Canal exposes fabrications in official autopsy reports

[Douglas Caddy]

Canal exposes fabrications in official autopsy reports

http://thesop.org/story/opinion/2010/07/05/jfk-assassination-news-john-canal-exposes-fabrications-in-official-autopsy-reports.php

[Pat Speer]

Two questions:

1. If the back of head photo was the photo made up after the morticians "repaired" the head, then where is the photo of the back of skull wound?

2. Three points about relying on image 45 and Stringer. Both Pat Speer and Dave Mantik say 45 is evidence of a shot from the front. Canal is not saying that.

Second, Stringer actually denied to the ARRB taking the photos of the brain in the archives today--an issue avoided in this piece.

Third, Stringer said he was present at and took photos of a brain sectioning. Where are those photos, and why do Humes and Boswell say there was no sectioning?

Jim, Canal and I have been going at it on the "pigpen" since 2005. He is a published author and lone-nutter who adamantly believes the mystery photo was taken from the front and refuses to address my videos demonstrating otherwise. The holes in the base of the skull in the proper orientation are the EOP entrance on the back of the skull in his orientation. He has had bitter fights with McAdams and Von Pein, among others, who insist the cowlick entrance to be the correct entrance.

Although we disagree on most matters, my work on the Clark Panel caught his attention some years back and he has endeavored since that time to arouse media interest in what he has come to agree was its deliberate move of the head wound, in order to shut down Garrison, and refute aspects of SSID. He thinks they did this because they were AFRAID the evidence suggested a conspiracy, even though it did not.

Although Canal makes numerous mistakes, IMO, I applaud his efforts to bring some of this info to the public's attention. I do resent somewhat the suggestion in the article that John came to all this himself, when much of the real meat in the article he learned via discussions with me on aaj, and much of what I knew came from articles by Aguilar, and books and letters by Wecht.

(Anyone interested on my take on the Clark Panel, and the movement of the head wound, may wish to listen to Black Op radio #411, which is still accessible, here: Black Op radio archives 2009)

Edited July 6, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Harold Wesiberg was saying that the Clark Panel was only convened in an attempt to counter Garrison way back in the '70s.

The timing of the release of its report made its purpose rather obvious. "Yeah, we conducted a secret study of the medical evidence a year ago, but were waiting to see if a judge would grant Garrison and his expert--Nichols--access to the evidence before deciding to make its findings public." The timing of the release is significant in other ways as well. It occurred only days before LBJ was to leave office. Clearly, Johnson and Clark wanted to derail Garrison themselves, and not rely on Nixon and John Mitchell to do so.

[Pat Speer]

Two questions:

1. If the back of head photo was the photo made up after the morticians "repaired" the head, then where is the photo of the back of skull wound?

2. Three points about relying on image 45 and Stringer. Both Pat Speer and Dave Mantik say 45 is evidence of a shot from the front. Canal is not saying that.

Second, Stringer actually denied to the ARRB taking the photos of the brain in the archives today--an issue avoided in this piece.

Third, Stringer said he was present at and took photos of a brain sectioning. Where are those photos, and why do Humes and Boswell say there was no sectioning?

Jim, Canal and I have been going at it on the "pigpen" since 2005. He is a published author and lone-nutter who adamantly believes the mystery photo was taken from the front and refuses to address my videos demonstrating otherwise. The holes in the base of the skull in the proper orientation are the EOP entrance on the back of the skull in his orientation. He has had bitter fights with McAdams and Von Pein, among others, who insist the cowlick entrance to be the correct entrance.

Although we disagree on most matters, my work on the Clark Panel caught his attention some years back and he has endeavored since that time to arouse media interest in what he has come to agree was its deliberate move of the head wound, in order to shut down Garrison, and refute aspects of SSID. He thinks they did this because they were AFRAID the evidence suggested a conspiracy, even though it did not.

