JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 301)


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of twisting the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below you apparently refer to the BOH [Back Of Head] wound that "I and the PH [Parkland Hospital] witnesses" describe---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole, and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn't your feeble research reading RH ["Reclaiming History"] enlighten you to the fact that they also described a BOH wound?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV (See video below.)

video

Let me guess, John -- Humes was correct in what he said in the above-mentioned quotation; but he still thought there was ANOTHER wound in the BOH too (but he decided not to talk about that "other" one on CBS-TV with correspondent Dan Rather). Correct?

And when did Dr. Boswell EVER say there was the kind of "Large BOH" wound that you and the Parkland witnesses advocate? (I think you're "extending" Boswell's comments a little bit too far into that "BOH" of yours.)

BTW, John, I doubt very much that you can come up with a single witness who described the President's head wounds in the exact manner YOU think is correct -- i.e., come up with one witness who said this:

"I think the entry wound on JFK's head was located low in the back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the larger wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was a fairly-extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while the second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipital) area of the head."

Have you got even ONE witness who provided the above description of the head wounds?

Didn't think so.


>>> "How about a miracle that results in DVP answering, in good faith,
my closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to ask for?" <<<


I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closing Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very moment (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already dropped to Page 2 on the aaj forum, so that didn't help me in seeing it either.

So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er, I mean Mr. Canal)......


>>> "1. Isn't it true that you cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK's life at PH,
or on the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<<


No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound on JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yours, as it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the ENTRY wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question of yours, since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we all know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entry on the back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and I have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossman; but that's another topic).

Anyway, with respect to the largest of the wounds, all three of the autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head wounds. One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've already posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes

The autopsy report (signed by all three autopsists) corroborates the location of the largest head wound (the exit wound), to wit -- "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIGHT involving CHIEFLY THE PARIETAL BONE but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)

And that "somewhat into the occipital" reference in the autopsy report certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't think for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your proposed nonsense regarding JFK's head wounds.


>>> "2. Isn't it true that you believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<

No. (See #1 above.)


>>> "3. Isn't it true that you believe Humes was wrong when he said they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<

Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):

Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:

"The cerebellum was somewhat disrupted, as I recall, as well. But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."

Maybe you, John, can tell me how the term "somewhat disrupted" can be turned into "severely lacerated".

It doesn't sound like Dr. Humes was describing a "severely lacerated" cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other time in his life?

BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA session either.


>>> "4. Isn't it true that you believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head?" <<<

Yes, they definitely misidentified it (with Humes realizing his error and correcting it in 1978, before he went cuckoo again in '96 or so and returned to his crazy "white spot at the hairline is the entry wound" position).

How anyone could believe, as apparently you do, John, that this piece of dried brain tissue at the hairline level of JFK's head is a bullet hole...is beyond the scope of my own brain.

Not only did the HSCA do extensive research on this "white mass" on the back of Kennedy's head (and they found it to be, beyond all doubt, a piece of material that was definitely stuck to the OUTSIDE of his head, rather than a HOLE for a bullet's entry)....but that "white spot" doesn't even remotely resemble a bullet hole. It's not even close to looking anything like a bullet hole.


>>> "5. Isn't it true that you believe Humes was mistaken about his recollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out?" <<<

I thought it was Boswell whom you always prop up to support that part of your BOH fantasy. Now it's Humes too? Cite that please.

Anyway, as the X-ray shows (beyond all doubt), the back of JFK's head was totally intact -- i.e., the back of the skull contained no HOLES, nor enough fragmentation or fracture points to even suggest that Boswell (or anyone else) could have possibly placed chunks of JFK's head back into place IN THE VERY BACK OF HIS HEAD at any time during the Bethesda proceedings on 11/22/63.



And I still wonder why it doesn't bother John Canal that the two major pieces of photographic evidence (the autopsy photos and that pesky "No Hole Back Here And Not Enough Fracture Lines" lateral X-ray) are, in unison, somehow debunking his own theory....and yet he still clings to his fantasy concerning a large BOH hole?

A most curious position to take, IMO, in the face of such overwhelming PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence that is telling him he is wrong (in TRIPLICATE yet -- the two pictures that show the back of President Kennedy's head and the X-ray of the right side of his head [as seen below]).



But, everybody's entitled to their own theories and opinions, I guess. And just because John Canal has latched onto a really strange theory, I guess he's still "got a right" to it.


