(PART 500)


DVP, I would give you a big (I'm 6'5" and 310 lbs) hug if I could---something in one of your recent posts has triggered...what promises to be a re-examination of the medical evidence pertaining to the controversies over the head wounds.

Indeed, I've been spinning my wheels for a few years now trying to get this done...and, ironically, like a knight in shining armor, DVP saves the day.

I can't tell you anymore than this, because someone's getting an exclusive story. It's not VB [Vincent Bugliosi], regrettably, he's missed out....too busy chasing Bush....George, that is, of course.


You mean "Fantasy Island" is back on the air after all these years!! I had no idea! Looks like John's "exclusive" belongs to "Tattoo". Congrats!


Now, let's turn our attention to that stupid comment you made below. DVP steps on his [man gland] again by uttering:

[Quote on...]

"Yeah, why would I (or anybody else!) ever be caught dead relying on a much better and much clearer and much easier to orient photo like the BOH color photo to try and determine where the bullet hole was located on JFK's head....vs. relying more heavily on that mess known as "F8"?"

[/Quote off]

Sure, the pictures of the BOH scalp are easy to orientate, but so is the Mona Lisa and both are equally useful for determining where the entry was in JFK's skull....just to remind you that the photo you find so easy to orientate was NOT taken when the body was first received and shows only the entry in a scalp that has been cleaned, reflected, put back, etc. etc.

That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a photo of the wound in the skull (F8), which a fifth grader can understand, is the best way (aside from reading the autopsy report) to determine where the entry was in the skull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what we're trying to determine, right?


John C. likes to totally dismiss and brush aside the fact that the horrible photo known as "F8" has been the subject of much controversy over the years -- i.e., there are MANY different interpretations of what that picture is showing us. Lots of people say one thing; while a lot of different people say something else concerning F8. In short, it's not a reliable source of VERIFIABLE INFORMATION when trying to determine where the specific wounds are located in John F. Kennedy's head.

But, John, if you want to scoop up F8 (and your interpretation of it) and race toward the "EOP Endzone" -- more power to you. But I'll pass on EVERYTHING related to F8, thanks. In my opinion, that photo is pretty much totally worthless for definitively proving anything. But if you think otherwise, good for you.


Again, thanks so much David.


No problem, John. Always glad to help. And please let me know when "Tattoo" shows up on Fantasy Island with your "exclusive story" in hand. I look forward to seeing how your exclusive story explains away the verified cowlick entry location that was agreed upon by more than a dozen different trained pathologists in the 1960s and 1970s. That should be an "exclusive" riot.


Would you really have simply covered up that roughly five-inch (back to front) top/right/front area of JFK's head...with rubber...FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL? Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting memory of her husband, eh, David? God help us all.


I would have done whatever it was that morticians did to make a banged-up head look as presentable as possible....via fake "head material" (whatever they used for this purpose)....and surely they could also place some fake hair in there too.

Earth to John Canal! --- Wigs and toupees (i.e., artificial hair) DID exist in November of 1963.

But John thinks it makes more sense to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the very back part of JFK's scalp to ridiculous lengths in order to cover the right-front part of Kennedy's head.

I guess John thinks that having JFK's COWLICK appearing at the FRONT-RIGHT part of his head (via this stretching act that John imagines was taking place) would have looked much better than just merely placing a toupee on Kennedy's head. ~shrug~

After all, most people have their cowlicks at the very front of their head...right, John? Who's gonna notice...right?



Yikes...Jackie would have had one heck of a lasting memory of her husband, eh, David?


Of course, John Canal no doubt already knows that one of Jackie's last looks at JFK after he died was certainly far from being one of satisfaction. Jackie wasn't pleased with the way her husband looked in his casket at all....and neither was RFK.

Hence, the decision was made by RFK to close the casket for the funeral. (And this, btw, was JFK's appearance after he had supposedly been prettied-up via John's proposed "scalp-stretching" activity. A lot of good that did, huh John?)

After snipping off a lock of the dead President's hair in the East Room of the White House, Jackie was quoted as having said: "It isn't Jack".

I just recently saw something at another JFK forum, where a conspiracist was mangling that particular "It isn't Jack" statement by Jackie all out of proportion (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists, of course), with the CTer hinting that Jackie might have been speaking LITERALLY when she said "It isn't Jack", conjuring up the Lifton-esque image in the CTer's mind that the body in the casket wasn't the real John F. Kennedy at all, but an imposter instead.

Of course, as any reasonable person knows, Jacqueline Kennedy's "It isn't Jack" comment was not meant to be taken literally. She merely meant that her husband looked like a wax dummy as he lay in his casket. And RFK thought the same thing as well.

But, as we all know, it doesn't take much to get a conspiracy theorist to believe in the craziest of things -- like a "JFK Double In The Casket" theory....or the "Scalp Was Stretched Like A Rubber Band And Made The Entry Wound Appear Way Too High On JFK's Head Even Though Every Single Pathologist Who Looked Into This Matter For The HSCA And The Clark Panel Agreed That The Entry Wound Was Located Four Inches Above The EOP" theory.

David Von Pein
April 22, 2009