(PART 541)


I just faxed VB [Vincent Bugliosi] to straighten him out, as "somehow" he's gotten the idea that I theorize the autopsy doctors were in on a cover-up. Frankly, if he now believes that, I wouldn't blame him if he ignored any letters I sent him AFTER he got that misimpression.

Just so you don't misunderstand or misrepresent my beliefs, one more time: I believe Burkley ordered the autopsy docs to not photograph the back of Kennedy's head when the body was first received and to "understate" [that's different than stating there was NO BOH wound], in their report, the "extent" of the large wound that they eventually said extended, not "somewhat", but all the way down to near the EOP. No bone rear missing, but loose pieces there dislodged.

Now as far as toning down any insults, Ok.

But, IMO, you are, at least when it comes to this case, DELUSIONAL.

The symptoms are obvious and one doesn't have to be a psychiatrist to know that--your cut and paste technique, IMO, shows that you must ignore (cut out) valid points made against your position in order to protect your psych from being injured (damaging your self-confidence).

Let's try something to see if I'm right. I'll make a point and see if you ignore it...or really try to provide an explanation for it that others would agree is reasonable. Ready? Let's go:

You agree that the 6.5 mm opacity doesn't represent a real bullet fragment, right? Ok, at least we agree on that. With that in mind, I'd like you to imagine the odds against an artifact ending up:

1. that size--about, if not precisely, the same diameter (6.5 mm) as the ammo LHO used.
2. the same precise distance right of midline (2.5 cm) as the autopsists' entry.
3. just barely under the proposed high entry site.
4. on the AP film just after (about a month after the assassination) Dr. Ebersole, had been called to the White House to use allegedly the x-rays to take measurements from for a 'bust" of JFK's head. This little job was especially interesting because of two reasons: 1) the project was given a code name (Aunt Margret's Skirts), and 2) the only person who was supposed to have access to the autopsy photos and x-rays, whch were secured like the Crown Jewels were, was Chief Justice Earl Warren.

What did you come up with? Even Sturdivan, who is an expert in calculating probabilities and, because he worked for the government for 50 years, hates the word, "conspiracy", admits all of that would be "one Hell of a coincidence".

Now, IMO, any person who isn't delusional would agree the possibility exists that the 6.5 mm thing was added to the x-rays.

Ok, for those that agree so far--I assume that leaves you out--that the thing was added, the question is begged, "why?"

A question like that is as interesting as it is important, because of the implications it carries with it.

For me, the only possible reasonable reason for adding that thing would have been because someone (above Ebersole in rank) believed that the autopsists' low entry was problematic--meaning it was going to be hard to reconcile an entry that low with a shot from six floors up....and added the thing in an attempt to show that the entry was near it and high enough up on the head to make it more reconcileable with a shot from six floors up.

If you think that's a wacky explanation, then tell me yours.

Anybody else want to offer an opinion? If you feel "froggy" then jump at this opportunity to demonstrate your wisdom.

In any case, if you think MY theories are weird, you really ought to read this dialog below for comprehension:

I'm tired of you cutting out any points that I make that you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for and pasting in those you "think" you have an explanation for. That said, I'm just going to post this summary of your position every time you use your "cut and paste" method when you post on either the BOH wound or entry location issues.

DVP "DOESN'T" believe the Parkland doctors who tried to save Kennedy's life and said:

1. they saw a BOH wound (20+ eyewitnesses).
2. they saw cerebellum (10 witnesses).

DVP "DOESN'T" believe the autopsy doctors who literally had the body in their hands and said:

1. the entry was near the EOP.
2. the BOH skull was fragmented.
3. part of the cerebellum was lacerated.
4. there was a BOH wound
5. they undermined the scalp to maximize its "stretchability" for the purpose of closing the large openings in his head..

DVP "DOESN'T" believe Finck who literally had the body in his hands and said he helped the photographer take photos of the external aspect of the entry and that he arrived after the brain had been removed (meaning the BOH photos were taken after the brain had been removed).