>>> "6. Isn't it true that you believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA [National Archives], was wrong when he said that it was possible that some of the pieces of rear skull could have come "unlatched", resulting in the type of wound the PH doctors described?" <<<

Yes. If Chad Zimmerman said that, I think he's wrong.


>>> "7. Isn't it true that you futilely tried to find the trail of opacities (that I told you was seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area cropped?" <<<

The EOP isn't "cropped" here.

It looks to me like 100% of the head (on the far left side of that X-ray above) is included in that photograph. And if a teeny-weeny sliver of the head is cut off, how does that do you and your "trail of opacities from the EOP" theory much good anyway? Any such "trail" would certainly extend into an area further RIGHT on that X-ray, thereby making the trail visible.

Anyway, you've admitted yourself you've never once seen the original X-ray in the Archives. You're merely relying on someone else's opinion on that particular sub-topic.


>>> "8. Isn't it true that you have told us that you can tell from what you see on the published copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractures are only "surface fractures"?" <<<

No. I've never once used the words you placed in quotes there ("surface fractures"). I challenge you to find a previous post of mine where I used those exact words. You won't find one. (So why would you want to put those words in quotation marks?)

Anyway, semantics aside, there is no BOH hole in the location where you--John Canal--desperately NEED one to be located (the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the occipital of JFK's head).

And, yes, I believe the version(s) of the X-ray we have available on the Internet are giving me enough information to make an informed opinion on that "fracture lines" matter.

There's not NEARLY enough visible damage in this X-ray to make your theory stay afloat. It's not even close:




>>> "9. Isn't it true that regarding the statement in the autopsy report that reads, "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction. ... These result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size...", you think that they didn't intend on giving the impression that numerous fragments were produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the wound in the occiput...evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?" <<<

Yes. Exactly. That states my position perfectly.

And from the TOTALITY of the photographic evidence (autopsy photos/X-rays), I think my conclusion regarding that subject is a sound and logical one.

Footnote---

But even if a few very small pieces of skull near the entry wound DID fall out of JFK's head upon reflection of the scalp during the autopsy, it would mean (from my POV regarding that wound's REAL location--i.e., near the cowlick) that any such pieces of bone/skull fell out HIGH up on Kennedy's head, at the cowlick region, and not LOW on the head, which is where YOU need the pieces of bone to have fallen out in order for your particular "BOH/LN" theory to be true.

Plus, of course, since these pieces of bone didn't even "fall out" of the President's head until THE AUTOPSY (i.e., after 8:00 PM EST on the night of 11/22/63), John C. has another very big problem with his BOH/LN theory as well. And that problem is:

HOW COULD THE PARKLAND WITNESSES HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN SOMETHING (A LARGE HOLE IN THE OCCIPITAL REGION OF JFK'S HEAD) THAT WASN'T EVEN CREATED UNTIL MANY HOURS LATER AT BETHESDA, MARYLAND, WHEN THE AUTOPSISTS REFLECTED THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER FOR ANY LOOSE PIECES TO FALL FREE FROM HIS HEAD?

That last emphasized question should make John Canal scratch his head in bewilderment. Whether it will or not -- who knows.


>>> "10. Isn't it true that you have said that you don't care about understanding F8 (or words to that effect)?" <<<

Yes.

The autopsy photo known as F8 is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It would still be a total freaking mess.

IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official" opinion on the picture, it seems.

In other words, how can "mud" possibly bring about "clarity"? IMO, it can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and clearer-to-interpret evidence.


>>> "11. Isn't it true that you are positively certain that the autopsy photos showing a virtually undamaged BOH were taken before any repair could have been done to the BOH scalp in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<<

No. I'm not "positively certain" of that. But I certainly think you've got another big problem with your unique "BOH/LN" theory when it comes to the photo in question...this photo below:



Because how could JFK's head look as it does in that photograph and still have your theory about a badly-torn scalp* be true -- no matter WHEN the picture was snapped by Mr. Stringer (either early or late in the autopsy timeline)?

I see no damage of any kind in that area of the head in that photo. No sign of a wound. No hole. No stitches. No sutures. No nothing (except hair and an intact scalp).

