IMO, DVP needs to learn from McAdams...
John Canal
writings) about the medical evidence to embarass himself in discussions re. the
entry wound location and BOH wound, ought to take a lesson from McAdams on how
he approaches these issues.
After Dr. McAdams repeatedly put his foot in his mouth during debates with Paul,
Barb, and myself re. the aforementioned issues, he has employed a new
strategy--he stays clear of such discussions. Now, with me, he came up with the
excuse that my comments are arcane, and killfiled me--but that's obviously a cop
out. Why do I think that? Because when Barb chimes in, with her invaluable
insight on threads re. these issues, McA stays clear...he's as quiet as a mouse
with sneakers on....and he damn well knows her comments are not arcane. It's
just that he also knows he's outgunned by her on the medical ev., and is wise
enough to let others, like DVP, embarass themselves and charge on by
themselves(preaching the Baden Doctrine)...with the kind of fierceness and blind
loyalty that even General Picket would have been proud of in 1863.
Indeed, DVP charges on flashing the BOH photo and lateral x-ray ad nauseam,
ignoring F8 and the testimony of dozens of witnesses who examined or saw the
body (including the autopsists)---one would think he'd learn something from the
old wise one....Dr. McAdams.
But, sigh, he hasn't...and, because he's become, IMHO, the LN's A. Marsh, we can
expect more of the same...much much more.
John Canal
John McAdams
wrote:
>IMHO, DVP, armed with just enough knowledge (source is mostly RH and Baden's
>writings) about the medical evidence to embarass himself in discussions re. the
>entry wound location and BOH wound, ought to take a lesson from McAdams on how
>he approaches these issues.
>
>After Dr. McAdams repeatedly put his foot in his mouth during debates with Paul,
>Barb, and myself re. the aforementioned issues, he has employed a new
>strategy--he stays clear of such discussions.
It's not a "strategy," it's more like "I'm tired of this, and you guys
won't listen to reason."
If people just flatly ignore all the photographic and x-ray evidence,
there is not much to say to them.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Apart from the above-linked autopsy X-ray, which (by itself) proves
that John Canal's odd "BOH/LN" theory is inaccurate, John has another
very big photographic problem in trying to fit all of the pieces of
his BOH/LN puzzle together cohesively and believably....
And that problem is: the autopsy photograph linked below, which shows
President Kennedy's SCALP on the back of his head to be completely
INTACT (including the entire area of the head/scalp at the far-right-
rear portion of JFK's head where John Canal insists a large hole
existed, with that large hole being easily visible and viewable by the
various doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63):
But when examining the photo linked above, it's quite evident that
JFK's scalp was undamaged (except for the perforating entry hole near
the cowlick, of course, which was where Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5mm
bullet entered the President's head).
This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively-small area of the scalp was, in
fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
Robert McClelland)?:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/MD264_thumb.jpg
In my view, the best explanation for the admittedly-major discrepancy
that exists re. this controversial "BOH" matter between the official
record and the observations of the Parkland witnesses was probably
given by Dr. Michael Baden (during a telephone conversation he had
with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi on January 8, 2000).
Baden said the following to Bugliosi during that phone call:
"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as
the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. That's why we have
autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this.
Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at
Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of
the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain
tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the
occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push
his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably
assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from
the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy
surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area.
There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than
the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN; 01/08/2000
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
John Canal would probably be better off if he were to believe what
many conspiracy theorists firmly believe -- i.e., that the autopsy
photo and X-ray linked earlier are fakes (and/or have been "altered"
in some manner).
Because just one good look at each of the two photos linked above (the
X-ray and the color image of the back of John Kennedy's head after he
died) should be enough visual proof right there to know that Mr. Canal
is barking up the wrong tree as he searches for a hole in the
President's head that simply was never there.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
David R. Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History
John Canal
Well, I'm not going to lay out the case for a BOH wound because we've done
that several times before and you, like DVP and Ed cage have your opinions
forever cured in the world's finest cement, so it would be a waste of time
for both of us if I did so again. Actually, you parrot Baden, et.al. to ad
nauseam, after it's been proven he repeatedly abused the truth....in fact,
a third grader can pick out the untruths in his testimony. But, anyway,
just two quick questions, although you'll probably run off and/or side
step my questions like you've done before [tm?].
1. Did you or did you not say that the defect I highlighted in F8 as the
entry was deep inside the cranial cavity? And the reason I ask that is
because that defect is the one that even the likes of cowlick entry
theorists, J. Fiorentino, M. Todd, and J. Durnavich agree is the same
exact defect that the HSCA [FPP] identified as the entry. And that's not
to mention that the autopsists said that defect was the entry, as it is
perfectly centered in the photo titled, entry wound in posterior skull.
The problem for you cowlick entry folks is that the HSCA, as well as
Fiorentino Durnavich and M. Todd, insist (wrongly, Chad, Sturdivan and I
guarantee you) is HIGH in the BOH....as in the cowlick.
The bottom line is that you're absolutely correct, i.e. that defect is
indeed deep inside the cranial cavity....and by being correct you confirm
the fact that Baden et. al. were wrong about the entry being in the
cowlick.
2. Do you realize that Humes [innocuously, and cleverly?] interchanged
("switched") the word flocculus in his WC testimony for the word falx in
the autopsy report as a part of the brain he saw when the body was first
received? And the reason this "switch" is critical to the resolution of
the BOH wound issue is because the flocculus is part of the cerebellum
(thank you again J. Hunt) and it would have been virtually impossible for
Humes to see.....unless there had been a BOH wound. It also should be
noted that Humes made his "switch" after he testified he read the reports
of the PH docs, most of whom said they saw cerebellum tissue....and I
don't think I need to explain the obvious significance of that timing to
you.
JC
Anthony Marsh
Canal thinks all the evidence is fake. Because it disproves his wacky
theory.