IMDB stuff
Caeruleo
last night, but on the messageboard for the movie JFK I saw a poster make
the astonishing claim that LNs are guilty of disinformation.
The claim was not astonishing for its truthfulness, it was astonishing for
the glaring omission:
No mention was made of the proven fact that CTs are equally guilty of
disinformation.
The same poster also posted links to the tired old myth that Dr. McAdams
works for the CIA.
Tears streamed down my face as I laughed while reading that.
Common CT disinformation:
Jack Ruby hinted repeatedly that he knew more about the assassination than
he was willing to state publicly, that there were powerful people
preventing him from telling his true story, a true story which he never
told, that he never named these powerful people, & that his roommate,
George Senator confirmed that Ruby talked about a conspiracy in the
assassination as if he had knowledge of that conspiracy.
(Actual proven fact: Ruby stated with absurd plainness to the WC that he
knew less than nothing about any conspiracy to assassinate JFK, & stated
with equally absurd plainness exactly *who* the powerful people were who
were trying to implicate him in a conspiracy of which he was not a
participant. Even if he was lying, most CT authors fail to mention that
he even said these things, even after they quote him begging to be taken
to Washington. Never do they quote him stating with absurd plainness why
he wanted to be taken to Washington.)
The motorcade route was changed at the last minute.
(Actual fact: it was not changed an iota from the moment it was announced
for the first time in both Dallas newspapers.)
Back & to the left indicates a shot from the right & in front of JFK.
(Actual fact: had there been such a shot, there would have been ***much***
more damage to the ***left*** side of JFK's head, as that would be,
obviously, the side of exit. But even the vast majority of CTs
unhesitatingly admit that there's no credible evidence of more damage to
the left side of the head than to the right. This little inconvenient
truth seems to have escaped even the vast majority of the American
populace, who when they fill out their polls, neglect to mention that they
were never told, by anyone, that when a bullet enters the right side of a
human's head it's almost impossible for there to not be extensive damage
to the opposite side of the victim's head.)
The Zapruder film is a fake.
(Actual fact: it's strange, then, that not in even one detail does this
film directly contradict any other film, such as the Muchmore & Nix; every
image shown in all 3 films matches precisely, including positions of all
bystanders at all instants shown in all the films.)
The statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in direct conflict
with Bethesda (this is also an LN myth).
(Actual truth: no, they aren't. At Parkland they mainly noticed only the
most rearward extent of the damage to the skull that was also described at
Bethesda; Bethesda merely described much more of the damage to the skull
than Parkland.)
The Z-film, even if it is genuine, shows more damage to the back of the
head than to the front.
(Actual fact: not one CT author I've ever read, not one, has ever made
even the most minimal admission imaginable that the volcano-like opening
in the back of the head seen in a few frames is many, many times smaller
than the comparatively ***gigantic*** open flaps of scalp seen with absurd
plainness in a much larger number of frames, which are forward of the
right ear. And not one of these authors, not one, admits that nearly all
of the blood is seen clearly to shoot upward & forward.)
Oswald was consistently described by his fellow Marines as a poor shot.
(Actual fact: the only fellow Marines who ever described him as a poor
shot were confirmed to have never seen him shoot any firearm in any
official shooting exercise, but instead only saw him shoot on occasions of
casual betting games, & at least one of these Marines freely admitted that
Oswald was not at all interested in the games.)
Now for the LN disinformation.
The Parkland personnel were just wrong about seeing more damage to the
upper right rear of the head than on any other part of the head.
(Actual truth: no, they weren't, they merely noticed the more rearward
damage, for the obvious reason that thick hair & scalp at the time covered
the more forward damage. They didn't even try to peel that away at
Parkland, but they did at Bethesda, & merely discovered that Parkland had
only described the rearmost part of the massive hole in the skull that
Bethesda saw much more plainly & extensively.)
Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing after the shooting.
(Actual truth: not even close to the only employee missing. Documents
from the time contain unequivocal admissions by numerous employees that
they never set foot in the TSBD that day after the shooting.)
The timing of the shots has been proven.
(Actual fact: it never has been, & never will be. The exact instant of
only one shot can ever, ever be proven, & that's the head shot, since it's
the only shot for which obvious wounding immediately appears on either
victim in any of the films. Only one other shot comes close, the one that
appears to have caused simultaneous reactions in the 2 men, but since no
clear wounding appears on either man at that point, it's a bit
inconclusive. This still leaves at least one other shot, the exact time
of which will forever remain speculation. Any human, LN, CT, undecided,
or whatever, who claims any particular number of seconds & fractions of
seconds from first to last shot is merely speculating, even if that human
doesn't realize it. We do not have, nor will we ever, a shred of credible
evidence to determine precisely when any shot which didn't hit either man
was fired, no matter how many or how few such shots were fired. Head
turns & witness statements will be forever inadequate to firmly establish
such a thing even to the nearest second, much less to a fraction of a
second. Tague's wounding is almost a non-issue, since it has never come
even remotely close to being proven which shot caused it, nor whether or
not it was a whole bullet, or fragment, or a piece of an object struck,
which caused that mere scratch on his cheek, & the man himself would have
no possible way of knowing for certain which it was.)
The vast majority of a much larger number of witnesses than are ordinarily
present at a murder were wrong when they converged in an extraordinary
fashion on single aspects of the murder.
(Actual fact: not once, in all of human history, has such a thing been
been proven, unless there was an obvious reason for such a large majority
of a large number of witnesses to be wrong in exactly the same way. LNs &
CTs alike consistently confuse commonly accepted inaccuracies in
individual witness statements with firm consensus of the majority.)
These are only a small tithe of a tremendously larger number of examples I
could easily produce (& in fact have already produced, years ago, in this
newsgroup) of both CT & LN proven inaccuracies. I have had nearly
equivalent experience with both CTs & LNs claiming to deny the patently
obvious, but only when it conflicts with their cherished beliefs.
LNs throughout this newsgroup praised my open-mindedness until I disputed
whether or not one even needed a single bullet to establish a single
shooter, & only then did they claim I was no longer objective, even though
the actual truth was that I continued to apply the same standards, with no
difference whatsoever, to the analysis of crucial evidence that I had
before they turned against me.
Various CTs were just as guilty: they also claimed I was very objective
whenever I posted my honest doubts about the WC conclusions, until I
posted (in actual reality with equal objectiveness as before) my own
personal experiences in walking from the rooming house to the Tippet
scene, & all of a sudden, the moment I confirmed that Oswald could have
easily, easily made it in time, I was no longer objective. This resulted
in, for example, one of the most absurd claims I've ever heard or read in
my life, that most timepieces in 1963 (or even today) are totally
synchronized. Even after I interviewed numerous people in real life & saw
with my own eyes that their watches were off from each other by as much as
10 min, a number of CTs claimed that they had never heard of such a thing,
even though in reality such lack of timepiece synchronicity is a mundane
experience worldwide. It was also only the CTs who absolutely refused
(they specifically said that they were refusing) to even *attempt* to
duplicate a certain rifle shadow, even after I explained in terms even a
first-grader would have no trouble understanding how it could be done.
The CTs merely said that I was "wrong," but when I challenged them to put
it to the test themselves, they specifically said they weren't even going
to try to do it, even though all they had to do was stand under any light
source that was not directly overhead & merely tilt any long, narrow
object forward. Talk about disinformation. These CTs told me that they
would not even *try* to find out whether or not I was correct; several of
them blatantly stated to me that they were just going to continue to claim
I was wrong, without even bothering to prove it in the slightest.
Point of fact: only one of these CTs claimed that he/she had even tried
it, & the claim was that I was still not credible, but this was the same
CT who claimed, laughably, that a certain map of a certain motorcade
covered a much larger percentage of a certain newspaper page than it
actually did.
Not one other CT poster, not one, ever came forward to agree.
Not one.
Talk about disinformation.
The CTs, in general (I don't mean for a moment all of them) are just as
guilty of disinformation as the LNs.
The LNs, in general (I don't mean for a moment all of them) are just as
guilty of disinformation as the CTs.
When one only names one group over the other as being guilty of this, one
is intrinsically from the beginning in obvious error, even if one never
realizes it.
David Von Pein
>>> "They [the Parkland witnesses] merely noticed the more rearward damage...[they] only described the rearmost part of the massive hole in the skull..." <<<
There is no "rearward damage". None. And this proves that fact:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs,
and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of
hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the
hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he
was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and
brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound
was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and
photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit
wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or
wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
the upper right part of the head." [End Baden quote]." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
WhiskyJoe
The CTers are certainly a colorful lot.
I don't think LNers have the equivalent
to a Judyth Baker. And the wacky ideas
of many prominent CTers, like Jim Marrs.
The wackiest notion in another field of
a prominent LNer is Vincent Bugliosi's
belief that Bush stole the 2000 Election
from Gore by preventing a fair statewide
recount in Florida. While I am far from
a fan of Bush, didn't vote for Bush in
either election, think he is the worst
president since Andrew Johnson, I still
have a revelation for Mr. Bugliosi.