* And make no mistake here--John needs a "badly-torn" scalp in that far-right-rear area of JFK's head. Not just a nickel- or quarter-sized mini-hole. Because without a pretty big rip in that scalp, the witnesses at Parkland (and, yes, some at Bethesda too...and, yes, Clint Hill too) could not POSSIBLY have seen what they and John Canal really say they saw -- i.e., a large, gaping hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head, which is a hole that would have had to certainly TEAR THROUGH A LARGE HUNK OF JFK'S SCALP (as well as his underlying skull too).

Which also then, in turn, brings me back to something I said in response to John's 9th question, which directly relates to this matter as well. (See my "Footnote" for #9 above.)


>>> "12. Isn't it true that you think that you'd be able to tell from the copies of the photos that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or not any tears in the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<<

Yes. Exactly.


>>> "13. Isn't it true that you don't think that it's important that high-entry theorists reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone chips from the skull's beveled-out inner table around the entry) seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?" <<<

I can't answer this question at all....because I have never seen this mystery "trail of opacities...near the EOP". (And neither have you, I might add.)

But you're comfortable enough to make such a bold declaration about the existence of such a "trail" (and the exact explanation of where any such bone fragments came from and what it all means with respect to a definitive "entry" hole at the level of the EOP) even though you've never laid eyes on that original X-ray.

Well, to each his own.


>>> "14. Isn't it true that you are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken...even though Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken?" <<<

Yes. Precisely correct. He (they) did no such thing. At any rate, they certainly didn't perform any such "bone replacement" chore IN THE PRECISE AREA OF JFK'S HEAD WHERE YOU NEED THEM TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT FEAT (i.e., in the far-right-rear of the head).

How can we know they didn't do that in that area of the head?

Answer: The lateral X-ray.


>>> "15. Isn't it true that you are sure that the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH photos is directly over the entry hole in the skull...even though prior to the BOH photos being taken, the scalp had been reflected, pieces of bone came/fell out, the brain was removed, and the scalp held back up...and even though the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) and it has not been disputed by "any" of the experts that the entry wound was 2.5 cm right of midline?" <<<

No. That's not quite what I've ever said. The cowlick (red spot) entry hole could be "off" a little bit one direction or another during that photo session. It doesn't have to line up perfectly for the benefit of that picture.

I doubt that Humes, Finck, and Boswell (in circa 1963-1964) could have imagined (in their wildest dreams) that meaningless chaff-like subjects like these we're discussing would ever come up in conversation in a million years. And yet they do come up...over and over again.

The bottom line, of course, is this:

JFK was struck in the head with ONE single bullet and no more than one....and that one bullet entered in the BACK of his head (somewhere), and exited the right-front part of his head. And Lee Harvey Oswald and his 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were responsible for this damage.


>>> "16. Isn't it true that you prefer to use the photos showing the entry in the BOH SCALP instead of the photo showing the entry in the SKULL to determine where the entry in the SKULL was?" <<<

Yes. Generally speaking, that's true. Mainly due to the fact that it's so much easier to view the UNDENIABLE entry-hole location (the red spot near the cowlick) by way of viewing the color photo showing the back of JFK's head, rather than trying to decipher the X-rays with respect to what "spot" on the X-rays represents the precise location of the entry wound. I think even some of the experts who deal with X-rays a lot have some difficulty with that one. Not all of them, true, but some do.

So, even if the slightly loosened scalp was skewing the exact, to-the-millimeter location of the entry wound in the color photo of the back of the head, that photo is telling any reasonable person the GENERAL location of the entry hole (which was certainly ABOVE the EOP, and not below it).


>>> "17. Isn't it true that you believe FBI Agents O'Neill and Siebert [sic], as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?" <<<

Yes. The latter. They were mistaken. Without doubt. They didn't lie though. And no Parkland or Bethesda witness did either. And I've never once accused any of those people of "lying". Never once.

Also refer back to my response in #11 above for more on this topic.

Re: "Liars".....

The only PROVABLE "liars" in the JFK case, in my opinion, are Roger Craig and Jean Hill. Those witnesses, however, don't play any part in our discussion about the head wounds. But both of them were proven liars without a shred of a doubt.


>>> "18. Isn't it true that you believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken when he recollected seeing a right rear gaping wound...even though he said he held the President's head in his hands?" <<<

Yes. That's correct.

He could not possibly have seen a "right rear gaping wound" in the head of the dead Chief Executive.

Why?

~~drumroll~~

Here's why:



Thank you, John.

I enjoyed it.

Regards,
David R. Von Pein
August 17, 2008