DVP "DOESN'T" believe the morticians, who prepared the body for an open casket funeral, when they said they stretched the scalp and sutured it in order to close the wounds.

DVP "DOES" believe Baden, who never saw the body and said:

1. there was no lower brain damage reported even though there was lower brain damage reported.

2. the cerebellum was not damaged even though

a. no one can see the top-front of the cerebellum by just viewing either the basilar or superior photos or drawings of the brain and

b. Humes testified under oath that he saw part of the cerebellum lacerated.

3. there was no evidence for a low entry on the x-rays when a highly credentialed member of Baden's own panel told him, on the record, that he saw evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP.

4. the 6.5 mm opacity represented a real bullet fragment and was part of the evidence for a cowlick entering bullet, even though DVP himself acknowledges that opacity is an artifact.

5. all the consulting radiologists agreed that the x-rays showed conclusive evidence of a high entry, even though Dr. William Seaman, a radiologist who consulted for Baden's panel, clearly said there was no conclusive evidence on the x-rays for either a high or low entry.

6. the straight-line cowlick entry shown in the Dox drawing was fairly accurate even though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved a cowlick entry, straight-line trajectory would have pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of, not the TSBD, but the Dal-Tex Building.

The bottom line is that, while DVP calls my beliefs, and I guess those of many others to include Dr. Rahn, Whiskey Joe, Larry Sturdivan, Dr. Zimmerman, Dr. Joe Davis, Barb J., J. Hunt, and Paul Seaton, regarding either the entry and/or existence of a BOH wound wacky, he pretty much believes:

1. all the witnesses who saw the body were "wrong" regarding their descriptions of the head wounds and

2. all the government consulting experts, who never saw the body, were "correct" regarding their conclusions about the head wounds.

So, I ask you, who's the one that's really wacky?


Oh, yes, that's right, I forgot about you being a "conspiracy theorist" with regard to the "6.5 mm. thing" too. Thanks for the reminder.

Your "reasonable reason" stated above for someone wanting to "plant" a "6.5 mm. thing" onto one of President Kennedy's X-rays is an extremely stupid reason.

The FACTS of the autopsy would speak for themselves, John. There's no reason for ANYONE (Dr. George Burkley or anyone else) to want to start covering stuff up or planting things onto X-rays or even "understating" the true nature of JFK's wounds.

And that's because of the ironclad and immutable FACT that President Kennedy was struck in the head by just ONE bullet, and that bullet came from BEHIND the President. And that is a FACT that everyone who was present at JFK's autopsy positively HAD to be readily aware of on the night of November 22, 1963.

So, John, your stated reasons for people wanting to become involved in such a crazy limited cover-up and/or planting-of-evidence operation are just ludicrous, IMO.

But you seem to REQUIRE such a limited cover-up operation in order for your impossible Lone Assassin/BOH theory to work out properly.

And why in the world would anyone in their right mind think it would be "hard to reconcile an entry that low with a shot from six floors up"?

For Pete sake, we know that ALL of the back side of Kennedy's head was exposed to Oswald's bullet, both the UPPER portions of his head and the LOWER portions of his head--including the EOP [as illustrated in Zapruder frame #312 shown below]....

....So why would some boob(s) think that a LOW entry wound in JFK's head would be completely incompatible with a shot from Oswald's window?


Didn't your make-believe planters of the "6.5 mm. object" know any of the trajectories and the alignments from the TSBD by the time they supposedly planted the object onto the X-ray--which was quite a while AFTER 11/22/63, right?

Plus: Anybody who would have planted such an object on the X-ray surely also knew that JFK was hit in the UPPER BACK by one of Oswald's bullets from the sixth floor of the Depository. And the UPPER BACK is certainly quite a bit LOWER on Kennedy's body than the EOP in JFK's head!

