the originals to
dispute what the doctors who examined the body said they saw which was, earth to
Robert, "ONLY one hit to the head"......and, for anyone with a lick of common
sense, that means it is virtually impossible that there was a second, third, or
fourth hit to the head.
PLEEEEASE DON'T BOTHER ME ANY MORE WITH THIS IDIOTIC THEORY. THANKS IN ADVANCE!
John Canal
John Canal
Clear up your nonsensical theory?
>No-one is disputing the fact that the autopsy report only described one
>shot to the head and two bullet strikes in total.
It's not sinking in Robert, is it? They not only described one hit to the
head, they said that's all there was...ONE DAMN HIT TO THE
HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And when you dreamed up your scenario, i.e. a wound high in the BOH, you
should have at least made it come close to fitting the evidence: 11
witnesses said they saw cerebellum....TRANSLATION THERE WAS A BOH WOUND,
BUT ITS LOWER MARGIN WAS DOWN NEAR THE EOP WHERE THE CEREBELLUM IS. MAKE
SENSE? HELL NO IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT THIS SILLY
SENARIO FOR SO LONG NOW YOU CAN'T LET IT GO...JUST LIKE LINTON CAN'T WITH
HIS GREER DID IT THEORY....or Purvis, Marsh, Speer, and Blenner can't with
their theories.
>so or not, I am quite sure that they believed those were the only shots
>that hit the President.
>
>But you want to dismiss the possibility of a second headshot, based
>purely on those opinions.
OPINIONS? HOW ABOUT AUTOPSY FINDINGS.....USUALLY ACCEPTED AS DEFINITIVE
David Von Pein
>>> "But you want to dismiss the possibility of a second headshot..." <<<
Why even have any autopsy at all then?
One of the fundamental tasks at any "gunshot wound autopsy" is to discover
how many bullets struck the victim.
Incredibly, Robert Harris thinks that ALL THREE autopsy surgeons totally
blew it with respect to this basic, fundamental "How Many Bullets?"
determination for the autopsy of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (no
less).
Wow.
Robert Harris
<e4ef4c63-f150-4838...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
David, are you aware that "ALL THREE" autopsists didn't even realize
that there was a wound in the throat until Humes was told about it, by
Perry, the following Monday??
And according to you and most other LNers, "ALL THREE" autopsists
misplaced the entry wound in the head, by about four inches.
But when they say something that is actually in agreement with you, they
suddenly become infallible gods.
Why is that David:-)
Robert Harris
>
> Wow.
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article
><e4ef4c63-f150-4838...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> "But you want to dismiss the possibility of a second headshot..." <<<
>>
>>
>> Why even have any autopsy at all then?
>>
>> One of the fundamental tasks at any "gunshot wound autopsy" is to discover
>> how many bullets struck the victim.
>>
>> Incredibly, Robert Harris thinks that ALL THREE autopsy surgeons totally
>> blew it with respect to this basic, fundamental "How Many Bullets?"
>> determination for the autopsy of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (no
>> less).
>
>David, are you aware that "ALL THREE" autopsists didn't even realize
>that there was a wound in the throat until Humes was told about it, by
>Perry, the following Monday??
First of all, the official story was that he learned about it the next
AM...that would have been a Saturday, Robert.
Second, you believe that B/S because it fits your theory. IOW, to fit your
theory (they missed seeing another entry and exit) you need the autopsists
to be a little more competent than brick layers playing
doctor.......therefore, you're pleased to note garbage like the notion
they didn't realize there was a bullet wound in the throat during the
autopsy. On the other hand, if you needed them to be sharp pathologists,
you would have done a little research to figre out how in the Hell three
autopsy docs could not have figured out that a bullet exited the throat.
Let's try something. You tell me if you think the following events, that
took place (according to the official record) are just a little odd:
1. Greer brings the clothes with him from PH, but decides to have them put
in his WH locker...instead of giving them to the autopsists.
2. After being told the clothes (which would have made it obvious even to
me if I was there that the bullet exited the throat) were "unavailable",
none of the autopsists either insisted they see the clothes, or asked
"why" they were not available.
3. When Perry testified about when he talked to Humes he first said it was
"Friday afternoon". Then Specter corrected him and told him it was
Saturday AM...to which Perry agreed...of course.
Smell a rat yet, Robert?
4. Humes doesn't call PH to talk to whoever tried to save JFK's life (to
be briefed on the wounds)...even though he was alerted "Friday afternoon"
he'd be performing the autopsy of his life on the President of the Uited
States.
5. They find a back entry wound early (Humes finally told the truth to the
ARRB), a bruised plurea, a slight fracture of the transverse process
[C7?], air in the neck/thorax tissue, bruised strap muscles near the
trach.....but still can't figure out the bullet exited the throat...until
Dr. Perry told them the next AM.
6. The entry on Boswell's face sheet as well as the description of the
entry on the death certificate juuuuust happened to match the entry in the
clothes.
7. Both Burkley and Hill were in ER1 and the morgue...but, evidently
neither one mentioned to the autopsy docs what everyone else in ER1
knew...there as a bullet wound in the throat and a trach was performed
over it.
8. It is announced during the PH Press Conf. that there had been a bullet
wound in the throat.
I could go on, but I want to see if that's enough of the official record
that doesn't make too much sense (if HB&F supposedly didn't know about the
bullet exiting the throat until the next AM) to make you dig a little on
this issue. If you don't want to dig, well, let's just forget it...hang on
to the stupid notion they didn't know the bullet exited the throat until
Perry told them it did....that way it supports your theory....and you need
all the support you can get.
LOL!
John Canal