JOHN CANAL SAID:
The obvious connection is that Burkley, unnecessarily--we know that now--decided to understate and not photograph a BOH wound that about three dozen witnes[s]es say existed, for fear such a wound might be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot.....EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CERTAIN THE BULLET THAT CAUSED THAT BOH WOUND WAS FIRED FROM BEHIND.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
John Canal, of course, still has a huge hurdle to climb....that hurdle being, of course:
THERE WAS NO LARGE "BOH" WOUND IN THE **SCALP** OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON 11/22/63 (and the photos below prove it):
And John's whole "LN/BOH" theory crumbles into a pile of dust when just a tad bit of common sense and logic are applied to it (in conjunction with the two photos above)....and that's because:
John wants to believe that a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun (fired from the Texas School Book Depository's sixth floor) entered the back of JFK's head and somehow caused a good-sized chunk of the RIGHT-REAR SCALP AND SKULL of the President to break open -- even though John will readily acknowledge that the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was not part of the EXIT wound at all for Oswald's bullet.
Therefore, if the bullet actually EXITED in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP area of the President's head, then why on Earth would the OCCIPITAL SCALP in the RIGHT-REAR of his head suddenly crack wide open?
It doesn't make any logical (or anatomical or ballistic) sense at all -- except to John Canal, who desperately NEEDS a gaping back-of-the-head wound extending through President Kennedy's SCALP, in order to peddle the silly theory that John's been peddling for the last ten years.
John C. positively requires such a gaping SCALP wound in JFK's head in order for him to believe that the Parkland Hospital witnesses were correct about seeing such a gaping (or at least large-ish) wound in the right-rear (occipital) area of JFK's head.
Without the SCALP of JFK being severely damaged while the President was at Parkland (in order to expose a hole that nearly all of the Parkland witnesses said they saw), then John Canal's theory goes sliding down the drain immediately.
So, once again, when the facts and the photos (and some common sense) are applied to the theories of John A. Canal, those theories vaporize into nothingness.
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MAY 19, 2009)