Both candidates killed the Florida
statewide recount.
Gore's spokesmen gave lip service to
it in public statements. But his lawyers
argued against a statewide recount up
until December 11, when it finally became
clear that a biased four county recount
was clearly impossible. Even the Florida
State Supreme Court ruled against the
biased four county recount. It was a
statewide recount or nothing.
****************************************
> Oswald was the only TSBD employee
> missing after the shooting.
> (Actual truth: not even close to the
> only employee missing. Documents
> from the time contain unequivocal
> admissions by numerous employees that
> they never set foot in the TSBD that
> day after the shooting.)
Well, technically, I think this is true.
But, as I understand it, all the employees
who were present at Dealey Plaza hung
around the area, as is to be expected
right after a terrible, but still,
historical event had occurred. I believe
they all were still hanging around until
the police told them to leave the building
or locked them out of the building.
No one else, besides Oswald, felt curious
about what would happen next, but instead
rushed out of the building in about 3
minutes, immediately left the area,
grabbed a cab so they could go see
a movie.
Oswald leaving the building is not
strange. Others left the building
because many did not immediately
realize that something had happened
in the building. But all were hanging
around the vicinity, as is natural.
> The timing of the shots has been proven.
I don't know any LNer who says that this
is proven. I think most believe as I do,
something along this line:
* shot at Z312-Z313: Definite. I put it
closer to Z312.
* shot at Z220-Z224: Over 90% likely.
I put it at Z222. If SBT is not true,
it's strange that the wounds line up
as well as they do, JFK and Connally,
react at the same time, apparent coat
bulge, and only one bullet found.
And strange that CTers feel compelled
to lie about the geometry of the SBT,
as Dr. Wecht and the movie JFK
have done.
* shot around Z150-Z160: More likely
than not. I put it at Z153. A lot
was happening then. Zapruder camera
jiggle at Z158. Connally's turn to
the right, matches his testimony.
JFK's turn to the right.
Even Jackie turns to the right,
belatedly. Rosemary Willis stops
running. Limousine seems to slow
in the Z160's, certainly by the
Z170's.
Still, definitely not definite.
Maybe 70%-80% likely? But, unimportant.
Doesn't matter whether it happened in
Z130's, Z140's, Z150's, Z160's.
But, am I mistaken? Is there a LNer here
who thinks the timing of all the shots
is definitely established? Let's here
from them if they do.
Anthony Marsh
> Strangely, I'm unable to find it now, even though it was easily found only
> last night, but on the messageboard for the movie JFK I saw a poster make
> the astonishing claim that LNs are guilty of disinformation.
>
> The claim was not astonishing for its truthfulness, it was astonishing for
> the glaring omission:
>
> No mention was made of the proven fact that CTs are equally guilty of
> disinformation.
>
Now wait a cotton pickin minute here. You are admitting that WC defenders
are guilty of disinformation? Shame on you. You are not allowed to go
around admitting things like that.
> The same poster also posted links to the tired old myth that Dr. McAdams
> works for the CIA.
>
McAdams does not work directly for the CIA. The CIA supports his
disinformation.
> Tears streamed down my face as I laughed while reading that.
>
> Common CT disinformation:
>
> Jack Ruby hinted repeatedly that he knew more about the assassination than
> he was willing to state publicly, that there were powerful people
> preventing him from telling his true story, a true story which he never
> told, that he never named these powerful people,& that his roommate,
> George Senator confirmed that Ruby talked about a conspiracy in the
> assassination as if he had knowledge of that conspiracy.
>
Did you bother actually listening to what Jack Ruby said? Obviously not.
> (Actual proven fact: Ruby stated with absurd plainness to the WC that he
> knew less than nothing about any conspiracy to assassinate JFK,& stated
Again you fail to separate the conspiracy to murder from the cover-up.
Ruby was not part of the assassination team. But he was used to silence
Oswald. It was not an accidental shooting.
> with equally absurd plainness exactly *who* the powerful people were who
> were trying to implicate him in a conspiracy of which he was not a
> participant. Even if he was lying, most CT authors fail to mention that
> he even said these things, even after they quote him begging to be taken
> to Washington. Never do they quote him stating with absurd plainness why
> he wanted to be taken to Washington.)
>
The WC quotes him saying that.
> The motorcade route was changed at the last minute.
>
> (Actual fact: it was not changed an iota from the moment it was announced
> for the first time in both Dallas newspapers.)
>
Explain the exact changes that were made. Such as Dave Powers and Kenny
O'Donnell kicking out official WH photographer Cecil Stoughton from the SS
car. Or the argument about where Yarborough was going to ride. Or the
difference between the numbers on the car windshields and the actual order
of the vehicles.
> Back& to the left indicates a shot from the right& in front of JFK.
>
> (Actual fact: had there been such a shot, there would have been ***much***
> more damage to the ***left*** side of JFK's head, as that would be,
Not fact. You know nothing about ballistics. A bullet does not have to
exit the side opposite the entrance.
> obviously, the side of exit. But even the vast majority of CTs
> unhesitatingly admit that there's no credible evidence of more damage to
> the left side of the head than to the right. This little inconvenient
When the bullet hits in the right side naturally there will be more
damage in the right side.
> truth seems to have escaped even the vast majority of the American
> populace, who when they fill out their polls, neglect to mention that they
> were never told, by anyone, that when a bullet enters the right side of a
> human's head it's almost impossible for there to not be extensive damage
> to the opposite side of the victim's head.)
>
Not true.
> The Zapruder film is a fake.
>
> (Actual fact: it's strange, then, that not in even one detail does this
> film directly contradict any other film, such as the Muchmore& Nix; every
> image shown in all 3 films matches precisely, including positions of all
> bystanders at all instants shown in all the films.)
>
No, each film has its own limitations. The other films do not show the
spray from the head shot the way the Zapruder film does. The other films
do not show the blood on the back of Connally's jacket.
> The statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in direct conflict
> with Bethesda (this is also an LN myth).
>
In fact they were in direct conflict. No one at Bethesda claimed to see
a massive hole in the BACK of the head.
> (Actual truth: no, they aren't. At Parkland they mainly noticed only the
> most rearward extent of the damage to the skull that was also described at
> Bethesda; Bethesda merely described much more of the damage to the skull
> than Parkland.)
>
> The Z-film, even if it is genuine, shows more damage to the back of the
> head than to the front.
>
Even if? Which side are you on?
> (Actual fact: not one CT author I've ever read, not one, has ever made
> even the most minimal admission imaginable that the volcano-like opening
> in the back of the head seen in a few frames is many, many times smaller
> than the comparatively ***gigantic*** open flaps of scalp seen with absurd
> plainness in a much larger number of frames, which are forward of the
> right ear. And not one of these authors, not one, admits that nearly all
> of the blood is seen clearly to shoot upward& forward.)
>
In fact there is NO volcano-like opening in the back of the head.
> Oswald was consistently described by his fellow Marines as a poor shot.
>
> (Actual fact: the only fellow Marines who ever described him as a poor
> shot were confirmed to have never seen him shoot any firearm in any
> official shooting exercise, but instead only saw him shoot on occasions of
> casual betting games,& at least one of these Marines freely admitted that
> Oswald was not at all interested in the games.)
>
Wrong. They were talking about seeing him shoot on the firing line.
Where do you get this crap about casual betting games? You think Oswald
shot for show?
> Now for the LN disinformation.
>
> The Parkland personnel were just wrong about seeing more damage to the
> upper right rear of the head than on any other part of the head.
>
> (Actual truth: no, they weren't, they merely noticed the more rearward
> damage, for the obvious reason that thick hair& scalp at the time covered
> the more forward damage. They didn't even try to peel that away at
> Parkland, but they did at Bethesda,& merely discovered that Parkland had
> only described the rearmost part of the massive hole in the skull that
> Bethesda saw much more plainly& extensively.)
>
> Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing after the shooting.
>
> (Actual truth: not even close to the only employee missing. Documents
> from the time contain unequivocal admissions by numerous employees that
> they never set foot in the TSBD that day after the shooting.)
>
> The timing of the shots has been proven.
>
> (Actual fact: it never has been,& never will be. The exact instant of
> only one shot can ever, ever be proven,& that's the head shot, since it's
> the only shot for which obvious wounding immediately appears on either
> victim in any of the films. Only one other shot comes close, the one that
> appears to have caused simultaneous reactions in the 2 men, but since no
> clear wounding appears on either man at that point, it's a bit
> inconclusive. This still leaves at least one other shot, the exact time
> of which will forever remain speculation. Any human, LN, CT, undecided,
> or whatever, who claims any particular number of seconds& fractions of
> seconds from first to last shot is merely speculating, even if that human
> doesn't realize it. We do not have, nor will we ever, a shred of credible
> evidence to determine precisely when any shot which didn't hit either man
> was fired, no matter how many or how few such shots were fired. Head
> turns& witness statements will be forever inadequate to firmly establish
> such a thing even to the nearest second, much less to a fraction of a
> second. Tague's wounding is almost a non-issue, since it has never come
> even remotely close to being proven which shot caused it, nor whether or
> not it was a whole bullet, or fragment, or a piece of an object struck,
> which caused that mere scratch on his cheek,& the man himself would have
> no possible way of knowing for certain which it was.)