Did these goofy "6.5 mm. object planters" for some reason think that Oswald was capable of hitting JFK in the upper back with a bullet from the sixth floor, but he somehow wasn't able to hit a HIGHER point on JFK's body--his EOP?

Plus: I'd like for somebody to tell me HOW anyone could "plant" some kind of a fake "object" onto an X-ray in the first place (so that it would fool everybody into believing it wasn't planted there)?

David Mantik probably has explained this "planting fake objects onto X-rays" technique somewhere within his pro-conspiracy writings, but I'm not willing to dive into his cesspool of fantasy again right now.

Plus: If the "object" is really a "fake" or was "planted", I'm wondering why the HSCA's photographic panel determined that all of the autopsy photos AND X-rays "had not been altered in any manner"? Were those HSCA photo experts incompetent, or were they part of some kind of cover-up too?

And yet John Canal calls ME "delusional". Geesh.

My advice to John Canal is this -- Step back from the abyss of your own absurd make-believe "BOH" theories that have been festering in your brain for about 10 years and re-evaluate things -- from a COMMON-SENSE perspective.

That type of a re-evaluation is a good idea, IMO, because "common sense" is NOT on your side, John (and that goes for all of your BOH/EOP theories). And the hard physical PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence isn't on your side either.

The photographic evidence, in fact (in triplicate form), is proving that you are wrong about all your theories, with that photographic record including the autopsy photographs, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film (not to mention the fact that every pathologist since 1963 disagrees with your BOH assessments as well).

As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on this X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet) fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know.

But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.

If it had been planted by somebody for the purpose of making people think it was a chunk of Lee Oswald's bullet that struck JFK in the head (with those planters certainly aware that the autopsists and other people would say it WASN'T THERE at all in '63), then didn't the people planting it realize that they would be in for a lot of backlash from many conspiracy theorists in the future...i.e., conspiracists who would be saying just exactly what they ARE saying about that "6.5 mm. object" today -- that it is an obvious "planted" object on the X-ray?


You, John Canal, HAVE indeed implied that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) were involved in a limited "cover-up" with respect to their reporting of JFK's head wounds. And I find it quite disingenuous on your part to try and wiggle out of your position that the AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES were an active part of your insane limited "cover-up" operation relating to JFK's head wounds.

You said (and I quote you) that "Burkley ordered the autopsy docs to not photograph the back of Kennedy's head when the body was first received and to "understate"...in their report, the "extent" of the large wound that they eventually said extended, not "somewhat", but all the way down to near the EOP."

So, John, you've got all of the autopsy doctors OBEYING Dr. Burkley's "order" (at least for a while)--which is an order that never was given, of course; you're just making up this shit from whole cloth to suit your LN/BOH/EOP needs, as we all know.

Therefore, you have to also believe that all three autopsy doctors WERE, indeed, involved in the limited cover-up concerning JFK's wounds. How can the doctors THEMSELVES not be "involved", since they are the ones carrying out Burkley's order (i.e., the "order" you've made up in your own mind)?

Obviously, you DO need Humes, Finck, and Boswell to be deeply "involved" in your make-believe cover-up....and not just Dr. George Burkley.

BTW, if such a crazy order had been issued by Burkley to Humes & Company, then why on Earth did Humes even want to put the words "somewhat" and "occipital" in the November 1963 final autopsy report [WCR, page 540]?

The logical answer, of course (if Burkley gave such an order to Humes, et al), is that Humes would never have put those two words in his completed autopsy report at all.

What the heck was the ever-obedient and subservient Dr. Humes trying to do anyway, John? Was he deliberately leaving a few bread crumbs for future conspiracy theorists to munch on by putting just a HINT of the full truth in the autopsy report via the "somewhat into the occipital" language, even though Humes was supposedly ORDERED not to mention anything about "occipital" or back-of-the-head damage to JFK's cranium at all?

Once again, when common sense enters the equation, John Canal's theories collapse like a severely weakened bridge.

David Von Pein
May 19, 2009