(PART 588)


I'd debate these issues with you David, but you simply don't know the medical evidence re. the head wounds well enough for any exchanges between us to be productive.


And, incredibly, ALL of the photographs and X-rays are totally misleading. Right, John C.?

And, even more incredibly, ALL THIRTEEN MEMBERS of the Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP are/were 100% incorrect about various things they ALL said regarding JFK's head wounds (and those 13 people looked at the ORIGINAL PHOTOS & X-RAYS).

Right, John C.?

That's called "denial", Mr. Canal. Simple as that.


If you think examining photos and x-rays is a means better than examining the body to determine the [c]ause of death[,] then it is you who is in denial.


Who's arguing about "the cause of death"? Not me.

The "cause of death" isn't in dispute -- it was the bullet from Lee Oswald's gun that struck the President in the back of the head.

I thought you knew that, John.


At least try get it through your head that there was no, zero, nada, zilcho, 0.0000000 chances that any forensic pathologist who examined the originals after Fisher (who was, in his time, an icon in the world of forensic pathology) was g[o]ing to refute as much as one tiny finding of his.

Of course, I know you, with your tops-in-the-world-logic (that you think you posses[s]), think that's a bunch of horse____, but, IMHO, a truly logical person would at least admit that scenario was possible.


I suppose it's possible to a conspiracist like John Canal who WANTS it to be "possible" -- i.e., the extremely remote and far-fetched idea that THIRTEEN different pathologists on the Clark Panel and the House Select Committee's forensic panel would be so silly and downright deceptive as to endorse the "cowlick" entry location merely because they didn't want to hurt poor Dr. Fisher's little ol' feelings (or some other stupid reason that John C. thinks they might have had) is a loony scenario that is actually MORE REASONABLE to believe (per John A. Canal) than to believe what the THIRTEEN different people on the Clark Panel and the HSCA's FPP told us was their true opinion regarding the entry-wound location in JFK's head.*

* Even though, per John Canal, these other TWELVE people (not counting Fisher) evidently must have known that Fisher was dead wrong about his "cowlick" determination. But those 12 people decided to sign off on the cowlick entry location anyway, merely to avoid rocking the boat (a boat that, evidently, only Dr. Fisher was in).

Right, John?

All that's needed now is the proverbial (and mandatory) three-letter sign-off to this part of the discussion.....



Undecided lurkers, don't be led astray by Mr. Von Pein, who, IMO, without investigating matters himself (e.g. he doesn't know F8 from a toenail), just jumps on the bandwagon of those he thinks must be right....because of their positions. Heck, he pr[o]bably thought Richard Nixon was telling the truth all along.


Mr. (Lonely) Lurker --- Keep in mind that it is Mr. John A. Canal who HAS NO CHOICE (per his strange BOH theories) but to believe that THIRTEEN different men who examined the original autopsy photos/X-rays were DEAD WRONG (were they liars? incompetent? or retards perhaps?) when they ALL concluded that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located HIGH on his head, "100 millimeters [four inches] above the EOP" (per the Clark Panel).

Plus: It's also Mr. Canal who has NO CHOICE but to believe that the following two pieces of photographic evidence connected to the death of John F. Kennedy are both (IN TANDEM!) telling a false story about the true nature of JFK's head injuries (and the Zapruder Film is a THIRD piece of photographic evidence that is ALSO, per Mr. Canal, telling the world a misleading story regarding JFK's head wounds as well):

It must be a PHOTOGRAPHIC CONSPIRACY (IN TRIPLICATE) that is keeping the world from knowing the full truth about the President's head wounds -- despite the fact that even Mr. Canal admits that each of the above items of photographic evidence is GENUINE and UNALTERED and NOT FAKED in any way.

The theories that people can invent are amazing. Aren't they?

David Von Pein
June 16, 2009
June 17, 2009