(PART 297)


>>> "You do know from your extensive research that the holes in JFK's scalp were closed up in preparation for a possible open-casket funeral, right?...and that Humes assisted the morticians until the body left the morgue, right? I guess not." <<<


John Canal thinks that this picture depicts a scalp on JFK's head that was torn WIDE OPEN at the right-rear portion of the head by the effects of Lee Oswald's bullet a few hours earlier, and yet that same scalp looks the way it does in that autopsy photograph (i.e., COMPLETELY INTACT, sans a single indication of any stitches/sutures, and sans any visual indication whatsoever of any damage having been done to JFK's scalp in the area where John Canal thinks there was a huge, gaping open wound).

Incredible, John. Just incredible.

And what's even more incredible is the fact that (coincidentally, and luckily--for John's theory) the lateral autopsy X-ray miraculously ALSO shows the same kind of "NO DAMAGE AT ALL IN THE FAR-RIGHT-REAR OF JFK'S HEAD" situation (i.e., no visible fracture lines where considerable fracture lines and fragmenting of the skull MUST really be located [in the far-right-rear of the occipital], if John Canal is to be believed, and if any of the Parkland "BOH Wound" witnesses are to be believed as well).

I'd like to know the mere ODDS of having BOTH of those visual pieces of evidence (the autopsy photo and the lateral X-ray) supporting the conclusion of "No Large BOH Wound" and yet still having John Canal's incredible BOH/LN theory being a truism?

Any idea what the odds would be that BOTH of those visual autopsy aids we have to guide us would BOTH be providing misleading and, in effect, incorrect information regarding the true nature of President Kennedy's head wounds?

My guess is: those odds are pretty tiny.

>>> "If the force of the bullet was powerful enough to fragment the rear of his skull, don't you think it may also have torn the rear scalp?" <<<

And then the massively damaged and ripped-wide-open scalp was sewn up with such perfection and skill before the photos were taken that the pictures show no signs of that bullet damage whatsoever. Right, John?

(The more this silliness is discussed, the more comical it gets.)

>>> "Now, for about the fifth time, would you kindly explain that aforementioned trail from near the EOP (and lack of such a trail at the high site)?" <<<

That explanation isn't needed here at all.


Because your silly BOH/LN Combo Theory is moribund without any such explanation about the "opacities" seen in JFK's X-rays.

David Von Pein
August 14, 2008