>
> The vast majority of a much larger number of witnesses than are ordinarily
> present at a murder were wrong when they converged in an extraordinary
> fashion on single aspects of the murder.
>
> (Actual fact: not once, in all of human history, has such a thing been
> been proven, unless there was an obvious reason for such a large majority
> of a large number of witnesses to be wrong in exactly the same way. LNs&
> CTs alike consistently confuse commonly accepted inaccuracies in
> individual witness statements with firm consensus of the majority.)
>
> These are only a small tithe of a tremendously larger number of examples I
> could easily produce (& in fact have already produced, years ago, in this
> newsgroup) of both CT& LN proven inaccuracies. I have had nearly
> equivalent experience with both CTs& LNs claiming to deny the patently
> obvious, but only when it conflicts with their cherished beliefs.
>
> LNs throughout this newsgroup praised my open-mindedness until I disputed
> whether or not one even needed a single bullet to establish a single
> shooter,& only then did they claim I was no longer objective, even though
> the actual truth was that I continued to apply the same standards, with no
> difference whatsoever, to the analysis of crucial evidence that I had
> before they turned against me.
>
> Various CTs were just as guilty: they also claimed I was very objective
> whenever I posted my honest doubts about the WC conclusions, until I
> posted (in actual reality with equal objectiveness as before) my own
> personal experiences in walking from the rooming house to the Tippet
> scene,& all of a sudden, the moment I confirmed that Oswald could have
> easily, easily made it in time, I was no longer objective. This resulted
> in, for example, one of the most absurd claims I've ever heard or read in
> my life, that most timepieces in 1963 (or even today) are totally
> synchronized. Even after I interviewed numerous people in real life& saw
> with my own eyes that their watches were off from each other by as much as
> 10 min, a number of CTs claimed that they had never heard of such a thing,
> even though in reality such lack of timepiece synchronicity is a mundane
> experience worldwide. It was also only the CTs who absolutely refused
> (they specifically said that they were refusing) to even *attempt* to
> duplicate a certain rifle shadow, even after I explained in terms even a
> first-grader would have no trouble understanding how it could be done.
> The CTs merely said that I was "wrong," but when I challenged them to put
> it to the test themselves, they specifically said they weren't even going
> to try to do it, even though all they had to do was stand under any light
> source that was not directly overhead& merely tilt any long, narrow
> object forward. Talk about disinformation. These CTs told me that they
> would not even *try* to find out whether or not I was correct; several of
> them blatantly stated to me that they were just going to continue to claim
> I was wrong, without even bothering to prove it in the slightest.
>
> Point of fact: only one of these CTs claimed that he/she had even tried
> it,& the claim was that I was still not credible, but this was the same
paul seaton
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ed01efdd-eb9b-4684...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> "They [the Parkland witnesses] merely noticed the more rearward
>>>> damage...[they] only described the rearmost part of the massive hole in
>>>> the skull..." <<<
>
> There is no "rearward damage". None.
The Clark Panel radiologist disagrees ->
" With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull,
the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive
fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of
the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior
margin of the parietal bone behind "
(Clark Report)
The posterior margin of the parietal is well into the back of the head,
and incidentally well behind & beneath the cowlick. The skull was
'extensively fragmented' ( ie in pieces) back to that point. ( As, of
course, it must have been to enable the brain to be removed with no sawing
of the skull. )
" The findings and interpretation of the skull films are:
1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone..."
(G M McDonnel, Report for HSCA FPP)
Again , this denotes fragmentation of the right parietal back to the
lamboid.
The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is the
Dox drawing, which is demonstrably false pretty well every way you look at
it.
Paul S
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3235b9a38f468489
>>> "The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is
the Dox drawing." <<<
Plus:
1.) This autopsy photo:
2.) This autopsy photo:
3.) This autopsy photo:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
4.) This autopsy X-ray:
5.) Comments like this one made by the head of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel:
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other
than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- Dr.
Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408 of
Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]
================
All of the above things provide ample evidence and information to back
up the "silly" back-of-the-head-is-intact thinking possessed by
reasonable individuals.
Is all of the above stuff "faked", Paul?
And is Dr. Michael Baden a liar? Was Baden merely trying to pull the "No
BOH Wound" wool over the eyes of Vincent T. Bugliosi when Baden told
Bugliosi on January 8th, 2000, that there was "no defect or wound to the
rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right
part of the head"?
Are the photos and X-rays merely not clear enough to arrive at any kind of
a "The BOH Was Intact" determination? Are ALL of the autopsy pictures, IN
TANDEM, somehow depicting misleading information concerning the condition
of the back of President Kennedy's head?
Come now, let's be reasonable.
yeuhd
wrote:
> The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is the
> Dox drawing, which is demonstrably false pretty well every way you look at
> it.
The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on which it
is based. A major piece of skull flap was being held in place for that
photo (the hand doing so is clearly visible in both the photo and the
drawing). Hence the contrast between that photo and other photos of the
head with the skull flaps hanging open.
paul seaton
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4099a8b7-22db-40b3...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:29 pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is the
> Dox drawing, which is demonstrably false pretty well every way you look at
> it.
The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on which it
is based.
##what photograph would that be ?
A major piece of skull flap was being held in place for that
photo (the hand doing so is clearly visible in both the photo and the
drawing). Hence the contrast between that photo and other photos of the
head with the skull flaps hanging open.
##Basically right but you seem to be blurring the distinction between the
right front flap and the loose stuff at the rear. Boswell descibes FOUR
major flaps. ( from memory).
Paul S
Anthony Marsh
> On May 7, 8:29 pm, "paul seaton"<paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
> wrote:
>> The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is the
>> Dox drawing, which is demonstrably false pretty well every way you look at
>> it.
>
> The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on which it
Which Dox drawing? The Dox drawing showing missing skull bone is not
based on ANY photograph. If you think it is, then upload that
photograph. You can't.
The other Dox drawings were tracings from the original autopsy
photographs with certain things enhanced or left out at the direction of
Baden.
paul seaton
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3235b9a38f468489
>
>>>> "The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is
> the Dox drawing." <<<
>
>
> Plus:
>
> 1.) This autopsy photo:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=ftxQj0gAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z97v9wuXNfQFS5SyYGXJrU1hZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=KaPdugsAAAB2YcdAFipiROMG9Pwb7uZL
Which, as evidence for the condition of the rear skull, is a little contrary
as it doesn't show the rear skull, does it David ? So again, from the
official investigations, we are left with the Dox drawing.
Let's keep in mind the claim you made initially , namely : " There is no
"rearward damage". None."
>
> 2.) This autopsy photo:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=Yd4NTUgAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z97v9wuXNfQFS5SyYGXJrU1goUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=KaPdugsAAAB2YcdAFipiROMG9Pwb7uZL
Ditto. You do know the difference between HAIR & SKULL don't you ? I was
not debating the condition of the rear hair.
>
> 3.) This autopsy photo:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
Yawn.
Again, you are confusing the condition of the rear HAIR with the condition
of the rear SKULL.
Do you have any photos of the rear SKULL, David ?
>
> 4.) This autopsy X-ray:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=5u_VcEYAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z97v9wuXNfQFS5SyYGXJrU1h1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=KaPdugsAAAB2YcdAFipiROMG9Pwb7uZL
You mean 'this autopsy x-ray' that shows :-
" With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull,
the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive
fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of
the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior
margin of the parietal bone behind "
(Clark Report) ???
You mean 'this autopsy x-ray' that shows :-
" The findings and interpretation of the skull films are:
1. Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone..."
(G M McDonnel, Report for HSCA FPP) ???
Why are you showing me x-rays that show the precise opposite of what you are
claiming - according to the govt. employed radiologists who reported on them
?
Do you not understand what they are telling you ? Do you not know where the
lamboid suture is ? Can I suggest you do a little more research before you
provide any more evidence against yourself ?
>
> 5.) Comments like this one made by the head of the HSCA's Forensic
> Pathology Panel:
>
> "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other
> than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- Dr.
> Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408 of
> Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]
The comment was first made to a journalist ( Posner) , as I recall , let's
see, 45 or so years after the assassination, about 30 after the FPP shut up
shop, 30 years after Baden ceased to speak for the FPP ? Perhaps his memory
wasn't too good, eh ? Let's remind ourselves what his own consulting
radiologist had to say about the x-rays which you claim show ' no rearward
damage' :
The radiologist on whose report the FPP relied, David - ie the primary
document on which Baden's opinion ought to be based, him not being a
radiologist & all - says this :
" . Nearly complete loss of right parietal bone..." ( G M McDonnel,
Report on the x-rays for the HSCA FPP )
You do know where the right parietal bone is don't you ? And where it's
rearmost margin is ?
