(PART 593)


DVP, you really need to do a little more reading on Fisher.


And if I do that reading, I guess I will then be expected to grab onto John Canal's coattails and therefore believe what John believes -- which is: That 13 different pathologists (not counting Dr. Fisher himself) and various other people connected with THREE different U.S. Government investigations (spanning more than ten years, from 1968 to 1978) would have been willing to toss the truth aside regarding JFK's head wounds....just in order to keep from contradicting Dr. Fisher.

Is that what is supposed to happen after I read up on Dr. Russell S. Fisher, Pat?

BTW, John Canal has never told us just exactly how many of the 13 different pathologists (not counting Fisher) who signed-off on the cowlick entry [JFK head wound] location truly were of the INDEPENDENT OPINION that the entry wound was located near the EOP.

John has said, in vague terms, that "they" (meaning some members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel and the Rockefeller Commission) actually "knew" (John's word) that the entry wound was in the EOP, even though "they" endorsed the cowlick entry location in their respective official reports. But I don't think John has ever said how many people make up the "they" he was referring to.

Here are John Canal's exact words:

"You find ridiculous, if not laughable, the notion that "experts" from the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA endorsed Fisher's cowlick entry and "No-BOH-Wound" conclusions, even though they knew the autopsists were correct about those wounds, either in order not to embarrass one of the most credentialed and prominent forensic pathologists in the country [Fisher] or to prevent the rather awkward situation where government panels (Rockefeller Commission and HSCA) would refute the conclusions of an earlier government investigation (Clark Panel) which had already refuted the findings published by an even earlier government investigation (Warren Commission)?" -- John Canal; March 31, 2009

Was it just Dr. Joseph Davis that John is talking about with respect to the HSCA particularly? Or was it ALL NINE members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel who decided to toss their collective integrity (and the truth) out the window in order to endorse an entry-wound location that ALL NINE of them "knew" was 100% false?

How about that, John? Care to enlighten us with the specific numbers regarding just who the "they" represents?

And then maybe you'd like to tell us how many of the other people from the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel [not counting Fisher himself, of course] really and truly thought the entry wound was near the level of JFK's "EOP", even though every one of those other persons endorsed the "cowlick" entry site as well.

David Von Pein
June 19, 2009