JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 103)

>>> "If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than examining the body to determine the [c]ause of death[,] then it is you who is in denial." <<<

Who's arguing about "the cause of death"? Not me.

The "cause of death" isn't in dispute -- it was the bullet from Lee
Oswald's gun that struck the President in the back of the head.

I thought you knew that, John.

>>> "At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada, zilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the originals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of forensic pathology) was g[o]ing to refute as much as one tiny finding of his. Of course, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you think you posses[s]), think that's a bunch of horse [hockey/manure/shit], but, IMHO, a truly logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible." <<<

I suppose it's possible to a conspiracist like John Canal who WANTS it
to be "possible" -- i.e., the extremely remote and far-fetched idea
that THIRTEEN different pathologists on the Clark Panel and the House
Select Committee's forensic panel would be so silly and downright
deceptive as to endorse the "cowlick" entry location merely because
they didn't want to hurt poor Dr. Fisher's little ol' feelings (or
some other stupid reason that John C. thinks they might have had) is a
loony scenario that is actually MORE REASONABLE to believe (per John
A. Canal) than to believe what the THIRTEEN different people on the
Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP told us was their true opinion
regarding the entry-wound location in JFK's head.*

* = Even though, per John C., these other TWELVE people (not counting
Fisher) evidently must have known that Fisher was dead wrong about his
"cowlick" determination. But those 12 people decided to sign off on
the cowlick entry location anyway, merely to avoid rocking the boat (a
boat that, evidently, only Dr. Fisher was in).

Right, John?

All that's needed now is the proverbial (and mandatory) three-letter
sign-off to this part of the discussion.....

LOL.

>>> "Undecided lurkers [the ONE "lurker" who enters this forum this month, that is], don't be led astray by Mr. Von Pein, who, IMO, without investigating matters himself (e.g. he doesn't know F8 from a toenail), just jumps on the bandwagon of those he thinks must be right....because of their positions. Heck, he pr[o]bably thought Richard Nixon was telling the truth all along." <<<

Mr. (Lonely) Lurker --- Keep in mind that it is Mr. John A. Canal who
HAS NO CHOICE (per his strange BOH theories) but to believe that
THIRTEEN different men who examined the original autopsy photos/X-rays
were DEAD WRONG (were they liars? incompetent? or retards perhaps?)
when they ALL concluded that the entry wound in the back of President
Kennedy's head was located HIGH on his head, "100 millimeters [four
inches] above the EOP" (per the Clark Panel).

Plus: It's also Mr. Canal who has NO CHOICE but to believe that the
following two pieces of photographic evidence connected to the death
of John F. Kennedy are both (IN TANDEM!) telling a false story about
the true nature of JFK's head injuries (and the Zapruder Film is a
THIRD piece of photographic evidence that is ALSO, per Mr. Canal,
telling the world a misleading story regarding JFK's head wounds as
well):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=rErDI0gAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9QULmhVrDReMb5RjHtVayvBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=dD2njRYAAABJbMQJaY0tNJdQ4EdaLZXdkoocv7_4s8VgxAkWGh8RuA

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=xXmkAUYAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9QULmhVrDReMb5RjHtVayvB1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=dD2njRYAAABJbMQJaY0tNJdQ4EdaLZXdkoocv7_4s8VgxAkWGh8RuA

THE ZAPRUDER FILM (STABILIZED VERSION):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/THE+ZAPRUDER+FILM+(STABILIZED+VERSION).mov?gda=Jo1K-2AAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z90nTPwBSkg1XupmKqoSU8507M4UfakGfQkeP8lzs5xjq-8E7CUXyJo09RCDD78XAbE-UNtHX_4btfeYyY783Zxm3FU91bWBii3KPv5fvAM40&gsc=dD2njRYAAABJbMQJaY0tNJdQ4EdaLZXdkoocv7_4s8VgxAkWGh8RuA

It must be a "Photographic Conspiracy (IN TRIPLICATE)" that is keeping
the world from knowing the full truth about the President's head
wounds -- despite the fact that even Mr. Canal admits that each of the
above items of photographic evidence is GENUINE and UNALTERED and NOT
FAKED in any way.

The theories that people can invent are amazing. Aren't they?

=========================================

ARGUING WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORIST IN DENIAL (THAT'S JOHN A. CANAL, OF
COURSE); PARTS 109 AND 294 (APPROX.):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717

=========================================

aeffects

unread,

Jun 17, 2009, 4:41:37 AM6/17/09

to

uh-uh-huh.... shithead.... no free advertising

aeffects

unread,

Jun 17, 2009, 4:42:23 AM6/17/09

to

this is nop place to show your ignorance, shithead -- You're looking
for .johns moron.....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 25, 2009, 2:18:16 PM6/25/09

to

Repeating a question for John Canal......

When Dr. Humes and the other autopsy doctors testified in front of the
various Government commissions and panels after 1964 (e.g., the HSCA,
the Shaw Trial, the ARRB).....why didn't a SINGLE ONE OF THEM ever
mention that the reason the BOH "red spot" picture shows the entry
wound to be that high on JFK's head is due to the scalp being
stretched several inches, thereby making the entry hole look too high?

