JOHN CANAL SAID:
You evidently can't read either. I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, THE REAR SCALP was LACERATED [a la "cut"], not "extensively damaged" with none missing. .... Try to remember that the next time you post your silly refutations of what you claim I said. Again, I never said the occipital scalp was "extensively damaged" like you said I claim it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I didn't say that you did SAY that (at least I didn't imply that in the post of mine that you are responding to here).
Here's exactly what I said (in the post you were just replying to):
"John C. needs to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be extensively damaged in order for his theory to be correct, which is a theory that has all of the Parkland witnesses being correct." -- DVP
Now, where in the above statement did I say that YOU SAID that the right-rear of JFK's head was "extensively damaged"?
Answer -- Nowhere.
What I said is that you "NEED" to have the scalp in the occipital to be "extensively damaged". And you do "need" that, whether you want to admit it or not.
Looks like it's John C. who "can't read" (or comprehend) in this instance, instead of DVP, isn't it now?
JOHN CANAL SAID:
Stop misrepresenting what I say...dammit!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Again, in this "extensively damaged" instance, I didn't misrepresent what you said in the slightest. I merely was stating what you truly NEED to have (i.e., an "extensively damaged" right-rear of JFK's BOH) in order for your silly theory to have any hope of surviving at all -- and I'm right too....you NEED to have the right-rear "extensively damaged" in order for your theory to be accurate regarding all of the Parkland Hospital witnesses.
Or do you, John C., actually want to think that the Parkland witnesses saw what they SAID they saw (i.e., a huge, gaping hole in the back of JFK's head), even though there was only merely a fairly small "cut" or "laceration" in the scalp?
Via such a screwy scenario, we have many Parkland witnesses (somehow) supposedly seeing this large-ish, "gaping" wound [see drawing below] that would have been visible through what was (per John A. Canal) only a VERY SMALL "CUT"/"LACERATION" IN THE RIGHT-REAR SCALP.
Is that the story/theory you're trying to peddle here, John Canal?
At Dr. Robert McClelland's request, this diagram of John F. Kennedy's head was created:
Now, did McClelland supposedly see all of that damage to the back of JFK's head through just a "quarter"-sized "cut" or "laceration" that existed in the dead President's scalp? That was quite a feat by McClelland if John C. is correct.
In short -- John Canal is making up theories to suit his "BOH" purposes. It's as simple as that, IMO.
David Von Pein
May 10, 2009
