(PART 85)


>>> "She [Barb Junkkarinen] has forgotten more about the medical evidence than you pretend to know." <<<


Yeah, prob'ly so.

>>> "Therefore, you've got gal [sic] to question her on this issue,
IMHO." <<<

Yeah, prob'ly so. But I've got the sum total of the evidence to always
fall back on. Plus the common-sense factor of knowing that it would
have been totally silly for the Bethesda doctors to want to cover up
the truth about the death of JFK, which the doctors knew had been
caused by only two bullets which both entered JFK's body FROM BEHIND.

>>> "You've also got a lot of gal [sic] saying that all those witnesses "who saw the body" and a BOH [Back Of Head] wound were wrong...BASED ON: 1) A photo taken near the end of the autopsy when the next major step was to turn the body over to the morticians..." <<<

I don't give a damn WHEN the photo was taken. The fact is there is NO
REAR SCALP MISSING on the head of the dead President. None! Zilch! Not
even a mark on the scalp. Nothing.

It's virtually impossible for the rear scalp of JFK to be in this condition
(shown below) if the Parkland witnesses are correct about there having
been a very large BOH wound in this SAME HEAD of President Kennedy:

Was JFK's scalp supposedly peeled COMPLETELY BACK off of his head at
Parkland, thereby exposing a massive hole underneath the TOTALLY INTACT
scalp (per the above photo) at the far-right-rear of the head?

If so, why didn't any Parkland witnesses say anything about the scalp
being massively peeled back off of the President's head?

Of course, I'll grant you, none of the Parkland people seemed to notice
the large exit wound in the front-right part of JFK's head either, so I
guess maybe they just all missed seeing this massive "Scalp Peeling"
that must have been occurring at Parkland as well (if Mr. Canal's theory
concerning JFK's head wounds is a correct one, that is).

~~shrugs shoulders twice in bewilderment~~

>>> "Look at the damn x-rays and BOH photo. The autopsists even said the large wound extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital....even if they understated how far back the wound went, the aforementioned photo and x-rays show no hint of a wound where they said there was one...nada, zilcho, zero, nothing...DO YOU GET IT? Why don't you ask yourself why that is, if that's not too much of a hurdle to jump before you accuse so many credible witnesses of being liars or hallucinators?" <<<

See my last remarks.

And, btw, I've never once accused any Parkland witness of being a "liar".
Never once.

(John Canal sure is irritable today.)

>>> "Do you actually think the autopsy docs didn't know where the temporal and occipital bones were? Don't bother to answer that...OF COURSE YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THOSE BONES WERE." <<<

Go ask Tony Marsh. He thinks the Bethesda docs (all 3 of 'em!) were
total and utter incompetents, and they couldn't even tell a little
piece of loose brain tissue from a hole in the back of JFK's head.

I guess Tony must think JFK wasn't shot in the head AT ALL, seeing as
how he thinks there was NO HOLE at all in the back of the head.

Go figure that. ~shrug~

(I wandered off on a Marsh tangent; sorry.)

>>> "The Greer-Did-It theory makes more sense than what you're sputtering out." <<<

My, my. John C. sure is testy today.

>>> "I've come to know former FBI agent Francis O'Neill pretty good. Do you want to talk to him up front and personal like and ask him if he was smoking that funny stuff when he viewed and felt the back of JFK's skull with his finger...and saw a large BOH wound? I'm almost positive I can arrange that...if you have the balls to. How about it?" <<<

No, thanks.

(My goodness, John's on edge today.)

David Von Pein
December 2007