JOHN CANAL SAID:
I've never seen the body [of JFK] either...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you've seen the photos and X-rays of the body. And you've managed to misinterpret nearly every single one of them in order to prop up your insane "LN/BOH/EOP" theories.
Granted, John Canal's task has not been an easy one -- i.e., it's not an easy task to have to try and promote Canal's idiotic "LN/BOH/EOP ENTRY" theories while looking directly at multiple autopsy photographs and X-rays of the dead President Kennedy, which are photos and X-rays that are painting an obvious picture of the truth regarding the location of JFK's wounds (i.e., "Cowlick Entry" and "No Large Wound In The Back Of The Head").
But John Canal, for nearly ten years now, has made it his life's work to promote his singular, impossible theories regarding JFK's wounds.
And while promoting those theories, Mr. Canal has no problem whatsoever in calling every member of the Clark Panel (4 doctors in total) liars or boobs. Canal has no choice BUT to believe that all 4 Clark Panel members were either liars or total boobs, because in 1968 those four guys all signed a report that said this (plain as day) about the entry wound in JFK's head:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." -- Via Clark Panel Report; 1968
In replying to the Clark Panel passage quoted above, John Canal came back with this incredibly lame retort:
"[Dr. Russell S.] Fisher started this cowlick entry business and the rest of the government experts parroted him...do you really think [Dr. Michael] Baden [of the HSCA] was going to refute the conclusions of a government panel [Clark] that had already refuted the conclusions published by the earliest government inquiry [WC]??????? Do you think they were going to play musical entry wound locations?" -- John A. Canal; 05/17/09
Just brilliant, huh? Mr. Canal thinks that ALL NINE members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel would be willing to promote a bunch of lies about the wounds of an assassinated U.S. President just so that the boat wouldn't be rocked any further....even though ALL NINE of the FPP doctors must surely have realized that their "cowlick entry" determination (which would be in print for all time in the HSCA volumes via Dr. Baden's testimony) was pure nonsense and bullshit. Or were some of those nine FPP doctors just simply boobs/fools/idiots, John?
[Also see 7 HSCA 110, a portion of which is pictured below.]
And, apparently, Mr. Canal must also think that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel was able to strong-arm his three cohorts on that Clark Panel back in '68 too. Because, per Canal, it was ONLY FISHER who "started this cowlick entry business and the rest of the government experts parroted him".
Talk about mindless drones with no backbone or will of their own! I guess Canal thinks the Clark Panel and the HSCA were full of these mindless, follow-the-leader drones -- even though each drone HIMSELF was examining the autopsy photos and X-rays too!
And evidently NONE of those 12 people on the Clark and FPP panels who simply "parroted" Fisher's cowlick-entry conclusion had a lick of integrity either. They were all willing to "parrot" the cowlick conclusion merely because Fisher said so. Right, John?
REPLAY:
JOHN CANAL SAID:
Fisher started this cowlick entry business and the rest of the government experts parroted him...do you really think Baden was going to refute the conclusions of a government panel [Clark] that had already refuted the conclusions published by the earliest government inquiry [WC]???????
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If that panel [the Clark Panel] needed to be refuted, then yes, of course Baden & Company would have refuted Fisher, et al.
Why is this question even being asked, John? OF COURSE Baden would have admitted to an "EOP" entry wound IF THE FPP SAW GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO ENDORSE SUCH AN ENTRY-WOUND LOCATION.
But, quite obviously, the HSCA's FPP (like the Clark Panel ten years before it), could easily SEE FOR THEMSELVES (via the photos and X-rays) that there is NO WOUND IN THE EOP AREA. The wound is in the cowlick...and the X-RAYS VERIFY THAT FACT.
The entry hole in the cowlick was seen by every Clark Panel member and every HSCA/FPP member. And the COWLICK scalp entry hole LINES UP PERFECTLY with the COWLICK entry as seen in JFK's skull on the X-rays.
John Canal, however, will no doubt deny (or ignore) that last "lines up" fact until a few cows show up on his doorstep.
REPLAY:
JOHN CANAL SAID:
Do you think they were going to play musical entry wound locations?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If that was required -- YES -- of course they would have. Why isn't this obvious to you, John?
It appears that paranoia has set in on an LNer (John C.). That's very unusual too, because most LNers are very good thinkers and very good at assessing and evaluating the evidence.
But John C. has a unique LN/BOH/EOP theory to peddle. So, it appears that his common sense has gone flying out the window.
So, like almost all conspiracy theorists do, John C. wants to pretend that a bunch of people lied about certain things relating to the death of President Kennedy. Because without a gang of rotten, worthless liars (spanning a period of many, many years), John's crazy "EOP entry" theory goes up in smoke -- which is where it belongs anyway.
David Von Pein
May 17, 2009
January 5, 2014