The Clark Panel - in their official capacity - disagreed with Baden's (
unofficial, personal, 30 years late ) opinion David.:
" Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. "(Clark Report)
Note the phraseology "back of the head, .... contours of which have been
grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the underlying calvarium"
DVP: " There is no "rearward damage". None." Obviously you are arguing
with the Clark Panel as well as with me.
Clark Panel : "back of the head, .... contours of which have been grossly
distorted by extensive fragmentation of the underlying calvarium"
G M McDonnel, Report for HSCA FPP " . Nearly complete loss of right
parietal bone..." Thus you are arguing with McDonnel as well as with me.
Boswell diagrammed the area of the skull defect for the ARRB :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/piks/Boswell.jpg
You are arguing with Boswell.
Indeed, if we compare the Dox drawing, Boswell's skull, marked for the ARRB,
and the Rydberg drawing ..=>
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/piks/rydberg_comparo.jpg
..and ask ourselves *through which of these cavities would it be physically
IMPOSSIBLE to remove the brain without having to saw away any of the
remaining skull * there is no doubt whatever about the answer.
That's right.
The only one of those drawing which shows 'no rearward damage' - and the one
I presume you imagine to represent the facts - is the one which cannot
possibly represent the facts.
You do see that don't you ?
>
> ================
>
> All of the above things provide ample evidence and information to back
> up the "silly" back-of-the-head-is-intact thinking possessed by
> reasonable individuals.
>
> Is all of the above stuff "faked", Paul?
Why would you think that ?
>
> And is Dr. Michael Baden a liar?
In so far as he was the guy who instructed Ida Dox how to represent the
skull in that drawing - if you classify that as 'lying' rather than gilding
the lily, yes he was. You do agree that it would be impossible to get the
brain out through that gap don't you ? If not, you have some explaing to do.
Either Baden is 'lying' ( your term) or Humes was a magician. Which is it to
be ? Not being a believer in miracles, & - unlike you - taking the
radiology , the autopsist & the Clark Panel ( not to mention the brain
surgeon) seriously , I will go with the former.
If you would rather believe in miracles than believe that the Dox drawing
( & an unofficial opinion expressed by Baden 30 years after the event) are
the gospel truth, then I can't help you.
> Was Baden merely trying to pull the "No
> BOH Wound" wool over the eyes of Vincent T. Bugliosi when Baden told
> Bugliosi on January 8th, 2000, that there was "no defect or wound to the
> rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right
> part of the head"?
Obviously I have no insight into the inner workings of Michael Baden's mind.
I do know that in producing the Dox drawing - which, again, contradicts his
own radiology reports - he has produced a monster which generations of
misguided LNs feel obliged to defend as if their lives depended on it. In
any case, I am more interested in the official conclusions of the FPP. Baden
could get away with saying anything he pleased to anyone he pleased by 2000.
>
> Are the photos and X-rays merely not clear enough to arrive at any kind of
> a "The BOH Was Intact" determination?
David, for the 100th time, the photos DO NOT SHOW THE REAR SKULL ( or even
99.9% of the rear scalp ). Consequently I don't know why you keep bringing
them up. We are not arguing about his hair style.
And again, ( ad nauseam) .... why makes you imagine the x-rays support you
when the official examinations of the x-rays plainly show you are flat wrong
? How do you manage to double think your way around "" Photographs 7, 14,
42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of which have been
grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the underlying calvarium.
"(Clark Report) ???
Their opinion seems to by-pass your consciousness somehow, as if the words
simply didn't exist. But they DO exist, David. They said what they said.
McDonnel said what he said. Boswell said what he said. The brain WAS
removed with no ( or at a maximum, stretching a point , 'very little')
sawing of the skull. You know perfectly well ( perhaps with your left brain)
that this would be flat out of th question were the Dox drawing accurate.
But ( perhaps with your right brain ?) you continue to pretend the Dox
drawing is credible.
I find it hard to understand how you manage to so carelessly believe in the
impossible.
> Are ALL of the autopsy pictures, IN
> TANDEM,somehow depicting misleading information concerning the condition
> of the back of President Kennedy's head?
You mean *deliberately* ?
Frankly, I wish I knew for sure, but I tend to the POV that the photos just
happened to come out as they did. ( IE Cock up rather than conspiracy). The
shot from the front / grassy knoll scenario wasn't an issue at the time of
the autopsy, so there was really no motivation to deliberately cover up any
rear skull damage. The autopsy report is quite frank that the defect
extended into the occipital bone, which agrees with Boswell's drawing and
the radiology ( rear margin of parietal). Why hide in the photos what you
admit in the report ?
And again, you have still not even acknowledged that their really is a
problem about how they ( supposedly) got the brain out of there. probably
ignoring the issue & hoping it will go away is the best tactic if you are
after debating points. But if I choose to believe that you are sincere in
your view of all this, I find it hard to understand why you refuse to at
least think out loud on the subject. Maybe you can single handedly restore
some credibility to the Dox drawing , eh ?
Think of it as a challenge .... :-)
Paul S
Anthony Marsh
>
> The CTers are certainly a colorful lot.
> I don't think LNers have the equivalent
> to a Judyth Baker. And the wacky ideas
How about the wacko who claims that a SS agent shot President Kennedy?
Isn't that wacky enough for you?
> of many prominent CTers, like Jim Marrs.
>
Like David Belin, Vincent Bugliosi, or Gerald Posner?
> The wackiest notion in another field of
> a prominent LNer is Vincent Bugliosi's
> belief that Bush stole the 2000 Election
> from Gore by preventing a fair statewide
> recount in Florida. While I am far from
> a fan of Bush, didn't vote for Bush in
> either election, think he is the worst
> president since Andrew Johnson, I still
> have a revelation for Mr. Bugliosi.
>
> Both candidates killed the Florida
> statewide recount.
>
There is no requirement in the law that the recount be statewide.
Usually one side wants a recount in those specific counties where he
thinks he can reverse the vote. Why risk losing more votes in other
counties which are not in dispute?
> Gore's spokesmen gave lip service to
> it in public statements. But his lawyers
> argued against a statewide recount up
> until December 11, when it finally became
> clear that a biased four county recount
> was clearly impossible. Even the Florida
> State Supreme Court ruled against the
> biased four county recount. It was a
> statewide recount or nothing.
>
Even the Florida State Supreme Court? And that is supposed to be
reassuring how?
So, was there a statewide recount?
Who stopped it?
Who stormed in with a mob of thugs threatening the election officials?
> ****************************************
>
>> Oswald was the only TSBD employee
>> missing after the shooting.
>
>> (Actual truth: not even close to the
>> only employee missing. Documents
>> from the time contain unequivocal
>> admissions by numerous employees that
>> they never set foot in the TSBD that
>> day after the shooting.)
>
> Well, technically, I think this is true.
> But, as I understand it, all the employees
> who were present at Dealey Plaza hung
> around the area, as is to be expected
Wrong again. Givens went missing and the police put out an APB for him.
> right after a terrible, but still,
Expected? You are an expert on what the public is expected to do?
Then explain the little old lady who calmly walks away.
> historical event had occurred. I believe
> they all were still hanging around until
> the police told them to leave the building
> or locked them out of the building.
>
No.
> No one else, besides Oswald, felt curious
> about what would happen next, but instead
> rushed out of the building in about 3
> minutes, immediately left the area,
> grabbed a cab so they could go see
> a movie.
>
Oswald did not take a cab to the movies.
> Oswald leaving the building is not
> strange. Others left the building
> because many did not immediately
> realize that something had happened
> in the building. But all were hanging
> around the vicinity, as is natural.
>
Right, as if no one noticed the shots or heard the police cars.
>> The timing of the shots has been proven.
>
> I don't know any LNer who says that this
> is proven. I think most believe as I do,
> something along this line:
>
> * shot at Z312-Z313: Definite. I put it
> closer to Z312.
>
> * shot at Z220-Z224: Over 90% likely.
> I put it at Z222. If SBT is not true,
> it's strange that the wounds line up
> as well as they do, JFK and Connally,
> react at the same time, apparent coat
> bulge, and only one bullet found.
If the SBT is true, it is strange that you can get the wounds to line up
no matter which frame you pick from day to day.
> And strange that CTers feel compelled
> to lie about the geometry of the SBT,
> as Dr. Wecht and the movie JFK
> have done.
>
Strange that WC defenders feel compelled
to lie about the locations of the wounds and the
angles involved.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/630aa4eb9a682451
>>> "You do know the difference between HAIR & SKULL don't you? I was not
debating the condition of the rear hair." <<<
So you're in league with John Canal. (Yes, of course you are.)
Major problem with Mr. Canal's theory is this:
He wants to promote that the Parkland witnesses were correct when they
said they did see a LOSS OF SCALP AND SKULL at the right-rear (occipital)
area of JFK's head.
Of course, the autopsy pictures which show no sign of such SCALP damage
totally knock down Canal's thesis:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
So, what does John Canal do? -- He creates another thesis to add to the
first...i.e., the scalp was magically "sutured" to total perfection, which
conveniently (for John C.) hides the great-big hole that the Parkland
people said they saw.