Although Canal makes numerous mistakes, IMO, I applaud his efforts to bring some of this info to the public's attention. I do resent somewhat the suggestion in the article that John came to all this himself, when much of the real meat in the article he learned via discussions with me on aaj, and much of what I knew came from articles by Aguilar, and books and letters by Wecht.

(Anyone interested on my take on the Clark Panel, and the movement of the head wound, may wish to listen to Black Op radio #411, which is still accessible, here: Black Op radio archives 2009)

Canal is all upset about my comments here. Our difference centers upon what one considers "real meat." Canal thinks he's proven the mystery photo was taken from the front. I know he hasn't, and that his belief it was is based on wishful thinking. Anyhow, he asked that someone post his complaints on this forum. Here it is:

You wrote on the Ed. Forum, "...much of the real meat in the article he learned

via discussions with me on aaj..."

I resent that untrue comment, Pat. There were indeed times when you would reply

to one of my many posts in which I asserted that the Clark Panel was a whitewash

of sorts....and you offered information, e.g. Morgan's articles, etc. Yes you

did, but my main effort for about 10 years was to prove scientifically that

Fisher misreported the head wounds and that he probably lied about same in his

report. Starting in about 2000, I bgan studying F8 and F3 until I could

practically see those images while I slept. I finally replicated F8 and got

Stringer to review my work...that was in 2003--I have his signed and dated

statement endorsing my work.

We may have had parallel investigations going on at the same time--I don't know

about that--but we clearly disagree on just about everything that matters...so

why on God's green earth would I obtain "much" of my information from you.....in

fact, IMO, you are among the last sources of information I'd seek. Cripes, the

autopsists missed seeing a hole in the floor of JFK's skull...I'd say you've got

to be kidding me...but I know you're not.

Afer I was 100% positive I could prove Fisher et al. lied or misreported the

evidence, I confronted one of the HSCA pathologists...well you've read how he

responded.

I also confronted Sturdivan and Zimmerman with my work years ago and,

irregardless of what Larry says changed his mind about the entry location, I say

it was my F8 presentation to him that did the trick.

The last aspect of my 10-year investigation into this matter, and, IMO, the part

that was behind (in priority) proving Fisher was wrong (via F8) was finding his

motive.

There again, I believe you thought that the Clark Panel was formed mainly to

debunk what Josiah Thompson theorized in SSID. That said, I have always believed

since reading Posner's CC when it first came out that Clark formed his panel to

counter Garrison...Posner laid out the timing of the release of the Cark Panel

report and the different stages of Garrison's efforts...and that was telling

about Clark's motive. Even after reading CC I et that part of my investigation

aside...again the priority for me--and the hard part--was to prove Fisher et al.

got it wrong.

I told John Kays that Aguilar's and Cunningham's article was a source that he

should read...I regret not insisting that that article be listed among other

sources for my article.

But I struck pay-dirt as far as finding a motive for Fisher's misreporting when

I obtained a copy of Fisher's and Spitz' book. Their association was so close

they were like brothers. I then obtained, among other documents and information,

an extensive no. of exerpts from Fisher's and Petty's book....which included

brief biographies of many of the same pathologists who served on the the

Clark/Rockefeller/and HSCA panels...that was literally a treasure-trove of

information regarding associations among those experts on those three panels. I

had concluded I kew Clark and Fisher's motive and after finding those

sources--and a few others--I knew then why the Rockefeller and HSCA experts

rubber-stamped Fisher's B/S.

Lastly, your insistance that F8 is a picture of his rear skull has added to the

confusion regarding the medical evidence in this case as much as, if not more

than, any other piece of misinformation. I challenge you to demonstrate your

case for your F8 orientation to Stringer, as I did in 2003, to see what he says

abut it...after all, not only is he an expert at medical photography, but he

also took the bloody autopsy photos.

BTW, the only person out of many who have viewed the orignals and agree with

your F8 orientation is Mantik and I believe his main focus was on the x-rays,

not the photographs.

I'd like someone to post these comments on the Education Forum for me.

John Canal