To make your "EOP" theory float, you've got to believe that Humes,
Boswell, and Finck -- ALL OF THEM -- all forgot about the "scalp-
stretching" that you (John Canal) think is occurring in this
photograph:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=0iZD_EgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9xOA_OZSWjFQXWrIfTvSyzBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=g2wekwsAAABOtULRpsFVvrTwRp1uMEFV

And is it truly reasonable to think that none of those doctors in 1978
or 1996 (or whenever), who were all undoubtedly straining their own
brains to try and come up with a logical answer to the question of
"Why does this entry wound appear to be that high on JFK's head?",
failed to recall the reason for the entry wound being where it appears
to be in the above picture?

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Jun 25, 2009, 4:49:08 PM6/25/09

to

On Jun 25, 11:18 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no adverting shithead.... floating or none floating....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 28, 2009, 1:29:04 AM6/28/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b81add01dffeabff

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fa994af8456c3ae1

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/702fecc74bed7097

>>> "I addressed your question." <<<

No, you didn't. Not even close.

I simply asked why you think it was that H,B,&F all had a massive
memory lapse regarding something that they ALL certainly had to know
was occurring in the autopsy room IF IT HAD REALLY OCCURRED -- i.e.,
the scalp of JFK was being stretched to absurd degrees (3 to 4 inches
northward on JFK's head, per J.A. Canal) at the time photographer John
Stringer was snapping this picture:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=d9j9wUgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9IIbN_3bOPUqHtbPxsvv4-RZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=vBNShAsAAAA9embWY9KmdtfRjJ5J2Ubu

You decided to ignore my inquiry.

Why am I not surprised?

Of course, as we all know, the answer is fairly simple -- and that
answer is this:

Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck never mentioned a single solitary word
(at ANY time--be it 1964, 1978, 1992, 1996, or any year in-between)
about the scalp of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy being "stretched"
by 4 inches when Stringer took the above-linked photograph because the
scalp of President Kennedy was not being stretched by 4 inches when
Stringer was taking the above photograph.

If the scalp had been stretched to the incredible degree that Mr.
Canal truly thinks it is being stretched in that picture, the three
aforementioned pathologists would have certainly SAID SO AT SOME POINT
IN TIME (in '64, '78, or '96...or whenever).

John Canal knows that the above paragraph makes a good deal of sense.
But he'll never admit it's a true paragraph. He's got too many years
(and posts) invested in a make-believe "EOP" entry wound.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 28, 2009, 1:50:48 AM6/28/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e7c18d5cd8d0476e

>>> "Funny, I've a feeling that neither [John] McAdams or [John] Fiorentino, not to mention VB [Vincent Bugliosi], are laughing (at me?) like you are on this." <<<

If they aren't laughing, they should be. And here's the #1 reason why:

"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." --
THE CLARK PANEL; 1968

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 28, 2009, 6:28:25 PM6/28/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f5fdd2b8a4518093

PETER MAKRES SAID:

>>> "To carry his [Oswald's] rifle across town and try it [shooting at JFK] elsewhere would have been much more brazen--and with much less chance of success. The way things actually happened could not have provided a much better opportunity for Oswald." <<<

DVP SAYS:

Exactly, Peter.

You took the words right off of my keyboard.

Nobody can know for certain, of course, whether or not Oswald would
have still attempted the assassination if he hadn't been employed in
the TSBD. But my guess is --- He would not have.

Oswald could be pretty "brazen" at times, however. For example ---
Holding on to the rifle with which he shot at General Walker. Oswald,
incredibly, apparently actually felt no need or desire to get rid of
the weapon with which he took that potshot at Walker.

For more than SEVEN MONTHS he held onto it, even though he almost
certainly had to know that the bullet that he fired into Walker's
house WAS recovered and could conceivably (for all Oswald knew) be
linked to Carcano Rifle #C2766.

I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't toss Rifle C2766 in
the trash after he shot at Walker on April 10, 1963 (or dispose of it
in some other fashion). He ran a fearful risk by keeping that rifle in
his possession for all those months.

Perhaps it was a sign of Oswald's miserly and penny-pinching ways.
Maybe he just hated the idea of spending $21.45 for a weapon he would
only be using once.

I also wonder this --- Would Oswald have disposed of his rifle if he
had succeeded in killing General Edwin A. Walker in April 1963?

And I also sometimes wonder this --- If Oswald HAD trashed his Carcano
rifle after the Walker shooting, would he have purchased another rifle
at some point in time to use in another "assassination attempt"?

It's possible, of course, that even if Oswald had disposed of the
C2766 Carcano, he could have still purchased another gun to use on
President Kennedy. Oswald had enough time to get himself another gun
between the time he could have learned for certain that JFK would be
passing by the front door of the Depository and November 22 itself.