And John C. then tries to shrink the size of his imaginary hole in the
occipital area of JFK's head, even though nearly every Parkland witness
said the hole was massive in size and not just "quarter"- sized, as John
C. wants to conveniently shrink it down to.
So, you can dodge the IN-UNISON photographic record re. JFK's head wounds
if you wish, Paul Seaton. But the photographic record will still be the
very best evidence to access in order to answer this very controversial
question:
DID JOHN KENNEDY HAVE A BIG HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR OF HIS HEAD AS SO MANY
PEOPLE CLAIMED TO SEE ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
And that photographic record (IN UNISON -- EVERY single item, including
the X-rays and the Zapruder Film) is answering that question loudly and
clearly:
No.
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a044674$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 5/8/2009 12:08 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>> On May 7, 8:29 pm, "paul seaton"<paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is
>>> the
>>> Dox drawing, which is demonstrably false pretty well every way you look
>>> at
>>> it.
>>
>> The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on which it
>
> Which Dox drawing? The Dox drawing showing missing skull bone is not
> based on ANY photograph. If you think it is, then upload that photograph.
> You can't.
Quite right.
The drawing was done by Ida Dox, but the guiding hand was Michael Baden's.
In theory it should have shown what his radiologists were telling him ( as
the radiology was the more or less the only reliable source for it) .
Unfortunately, as a quick glance at the x-rays will tell you, he left a
lot out, the effect of which was to reinstate a lot of defunct frontal &
rear parietal bone.
For eg,the FPP consulting (Smithsonian) Forensic Pathologist Larry Angel
described the x-ray of the 'late arriving' large bone fragment ( seen in
the Z film & which landed under Connoly's seat ) as 'obviously frontal
bone'. But the Dox drawing shows no frontal bone missing.
Ooops.
Again, if the drawing were accurate, there is no way Humes could have
removed the brain without doing a fair amount of hacking away with a saw.
One only needs a functional pair of eyes to see this.
So it would be inadvisable to imagine the drawing is anything more than a
nice schematic designed to give the House & The Public a much simplified
version of the facts.
paul s
paul seaton
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4a03f2da$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Correction ->* Three * major flaps. ( Right front, left and rear IMHO)
>
> Paul S
>
paul seaton
It might be worthwhile to repost something I sent in a reply to John
Florentino the other day, just to make sure the point is driven home.
THIS is the kind of bone removal that is neccessary to allow removal of
the brain, =>
WARNING = > SERIOUSLY NOT FOR THE FAINTHEARTED
http://www.nshafer.com/cryopatientbrainremoval.jpg
Let's compare again to the Dox Defect, through which you maintain the
brain was removed
(graphic A. upper left ) =>
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/Dox/main.jpg
As Greer described the appearance of JFK's head at the autopsy " like a
boiled egg with the top sliced off"
There's a bit of a mismatch there, IMHO. You still want to maintain that
the brain was removed through the defect shown in the Dox drawing ?
Seriously ?
Paul S
pamela
>
> read more »
And just what color is the sky in your world today, Ceruleo? :-0
yeuhd
wrote:
> "yeuhd" <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on which it
>> is based.
>
> ##what photograph would that be ?
This photograph:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/imagehosting/2264947bcd5656b0fd.jpg
Forensic medical drawing by Ida Dox:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg
paul seaton
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/630aa4eb9a682451
>
>
>
>>>> "You do know the difference between HAIR & SKULL don't you? I was not
> debating the condition of the rear hair." <<<
>
>
> So you're in league with John Canal. (Yes, of course you are.)
>
> Major problem with Mr. Canal's theory is this:
>
> He wants to promote that the Parkland witnesses were correct when they
> said they did see a LOSS OF SCALP AND SKULL at the right-rear (occipital)
> area of JFK's head.
>
> Of course, the autopsy pictures which show no sign of such SCALP damage
> totally knock down Canal's thesis:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=_9FfQ0gAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z97rYKrG705Hfayy78zGwC4BZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=LBpKiwsAAADrjrQ0J7GYxhoFtZIYT-k_
>
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
>
>
> So, what does John Canal do? -- He creates another thesis to add to the
> first...i.e., the scalp was magically "sutured" to total perfection, which
> conveniently (for John C.) hides the great-big hole that the Parkland
> people said they saw.
Well, let me just put to you a parallel situation where we really do know
the answer. Think of the right front flap, seen coming down over the right
side of his head in the Z movie. Absolutely massive. A whole slab of bone &
scalp hanging off there, all agreed. So there's a huge big hole there, all
agreed.
Now, let's say we have access to only the superior profile autopsy photos.
What do they show ?
Well, one thing they *don't* show is any massive great hole at the right
front. ->
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-side.jpg
So we have to ask ourselves , where has that enormous hole got to ? Has
somebody patched it up ? Has there been ( gulp !) *surgery of the head* ???
Are we faced with wholesale photo fakery ? How can such a vast / cavernous /
opening / hole just VANISH into thin air ??
Well, of course the solution to this 'mystery' is obvious. The hole isn't
there because the flap has been closed up.
Compare
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
..where the flap is wide open.
And of course, the situation at the right rear is entirely analogous. The
lateral x-rays show the right rear with the loose material there all jammed
back into place . ( I agree that there is no bone - or at least very very
little bone - actually missing there btw). At a superficial glance, it looks
like the rear skull is just a bit cracked up, but basically solid. In fact,
it isn't. See McDonnel & the Clark Panel reports on the x-rays to see this.
The skull is a mass of fragmented bone back to the lamboid. It is held
together by the scalp. And in fact we know for sure it CANNOT have been
solid because we know that the brain was removed with no need to saw away
the skull. And when you realise the vast amount of cranium that has to be
removed to get a brain out - see that rather horrible image i posted- ...
you begin to realise just how catastrophic the explosive damage to his head
was. "Like a bomb had gone off", said O'Connor, & he wasn't joking.
See also the skull Boswell marked for the ARRB to show the size of the
defect . ( The 'defect' being the area of the 'hole' in the skull once all
the loose material had been removed)
Knowing ( as we do) that the rear head photos were taken AFTER the brain had
been removed, and knowing ( as we do) that the rear skull MUST be removed to
allow the brain to be removed ( otherwise you might as well dig it out with
a spoon) we know that behind the rear scalp seen in those photos *there is
no bone*. I have no idea why there is still confusion about this.
And we realise that the Dox drawing is highly misleading as anything more
than a schematic.
>
> And John C. then tries to shrink the size of his imaginary hole in the
> occipital area of JFK's head, even though nearly every Parkland witness
> said the hole was massive in size and not just "quarter"- sized, as John
> C. wants to conveniently shrink it down to.
I have been arguing , here, neither for nor against John Canal. I have been
arguing that your statement about there being 'no rear damage' is provably,
obviously , completely wrong, David. And I note that on this point, you
have studiously avoided addressing the radiology reports and you have
studiously avoided the sheer impossibility of the brain removal if you are
correct.
If I was trying to convince you of ( say) A, and you pointed out that
believing A involved believing something ( say B) that was obviously
impossible, I hope I would pause for a moment & either try to show that B
was in fact possible ( ie you tell me how they got that brain out - the
invitation is always open ) or change my mind about A. This is an argument
that doesn't involve John Canal one way or the other.
Getting that brain out is impossible ( under your scenario) even if John
Canal had never existed. So what is it with you & John Canal ?
>
> So, you can dodge the IN-UNISON photographic record re. JFK's head wounds
> if you wish, Paul Seaton.
You mean I can safely ignore your naive attempts at 'gut feeling' photo
interpretation ? Well, yes I know that. I *know* ( for a fact) that there
is no bone behind the rear scalp in those photos, because if there were, a
miracle would have to have happened. I don't believe in miracles. Despite
your tub thumping, you whole case implies that you DO believe in miracles.
But the photographic record will still be the
> very best evidence to access in order to answer this very controversial
> question:
The photos are relevant obviously. Your 'gut feeling' conclusions from them
are not.
The photos 'look to you' as if the back of the head is fine.
Excellent.
But that is not an argument. It is a statement that DVP's eyes never decieve
him, and that DVP never jumps to premature conclusions without considering
their overall (impossible) implications.
>
> DID JOHN KENNEDY HAVE A BIG HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR OF HIS HEAD AS SO MANY
> PEOPLE CLAIMED TO SEE ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
Well, yes of course he did. ( When the rear scalp & skull were out of place
... in DP...at Parkland .. until the nurses 'tidied him up' a bit )
A 'hole' of the same nature as that right front hole we discussed above. A
'hole' caused by the fragmentation of the underlying bone and the
displacement of the scalp. NOT a hole caused by actual *absence* of either.
( And incidentally, if it makes you feel any better, not an exit wound of
any kind).
But also - well, no of course he didn't . ( When the rear scalp & skull
were back IN place ... in the morgue during the taking of the x-rays )
>
> And that photographic record (IN UNISON -- EVERY single item, including
> the X-rays and the Zapruder Film) is answering that question loudly and
> clearly:
You really over-rate your photo & x-ray interpretation skills David.
