JOHN CANAL SAID:
For me the only possible reasonable reason for adding that [6.5 mm.] thing [to JFK's X-ray] would have been because someone (above Ebersole in rank) believed that the autopsists' low entry was problematic--meaning it was going to be hard to reconcile an entry that low with a shot from six floors up....and added the thing in an attempt to show that the entry was near it and high enough up on the head to make it more reconcileable with a shot from six floors up.
DVP SAID:
Oh, yes, that's right, I forgot about you being a "conspiracy theorist" with regard to the "6.5 mm. thing" too. Thanks for the reminder. [LOL]
Your "reasonable reason" stated above for someone wanting to "plant" a "6.5 mm. thing" onto one of President Kennedy's X-rays [the X-ray depicted below] is an extremely stupid reason.
The FACTS of the autopsy would speak for themselves, John. There's no reason for ANYONE (Dr. Burkley or anyone else) to want to start covering stuff up or planting things onto X-rays or even "understating" the true nature of JFK's wounds.
And that's because of the ironclad and immutable FACT that President Kennedy was struck in the head by just ONE bullet, and that bullet came from BEHIND the President. And that is a FACT that everyone who was present at JFK's autopsy positively HAD to be readily aware of on the night of November 22, 1963.
So, John, your stated reasons for people wanting to become involved in such a crazy limited cover-up and/or planting-of-evidence operation are just ludicrous, IMO.
But you seem to REQUIRE such a limited cover-up operation in order for your impossible LN/BOH theory to work out properly.
Plus: I'd like for somebody to tell me how anyone could plant some kind of a fake "object" onto an X-ray in the first place (so that it would fool everybody into believing it wasn't planted there)?
David Mantik probably has explained this "planting fake objects onto X-rays" technique somewhere within his pro-conspiracy writings, but I'm not willing to dive into his cesspool of fantasy again right now.
Plus: If the "object" is really a fake and was planted, I'm wondering why the HSCA's photographic panel declared that all of President Kennedy's autopsy photos AND X-rays "had not been altered in any manner"? Were those HSCA photo experts incompetent, or were they part of some kind of cover-up too?
And yet John Canal calls ME "delusional". Geesh.
My advice to John Canal is this -- Step back from the abyss of your own absurd make-believe "BOH" theories that have been festering in your brain for about ten years and re-evaluate things -- from a COMMON-SENSE perspective.
That type of a re-evaluation is a good idea, IMO, because "common sense" is NOT on your side, John (and that goes for all of your BOH/EOP theories). And the hard physical PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence isn't on your side either, John.
The photographic evidence, in fact (in triplicate form), is proving that you are wrong about all your theories, with that photographic record including the autopsy photographs, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film (not to mention the fact that every pathologist since 1963 disagrees with your BOH assessments as well).
As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet) fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply was missed being seen in 1963. Or maybe it's a bone fragment. That's a possibility too. But I really don't know.
But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.
If it had been planted by somebody for the purpose of making people think it was a chunk of Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head (with those planters certainly aware that the autopsists and other people would say it WASN'T THERE at all in '63), then didn't the people planting it realize that they would be in for a lot of backlash from many conspiracy theorists in the future....i.e., conspiracists who would be saying just exactly what they ARE saying about that 6.5-millimeter object today -- that it is an obvious planted object on the X-ray?
JOHN CANAL SAID:
I just faxed VB [Vincent Bugliosi] to straighten him out, as "somehow" he's gotten the idea that I theorize the autopsy doctors were in on a cover-up. Frankly, if he now believes that, I wouldn't blame him if he ignored any letters I sent him AFTER he got that misimpression.
DVP SAID:
John, you HAVE indeed implied that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) were involved in a limited "cover-up" with respect to their reporting of JFK's head wounds.
And I find it quite disingenuous on your part to try and wiggle out of your position that the AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES were an active part of your insane limited "cover-up" operation relating to President Kennedy's head wounds.
You said (and I quote you) that "...Burkley ordered the autopsy docs to not photograph the back of Kennedy's head when the body was first received and to 'understate'...in their report the 'extent' of the large wound that they eventually said extended not 'somewhat', but all the way down to near the EOP..." [John Canal; May 18, 2009].
So, John, you've got all of the autopsy doctors OBEYING Dr. Burkley's "order" (at least for a while)--which is an order that never was given, of course; you're just making up this shit from whole cloth to suit your LN/BOH/EOP needs, as we all know.
Therefore, you have to also believe that all three autopsy doctors WERE, indeed, involved in the limited cover-up concerning JFK's wounds. How can the doctors THEMSELVES not be "involved", since they are the ones carrying out Burkley's order (i.e., the "order" you've made up in your own mind)?
Obviously, you DO need Humes, Finck, and Boswell to be deeply "involved" in your make-believe cover-up....and not just Dr. George Burkley.
BTW, if such a crazy order had been issued by Burkley to Humes & Company, then why on Earth did Humes even want to put the words "somewhat" and "occipital" in the November 1963 final autopsy report at all?
Those two words can be found on page 3 of JFK's official autopsy report, which is printed on page 540 of the Warren Commission Report (as part of Commission Exhibit No. 387). A portion of that WCR page is shown below:
The logical answer, of course (if Burkley gave such an order to Humes, et al), is that Humes would never have put those two words in his completed autopsy report at all.
What the heck was the ever-obedient and subservient Dr. Humes trying to do anyway, John? Was he deliberately leaving a few bread crumbs for future conspiracy theorists to munch on by putting just a HINT of the full truth in the autopsy report via the "somewhat into the occipital" language, even though Humes was supposedly ORDERED not to mention anything about "occipital" or back-of-the-head damage to JFK's cranium at all?
Once again, when common sense enters the equation, John Canal's theories collapse like a severely weakened bridge.
David Von Pein
May 2009
August 2010
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MAY 19, 2009)
