(PART 471)


>>> "How can you possibly look at that X-ray and not see the extensive damage/fragmentation to the right rear of JFK's head?" <<<


Because there is no extensive fracturing of the right-rear of the skull. Period.

There's certainly not the type of "extensive" fragmentation and fracturing that John Canal requires. That's quite obvious. It couldn't BE any more obvious, in fact:

>>> "No hole, but there was extensive damage and fracturing." <<<

Not nearly enough to meet John Canal's BOH requirements. It's not even close.

>>> "You are forgetting that many pieces of skull fell out of the head when they unwrapped it." <<<

Not in the BACK of his head. That couldn't be more obvious by just looking at the X-ray. No pieces could have possibly fallen out from the occipital area of the head. Impossible.

>>> "IF? So, you are calling Boswell a liar. Why would he make up a lie about replacing fragments into the head?" <<<

Why are you so tough on John Canal's theory then, Tony?

Sounds to me like you're ready to jump into bed with him (and his silly theory).

Or are you just "playing the whole field" again, Tony?

(Tony Marsh is another hard one to figure out. Always has been.)

>>> "Compare the X-rays to the photos looking into the head after removal of the brain. There are several areas in the front and rear where skull fragments came out." <<<

Then you have no choice but to think that this X-ray is a fake (because it proves that no "fragments" of skull bone could have possibly fallen out of the back of John Kennedy's head):

David Von Pein
March 31, 2009