Which begs the follow-up question (which has been asked by many people
too) --- Since Oswald had more than $170 and since he had at least 2
to 3 days to get himself another gun (possibly a non-traceable one in
a gunshop someplace), why did LHO decide to use his traceable mail-
order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot the President?

Food for thought anyway.

In summary:

We can never know the answers to all these questions relating to Lee
Harvey Oswald, his rifle, and the thoughts that might have been
floating around in his warped brain. But the one thing that we do know
beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT is this --- Lee Oswald took Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle #C2766 to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three
shots from that weapon at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of
the Book Depository Building.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Jun 28, 2009, 6:35:39 PM6/28/09

to

aliases get you no where, shithead..... David Von Pein, such a
prevaricator

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,

Jun 28, 2009, 11:36:56 PM6/28/09

to

On Jun 28, 8:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

uh uh-huh shithead.... no free advertising

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 12:33:19 AM6/29/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d0aa1cb324bc795b

>>> "Earth to DVP, this argument is about where the entry was in the skull, is it not?" <<<

No, not this particular Mulberry Bush round of debates. This
particular round of debates is about why you continually avoid
answering my earlier question regarding the autopsy doctors'
collective memory:

"When Dr. Humes and the other autopsy doctors testified in front

of the various Government commissions and panels after 1964...why

didn't a SINGLE ONE OF THEM ever mention that the reason the BOH "red
spot" picture shows the entry wound to be that high on JFK's head is
due to the scalp being stretched several inches, thereby making the

entry hole look too high?" -- DVP; 06/25/09

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b81add01dffeabff

Would you care to answer the above question now, John?

>>> "Then why don't you look at the only photograph that shows where the entry was in the "skull"...in order to determine where the entry was in the "skull"? DVP's answer: he can't figure out the only photo that shows the entry in the skull (F8)." <<<

LOL. John Canal thinks that the "only" photograph that shows the entry
wound in the SKULL is F8. Well, try to tell that to the Clark Panel,
who said this in 1968:

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a

hole...can be seen in profile approximately 100 millimeters [4 inches]

above the external occipital protuberance."

I guess John Canal doesn't think that an "X-ray film" is a
"photograph". Doesn't X-ray #2 count, John?

Maybe he's going to argue semantics with me during the next round of
debates.

>>> "John McAdams...figured out how to orientate F8..." <<<

Good for him.

But, in my opinion, F8 is totally worthless and useless.

>>> "Is any of this sinking in, Mr. Ed Cage (AKA DVP)?" <<<

Oh, goodie! Now I'm supposed to be Ed Cage too! Wonderful!

Sounds as if John Canal has been talking to a mega-kook named David G.
Healy. (Have you?) Because Healy is the only person around these parts
(except perhaps "Pam") who has been silly enough to think that I often
pose as other people.

I never thought that you, John, would stoop to such tawdry tactics.

But just for a change of pace, can I be John Fiorentino next week?
(Thanks.)

aeffects

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 1:00:00 AM6/29/09

to

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 1:39:21 AM6/29/09

to

That's funny, Mr. Crackpipe (that's Healy, of course).....I thought
you'd get a kick out of John Canal's last post that I was responding
to above, seeing as how Canal seems to think I'm Ed Cage now.

And that's just the kind of retarded crap that's right up Mr.
Crackpipe's alley.

Looks like Canal's been hanging around Healy's mobile home a little
too much recently. Some of Mr. Crackpipe's silliness seems to be
rubbing off.

aeffects

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 2:41:36 AM6/29/09

to

On Jun 28, 10:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

shithead, no advertising..... simple as that...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 2:53:33 AM6/29/09

to

LOL.

For some reason, to a kook named Healy, every single post I make is
considered "advertising".....regardless of content.

At this stage, I'm wondering if it's even humanly possible for Mr.
Crackpipe to ever get anything right? My guess is -- no, it's not
possible.

Here...have a Hydrox.

(Now THAT'S advertising.)

aeffects

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 3:11:12 AM6/29/09

to

On Jun 28, 11:53 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising shithead.....

justm...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 7:00:19 AM6/29/09

to

On Jun 29, 3:11 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 11:53 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> no advertising shithead.....

DVP....if the crack head considers what you post advertising, then it
looks like what his master little Benita Holmes keeps posting can be
considered spam.

For the junkie:
blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah
shithead.

aeffects

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 11:57:07 AM6/29/09

to

On Jun 29, 4:00 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

blah.... that tuna encrusted two-bit skankroid is trolling again.....
gotta be justme1952's ex-hubby -- old bigdog-little dickee won't claim
the shit any longer, must be why the shithead sounds lost.....
ROTFLMFAO! Have you figured out who JFK was yet, dipshit?

justm...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2009, 12:20:25 PM6/29/09

to

My my, would you look at how aggitated our token junkie/alcoholic
Aeffects aka David Gordon Healy becomes when anyone ridicules his
master Little Bennie ROFLMAO Bennies getting a beating and the little
lap dog Healy can't bark fast enough. Once again (no surprise) the
alcoholic junkie is his typical inchoherent self.