JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
Somehow John [Canal] wants to discount all of the conflicting statements by Humes, et al re: this [head entry] wound. He never mentions that Humes at one point even indicated the small piece of brain matter down by JFK's hairline visible in one of the BOH photos was the "entry." That spot of course is well "below" the EOP, not "slightly above" it. So Humes was apparently one rather mixed up fellow, and amply demonstrated that fact on numerous occasions.
[...]
The scalp "stretching" referred to by John C and alluded to by Sturdivan is simply silly when all of the facts are taken into account, and when one actually views the photo in question [shown below]. The facts show, the photos support a higher entry, the X-rays support a higher entry, the FPP of the HSCA (not just Baden) concluded the entry was higher, as did the Clark panel, as did John Lattimer.
[...]
I can only say that the readers here should be the judges of what is the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well said, John Fiorentino. Excellent.
And you brought up another great point that I think I have failed to mention in my past wranglings with John Canal -- and that is the fact that even Dr. Humes (et al), at one time or another, actually thought the white dab of brain tissue near JFK's hairline in the autopsy photo represented the area where the bullet hole actually resided.
Hence, when an observation like that one (where the white splotch equates to the level of the entry wound) is taken into account, John Canal's theory makes even less sense and becomes much less plausible, because it has Humes and company placing the wound very low on what John Canal insists is a scalp that is being "stretched" northward by "three inches or more". And yet we're to believe that all of the autopsists didn't know (or realize) that the scalp was being manipulated in such a manner at the time of that photo session?
If Mr. Canal's "stretched scalp" theory is correct, then why on this Earth wouldn't Humes, Finck, and/or Boswell have EVER testified (or stated in private interviews) that the obvious reason for the bullet hole being TOO HIGH in the famous autopsy photo in question is due to the fact that the scalp was, indeed, being stretched and/or some "undermining" had been done to the scalp, as John C. insists was done, BEFORE the photo had been taken?
If such "undermining"/"scalp stretching" had actually occurred before that picture was taken (and that picture is, as I mentioned before, obviously a photo that was taken for one solitary main purpose--to show where the ENTRY WOUND was located on the back of the President's head), then why in the world wouldn't that fact have come out in the testimony and statements of people like Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and even John Stringer too).
Did all of these people just FORGET that the scalp had been manipulated and stretched to a large degree BEFORE a very important autopsy photo was taken to illustrate where the bullet entered JFK's head?
That's just silly.
David Von Pein
April 21, 2009
