JOHN CANAL SAID:
The fact is that all researchers who can figure out a simple photo [F8] know the entry was near the EOP....unfortunately, you're left out of that group.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
LOL time.
John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why [according to some people anyway] Dr. Baden testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh?
For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major disagreements concerning F8 over the years among the people who post on just the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very smart people posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one thing, while a different batch of people say that F8 is depicting something else entirely.
A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and useless mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph, more power to ya (I guess).
JOHN CANAL SAID:
Out of all the witnesses who said they saw where the [head] entry was on the body [of JFK], how many said it was in the cowlick and how many said it was near the EOP?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Slightly above the EOP" -- 3 (Humes, Finck, Boswell).
All other specific locations on JFK's head (including the "cowlick") -- 0. (AFAIK.)
But when we get to 1968 and 1975 and 1978, we have these stats:
Approximately "10 centimeters above the EOP" -- Every pathologist who examined the autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel (in 1968), the Rockefeller Commission (in 1975), and the HSCA (in 1978).
DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "This is a drawing [JFK Exhibit F-48] made from photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation, an entrance bullet perforation."
[...]
MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately represent the location of the wound in the back of the President's head?"
DR. BADEN -- "Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the panel members."
JOHN CANAL SAID:
I'll ask him [DVP] to explain "why", "if" the Clark panel reported that the skull was severely fragmented posteriorly to the Lamboid suture and that the entry was several cm anterior to the Lamboid suture, can part of the entry be seen in F8 along the edge of the "INTACT" rear skull?
IOW, if it was in the part of the skull that was fragmented, then why did even the HSCA report that part of the entry was in the INTACT bone?
DVP will ignore that because he has no clue what I'm talking about...which is due to his lack of understanding of the medical evidence....which doesn't prevent him or even slow him down from arguing with those who do have such an understanding. See if I'm right.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, since you're talking about a photograph of the inside of President Kennedy's head (F8) that I think is completely useless, I'll have to pass. In my opinion, F8 is worthless for trying to PROVE exactly where the wounds (or anything!) are located in JFK's head.
You disagree. Okay, fine. So be it.
JOHN CANAL SAID:
If VB [Vincent Bugliosi] would only read these exchanges, well...IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you, John -- particularly with respect to your theory about the autopsy doctors deliberately engaging in some kind of cover-up regarding JFK's head wounds. THAT'S really an embarrassing theory, IMO. And Vince thinks so too:
"John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who has read my book and still believes this, there obviously is nothing I can say to him or her to infuse their mind with common sense." -- Vince Bugliosi [via E-mail sent by Bugliosi's secretary to David Von Pein]; 04/19/09
David Von Pein
May 17, 2009