I'll stick with the professionals if it's all the same to you :
" With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull,
the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive
fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of
the frontal bone anteriorly** to the vicinity of the posterior
margin of the parietal bone behind **"
(Clark Report)
Got that ?
Let's do this one more time for good luck ->
That's
"extensive
fragmentation
,,
** to the vicinity
of the POSTERIOR
MARGIN
PARIETAL bone
behind **"
As a photo analyst, no offence , but I put you in the same league as Jack
White.
A nice enough guy I'm sure, but one who does too much assuming & not enough
thinking.
paul s
>
> No.
>
paul seaton
On May 8, 4:50 pm, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> "yeuhd" <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on which it
>> is based.
>
> ##what photograph would that be ?
This photograph:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/imagehosting/2264947bcd5656b0fd.jpg
##you can't see the margins of the remaining bone in that photo,
consequently it's pretty useless for your purposes. Plus it tells you
absolutely nothing about the state of the rear skull - which is, in case you
haven't realised it yet, actually absent.
Whatever the drawing WAS based on - Michael baden's wishful thinking in all
probability - it SHOULD have been based on the x-rays.
Plus of course it is flat impossible to remove the brain through that 'Dox'
defect, as I am sure you have realised by now. ( Unless you want to tell me
how it was done ?)
Forensic medical drawing by Ida Dox:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg
##Yes I know the drawing we are talking about.
John Canal
>
>He wants to promote that the Parkland witnesses were correct when they
>said they did see a LOSS OF SCALP AND SKULL at the right-rear (occipital)
>area of JFK's head.
If you're going to misrepresent what I claim, at least be close. I claim
the PH docs and other BOH wound witnesses were correct when they said
there was a BOH wound. I didn't say all of them were "precisely" correct
about what they believed they saw....in fact, it's "impossible" that they
were "ALL" correct about the "precise" nature of the wounds. Some said
both scalp and skull were missing, some said the wound was
occipital-parietal, some didn't mention a parietal wound, some just said
there was an BOH opening, some said they saw cerebellum and some said
nothing about seeing cerebellum, and so on and so forth.
What's clear is that there was, just like the autopsy report stated, a
large wound that was chiefly parietal but extended into the temporal and
occipital.
I do think they understated the extent of the wounds [the words, "somewhat
into the occipital and temporal" have always stood out for me--I believe
the wound extended all the way down to near the EOP]. Also, if Humes saw
that part of the cerebellum was lacerated when the body arrived, he should
have said that in the report instead of waiting until he testified before
the WC. I also think the same frame of mind that led to that understating
resulted in them not taking photos of the BOH when the body was first
received. Maybe they {especially Burkley, IMO] used poor judgement with
that understating (if I'm reight on that), but it was their call--they
were there and we weren't.
That understating belief, though, has nothing to do with you
misrepresenting what I said or believe.
What's also clear is that there was "no" rear scalp or skull "missing".
The scalp was torn and one or two of the rear skull fragments, while still
adhered to the scalp, were out of position....creating gaps through which
brain matter, including cerebellum was exposed.
No doubt, as soon as he became prone blood and brain matter gravitated to
and out that opening, surely making it look much worse than it probably
was. It's also possible, if not likely, that the BOH wound worsened when
he was transferred from the limo to the gurney--IOW, it makes sense that
someone would have hurriedly grabbed the back of his head to hold it up
[during the transfer] dislodging or further disloging any loose rear bone
fragments.
If I previously said something that led you to believe otherwise, I wasn't
clear or misspoke. How I describe the wounds above has been my take on
them for the past several years.
John Canal
David Von Pein
Does anyone here have access to any scans of the original X-rays (not
just multi-generational copies)?
This X-ray in particular:
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7bd31d057b331bed
>>> "With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind." <<<
IMO, the above Clark Panel quote doesn't really aid Paul Seaton's "BOH"
theory at all. And it certainly doesn't aid John Canal's theory
either....because John C. insists that OCCIPITAL bone was "fragmented"
(broken apart) on JFK's head (not to mention the fact that John C. needs
to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be extensively
damaged in order for his theory to be correct, which is a theory that has
all of the Parkland witnesses being correct).
The Clark Panel quote above is talking mainly about the "frontoparietal
region of the skull" (front-right side) and the "frontal bone" (the front
part of Kennedy's skull).
I maintain that the following portion of that Clark Panel determination
about the skull fragmentation is too non-exacting for these words to be
utilized as definitive proof that the VERY BACK PORTIONS of President
Kennedy's head (including "occipital" regions, which aren't mentioned at
all in that quoted Clark Panel passage) were severely fragmented (i.e.,
falling to pieces):
"...to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone
behind."
http://www.anatomy.us/gray188.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
YMMV. But that's my opinion.
Regards,
David Von Pein
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4a044674$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 5/8/2009 12:08 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>>> On May 7, 8:29 pm, "paul seaton"<paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid
>>>> is the
>>>> Dox drawing, which is demonstrably false pretty well every way you
>>>> look at
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> The Dox drawing is an accurate reproduction of the photograph on
>>> which it
>>
>> Which Dox drawing? The Dox drawing showing missing skull bone is not
>> based on ANY photograph. If you think it is, then upload that
>> photograph. You can't.
>
> Quite right.
>
> The drawing was done by Ida Dox, but the guiding hand was Michael
You are quite correct there. It was only what was in Baden's imagination.
He wanted to depict the condition of the head at the time of the head shot
and show the effect of the trajectory. He did not think it through
logically. He shows an intact bullet with only one exit on a downward
trajectory. He does not account for the semi-circular defect in the
frontal bone.
> Baden's. In theory it should have shown what his radiologists were
> telling him ( as the radiology was the more or less the only reliable
> source for it) . Unfortunately, as a quick glance at the x-rays will
No, he ignored Dr. Angel.
> tell you, he left a lot out, the effect of which was to reinstate a lot
> of defunct frontal & rear parietal bone.
>
> For eg,the FPP consulting (Smithsonian) Forensic Pathologist Larry Angel
> described the x-ray of the 'late arriving' large bone fragment ( seen in
> the Z film & which landed under Connoly's seat ) as 'obviously frontal
> bone'. But the Dox drawing shows no frontal bone missing.
>
Something like that. What do you mean by landing UNDER Connally's seat?
There was no room under his seat. It lies flat on the floor. Where EXACTLY
do you think that fragment was actually found? BTW, the autopsy photos do
show where frontal bone is missing, above the semi-circular defect.
> Ooops.
>
> Again, if the drawing were accurate, there is no way Humes could have
Accurate? How the Hell could it possibly be accurate? It was just
plucked from his imagination.
> removed the brain without doing a fair amount of hacking away with a
> saw. One only needs a functional pair of eyes to see this.
>
That was not the condition of the skull at the time of autopsy. The
autopsy photos make that clear. Even the stupid Humes drawing for the
ARRB suggests that.
> So it would be inadvisable to imagine the drawing is anything more than
> a nice schematic designed to give the House & The Public a much
> simplified version of the facts.
>
Its ONLY purpose was to point a line back to the sniper's nest.
> paul s
paul seaton
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7bd31d057b331bed
>>> "With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the
>>> traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of
>>> the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to
>>> the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind." <<<
IMO, the above Clark Panel quote doesn't really aid Paul Seaton's "BOH"
theory at all. And it certainly doesn't aid John Canal's theory
either....because John C. insists that OCCIPITAL bone was "fragmented"
(broken apart) on JFK's head (not to mention the fact that John C. needs
to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be extensively
damaged in order for his theory to be correct, which is a theory that has
all of the Parkland witnesses being correct).
The Clark Panel quote above is talking mainly about the "frontoparietal
region of the skull" (front-right side) and the "frontal bone" (the front
part of Kennedy's skull).
## PS : Since when was "the posterior margin of the parietal bone" 'mainly'
'the front right side' , David ? ( "When I use a word it means what I want
it to mean" said Alice )
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/xrays.htm
I maintain that the following portion of that Clark Panel determination
about the skull fragmentation is too non-exacting for these words to be
utilized as definitive proof that the VERY BACK PORTIONS of President
Kennedy's head (including "occipital" regions, which aren't mentioned at
all in that quoted Clark Panel passage) were severely fragmented (i.e.,
falling to pieces):
"...to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone
behind."
## PS : Of course, the skull fragmentation HAS to be that far back or Humes
won't be able to get the brain out. And at the front the skull is shattered
up to the 'midline of the frontal bone' - in agreement with Angel's later
determination ( ignored in the Dox drawing) that the large 'late arriving
fragment' ( found in the car) was 'obviously frontal bone'. This gives an
area of fragmentation that essentially mimics a standard skull cap. ( Round
the 'equator' of the skull, in Florentino's language ).
Throw in the EXPLICIT Clark Panel description of the photos showing the
contours of the back of the head GROSSLY DISTORTED by the underlying
fragmentation of the skull.
(This is the very same BOH that you, David, on nothing more than an over-
confident hunch , describe as 'undamaged' )
So much, again, for amateur / 'gut feeling' photo interpretation.
I note you haven't gone within a country mile of even addressing the 'brain
removal' problem - or the Elephant In Your Room as I like to think of it.
It is - spookily - as if I had never mentioned the matter. Perhaps the
implications haven't sunk in yet ?
paul s
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
On the one hand, I wouldn't mind seeing you post your insights to the
IMDB board; but on the other hand, it's a real looney-bin, and you'd
probably only be wasting your time. I've stopped trying to reach the
regulars, using the board mainly to let newcomers know about the "JFK"
resources at my website.
Dave
> The CTs, in general (I ...
>
> read more �
Peter Fokes
<drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>TOP POST
>
>On the one hand, I wouldn't mind seeing you post your insights to the
>IMDB board; but on the other hand, it's a real looney-bin,
IMDB is owned by Amazon, isn't it?
And we know how many loonies write incomprehensible reviews on that
site!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
and you'd
>probably only be wasting your time. I've stopped trying to reach the
>regulars, using the board mainly to let newcomers know about the "JFK"
>resources at my website.
>
>Dave
>
>http://www.jfk-online.com
>
>
>On May 7, 1:19?am, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Strangely, I'm unable to find it now, even though it was easily found only
>> last night, but on the messageboard for the movie JFK I saw a poster make
>> the astonishing claim that LNs are guilty of disinformation.
>>
>> The claim was not astonishing for its truthfulness, it was astonishing for
>> the glaring omission:
>>
>> No mention was made of the proven fact that CTs are equally guilty of
>> disinformation.
>>
>> The same poster also posted links to the tired old myth that Dr. McAdams
>> works for the CIA.
>>
>> Tears streamed down my face as I laughed while reading that.
>>
>> Common CT disinformation:
>>
>> Jack Ruby hinted repeatedly that he knew more about the assassination than
>> he was willing to state publicly, that there were powerful people
>> preventing him from telling his true story, a true story which he never
>> told, that he never named these powerful people, & that his roommate,
>> George Senator confirmed that Ruby talked about a conspiracy in the
>> assassination as if he had knowledge of that conspiracy.
>>
>> (Actual proven fact: ?Ruby stated with absurd plainness to the WC that he
>> knew less than nothing about any conspiracy to assassinate JFK, & stated
>> with equally absurd plainness exactly *who* the powerful people were who
>> were trying to implicate him in a conspiracy of which he was not a
>> participant. ?Even if he was lying, most CT authors fail to mention that
>> he even said these things, even after they quote him begging to be taken
>> to Washington. ?Never do they quote him stating with absurd plainness why
>> he wanted to be taken to Washington.)
>>
>> The motorcade route was changed at the last minute.
>>
>> (Actual fact: it was not changed an iota from the moment it was announced
>> for the first time in both Dallas newspapers.)
>>
>> Back & to the left indicates a shot from the right & in front of JFK.
>>
>> (Actual fact: had there been such a shot, there would have been ***much***
>> more damage to the ***left*** side of JFK's head, as that would be,
>> obviously, the side of exit. ?But even the vast majority of CTs
>> unhesitatingly admit that there's no credible evidence of more damage to
>> the left side of the head than to the right. ?This little inconvenient
>> truth seems to have escaped even the vast majority of the American
>> populace, who when they fill out their polls, neglect to mention that they
>> were never told, by anyone, that when a bullet enters the right side of a
>> human's head it's almost impossible for there to not be extensive damage
>> to the opposite side of the victim's head.)
>>
>> The Zapruder film is a fake.
>>
>> (Actual fact: it's strange, then, that not in even one detail does this
>> film directly contradict any other film, such as the Muchmore & Nix; every
>> image shown in all 3 films matches precisely, including positions of all
>> bystanders at all instants shown in all the films.)
>>
>> The statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in direct conflict
>> with Bethesda (this is also an LN myth).
>>
>> (Actual truth: no, they aren't. ?At Parkland they mainly noticed only the
>> most rearward extent of the damage to the skull that was also described at
>> Bethesda; Bethesda merely described much more of the damage to the skull
>> than Parkland.)
>>
>> The Z-film, even if it is genuine, shows more damage to the back of the
>> head than to the front.
>>
>> (Actual fact: not one CT author I've ever read, not one, has ever made
>> even the most minimal admission imaginable that the volcano-like opening
>> in the back of the head seen in a few frames is many, many times smaller
>> than the comparatively ***gigantic*** open flaps of scalp seen with absurd
>> plainness in a much larger number of frames, which are forward of the
>> right ear. ?And not one of these authors, not one, admits that nearly all
>> of the blood is seen clearly to shoot upward & forward.)
>>
>> Oswald was consistently described by his fellow Marines as a poor shot.
>>
>> (Actual fact: the only fellow Marines who ever described him as a poor
>> shot were confirmed to have never seen him shoot any firearm in any
>> official shooting exercise, but instead only saw him shoot on occasions of
>> casual betting games, & at least one of these Marines freely admitted that
>> Oswald was not at all interested in the games.)
>>
>> Now for the LN disinformation.
>>
>> The Parkland personnel were just wrong about seeing more damage to the
>> upper right rear of the head than on any other part of the head.
>>
>> (Actual truth: no, they weren't, they merely noticed the more rearward
>> damage, for the obvious reason that thick hair & scalp at the time covered
>> the more forward damage. ?They didn't even try to peel that away at
>> Parkland, but they did at Bethesda, & merely discovered that Parkland had
>> only described the rearmost part of the massive hole in the skull that
>> Bethesda saw much more plainly & extensively.)
>>
>> Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing after the shooting.
>>
>> (Actual truth: not even close to the only employee missing. ?Documents
>> from the time contain unequivocal admissions by numerous employees that
>> they never set foot in the TSBD that day after the shooting.)
>>
>> The timing of the shots has been proven.
>>
>> (Actual fact: it never has been, & never will be. ?The exact instant of
>> only one shot can ever, ever be proven, & that's the head shot, since it's
>> the only shot for which obvious wounding immediately appears on either
>> victim in any of the films. ?Only one other shot comes close, the one that
>> appears to have caused simultaneous reactions in the 2 men, but since no
>> clear wounding appears on either man at that point, it's a bit
>> inconclusive. ?This still leaves at least one other shot, the exact time
>> of which will forever remain speculation. ?Any human, LN, CT, undecided,
>> or whatever, who claims any particular number of seconds & fractions of
>> seconds from first to last shot is merely speculating, even if that human
>> doesn't realize it. ?We do not have, nor will we ever, a shred of credible
>> evidence to determine precisely when any shot which didn't hit either man
>> was fired, no matter how many or how few such shots were fired. ?Head
>> turns & witness statements will be forever inadequate to firmly establish
>> such a thing even to the nearest second, much less to a fraction of a
>> second. ?Tague's wounding is almost a non-issue, since it has never come
>> even remotely close to being proven which shot caused it, nor whether or
>> not it was a whole bullet, or fragment, or a piece of an object struck,
>> which caused that mere scratch on his cheek, & the man himself would have
>> no possible way of knowing for certain which it was.)
>>
>> The vast majority of a much larger number of witnesses than are ordinarily
>> present at a murder were wrong when they converged in an extraordinary
>> fashion on single aspects of the murder.
>>
>> (Actual fact: not once, in all of human history, has such a thing been
>> been proven, unless there was an obvious reason for such a large majority
>> of a large number of witnesses to be wrong in exactly the same way. ?LNs &
>> CTs alike consistently confuse commonly accepted inaccuracies in
>> individual witness statements with firm consensus of the majority.)
>>
>> These are only a small tithe of a tremendously larger number of examples I
>> could easily produce (& in fact have already produced, years ago, in this
>> newsgroup) of both CT & LN proven inaccuracies. ?I have had nearly
>> equivalent experience with both CTs & LNs claiming to deny the patently
>> obvious, but only when it conflicts with their cherished beliefs.
>>
>> LNs throughout this newsgroup praised my open-mindedness until I disputed
>> whether or not one even needed a single bullet to establish a single
>> shooter, & only then did they claim I was no longer objective, even though
>> the actual truth was that I continued to apply the same standards, with no
>> difference whatsoever, to the analysis of crucial evidence that I had
>> before they turned against me.
>>
>> Various CTs were just as guilty: they also claimed I was very objective
>> whenever I posted my honest doubts about the WC conclusions, until I
>> posted (in actual reality with equal objectiveness as before) my own
>> personal experiences in walking from the rooming house to the Tippet
>> scene, & all of a sudden, the moment I confirmed that Oswald could have
>> easily, easily made it in time, I was no longer objective. ?This resulted
>> in, for example, one of the most absurd claims I've ever heard or read in
>> my life, that most timepieces in 1963 (or even today) are totally
>> synchronized. ?Even after I interviewed numerous people in real life & saw
>> with my own eyes that their watches were off from each other by as much as
>> 10 min, a number of CTs claimed that they had never heard of such a thing,
>> even though in reality such lack of timepiece synchronicity is a mundane
>> experience worldwide. ?It was also only the CTs who absolutely refused
>> (they specifically said that they were refusing) to even *attempt* to
>> duplicate a certain rifle shadow, even after I explained in terms even a
>> first-grader would have no trouble understanding how it could be done. ?
>> The CTs merely said that I was "wrong," but when I challenged them to put
>> it to the test themselves, they specifically said they weren't even going
>> to try to do it, even though all they had to do was stand under any light
>> source that was not directly overhead & merely tilt any long, narrow
>> object forward. ?Talk about disinformation. ?These CTs told me that they
>> would not even *try* to find out whether or not I was correct; several of
>> them blatantly stated to me that they were just going to continue to claim
>> I was wrong, without even bothering to prove it in the slightest.
>>
>> Point of fact: only one of these CTs claimed that he/she had even tried
>> it, & the claim was that I was still not credible, but this was the same
>> CT who claimed, laughably, that a certain map of a certain motorcade
>> covered a much larger percentage of a certain newspaper page than it
>> actually did.
>>
>> Not one other CT poster, not one, ever came forward to agree.
>>
>> Not one.
>>
>> Talk about disinformation.
>>
>> The CTs, in general (I ...
>>
>> read more ?
>
yeuhd
wrote:
> ##you can't see the margins of the remaining bone in that photo,
> consequently it's pretty useless for your purposes.
I don't know what you are talking about when you say "for your
purposes". The question was whether the Ida Dox forensic medical
drawing was an accurate representation of an autopsy photograph. The
answer: Yes, it is.
> Plus it tells you
> absolutely nothing about the state of the rear skull - which is, in case you
> haven't realised it yet, actually absent.
The rear of the skull is right there in the photograph and in the
drawing made from the photograph. As I said above, a piece of skull
flap is being held in place by the hand visible in both pictures, to
make the posterior head wound visible.
John Canal
>>>> "With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the trau=
>matic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bon=
>y structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinit=
>y of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind." <<<
[..]
D you ever get tired of looking foolish?
And it certainly doesn't aid John Canal's theory
>either....because John C. insists that OCCIPITAL bone was "fragmented"
>(broken apart) on JFK's head
Read these quotes for comprehension.
Any lurkers out there reading this? If so, watch David ignore these
citations...or come up with the sillyest sounding explanation for them
you've ever heard.
1. "Skull pieces attached to the scalp when it was lifted posteriorly"
Boswell ARRB, p. 58
2. Skull was missing under the scalp in the BOH photo down to the base of
the ear. Boswell, ARRB, p. 166
3. "once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could be
removed, you know by picking them up because they were not held together
very well, other than by the dura.....it was all falling apart. Humes,
ARRB, p. 102
Get real David...you've got to be smarter than to think the occipital
wasn't fragmented? The above is just a sample of the seemingly countless
citations I could list here that make it a slam-dunk fact that the BOH was
fragmented.
Fisher was trying to show Garrison there was no basis for his Grassy Knoll
shooter (IOW, no BOH wound)--that's why he didn't mention state the BOH
was fragmented. Baden coud not dishonor the great Dr. Fisher, but could
the autopsists...that's why he parroted Fisher (a la the Dox dwg).
Both Posner and Bugliosi now know hey shouldn't have trusted Baden, but
can't free themselves up to, as VB put it, "get to the bottom of this".
You sir, have no excuses like they do, so join reality and stop sounding
silly....Also, don't you get tired of saying the doctors and other
credible witnesses who saw the bodywere wrong?...based on someone's biased
opinion who did not see them body.
AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO BELITTLE CT'S WHEN THEY POST HAIR-BRAIN
THEORIES---YOUR, "THE BOH SKULL WASN'T FRAGMENTED" NAUSEATING CRAP IS JUST
AS STUPID AS THE MOST FAR-FETCHED CT THEORY EVER CONCIEVED.
>(not to mention the fact that John C. needs
>to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be >extensively damaged
>in order for his theory to be correct, which >is a theory that has
>all of the Parkland witnesses being correct).
And you evidently can't read either. I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, THE REAR
SCALP was LACERATED [a la "cut"], not "extensively damaged" with none
missing---probably a vertical laceration communicatng with a shorter
horizontal laceration joined near a point to the right of the
EOP....caused by the sharp edges of one or two of the dislodged, but stll
adhered to the scalp, rear bone pieces. Try to remember that the next time
you post your silly refutations of what you claim I said. Again, I never
said the occipital scalp was "extensively damaged" like you said I claim
it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop misrepresenting what I say...dammit!
>The Clark Panel quote above is talking mainly about the "frontoparietal
>region of the skull" (front-right side) and the "frontal bone" (the front
>part of Kennedy's skull).
>
>I maintain that the following portion of that Clark Panel determination
>about the skull fragmentation is too non-exacting for these words to be
>utilized as definitive proof that the VERY BACK PORTIONS of President
>Kennedy's head (including "occipital" regions, which aren't mentioned at
>all in that quoted Clark Panel passage) were severely fragmented (i.e.,
>falling to pieces):
>
> "...to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone
>behind."
Lurker's here's another point DVP will run from.
Ok, your vaunted Clark Panel said the skull was fragmented from the
front-right all the way back to the "vicinity of the posterior margin of
the parietal bone behind"....right? Yes, that's right. SO, IF THAT WAS
EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE, HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH CAN THE BOTTOM HALF OF
THE ENTRY BE SEEN IN F8, ***AS STATED BY THE HSCA***, ON THE EDGE OF THE
**INTACT** REAR SKULL??????????????????????????????????????????
I know that conflict is difficult for you to understand so let me help
you....and you need it while wading around in the medical evidence that
your so unfamilar with. Ok, slowly, the Clark Panel's and HSCA's own
cowlick entry was well above the occipital bone into the posterior
parietal.....SO WHY DOESN'T F8 SHOW THE ENTRY IN A PIECE OF REAR SKULL
THAT WAS FRAGMENTED, INSTEAD OF ALONG THE EDGE OF THE INTACT,
NON-FRAGMENTED SKULL??????????????????????????????????????
The explanation is that they were defending a lie---and it's obvious to
all those above about a third-grade education.
Here's comes Fred Astaire, brought back to life...no, ah shucks, it's only
DVP with more of his own boring dance routine and rhetoric.
John Canal
John Canal
>matic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bon=
>y structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinit=
>y of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind." <<<
[..]
IMO, you're looking a little foolish?
You wrote:
>And it certainly doesn't aid John Canal's theory
>either....because John C. insists that OCCIPITAL bone was "fragmented"
>(broken apart) on JFK's head
Read these quotes for comprehension.
Any lurkers out there reading this? If so, watch David ignore these
citations...or come up with the silliest sounding explanation for them
you've ever heard.
1. "Skull pieces attached to the scalp when it was lifted posteriorly"
Boswell, ARRB, p. 58
2. Skull was missing under the scalp in the BOH photo down to the base of
the ear. Boswell, ARRB, p. 166
3. "Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could be
removed, you know by picking them up because they were not held together
very well, other than by the dura.....it was all falling apart. Humes,
ARRB, p. 102
Get real David...I know you must be smarter than to think the occipital
wasn't fragmented? The above is just a sample of the seemingly countless
citations I could list here that make it a slam-dunk fact that the BOH was
fragmented.
I know this is speculaton, but IMO Fisher was trying to show Garrison
there was no basis for his Grassy Knoll shooter (IOW, no BOH
wound)--that's why he didn't mention that the BOH was fragmented. Baden
coud not dishonor the great Dr. Fisher, but could the autopsists who had
reported a BOH wound...that's why he parroted Fisher (a la the Dox dwg).
Both Posner and Bugliosi now know hey shouldn't have trusted Baden, but
can't free themselves up to, as VB put it, "get to the bottom of this".
You sir, have no excuses like they do, so join reality and stop sounding
silly....Also, don't you get tired of saying the doctors and other
credible witnesses who saw the body were wrong?...based on someone's
biased opinion who did not see them body.
AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO BELITTLE CT'S WHEN THEY POST HAIR-BRAIN
THEORIES---IMO, YOUR, "THE BOH SKULL WASN'T FRAGMENTED" NAUSEATING B/S IS
JUST AS WACKY AS THE MOST FAR-FETCHED CT THEORY EVER CONCIEVED.
>(not to mention the fact that John C. needs
>to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be >extensively damaged
>in order for his theory to be correct, which >is a theory that has
>all of the Parkland witnesses being correct).
And you evidently can't read either. I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, THE REAR
SCALP was LACERATED [a la just "cut"], not "extensively damaged" with no
rear scalp missing---there probably was a 2-3 inch vertical laceration
communicatng with a shorter horizontal laceration connecting near a point
abut an inch right of the EOP....with those lacerations being caused by
the sharp edges of one or two of the dislodged--but still adhered to the
scalp--rear bone pieces.
Now, please try to remember that the next time you post your silly
refutations of what you claim I said. Again, I never said the occipital
scalp was "extensively damaged" like you said I claim it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for not misrepresenting what I say any more.
>The Clark Panel quote above is talking mainly about the "frontoparietal
>region of the skull" (front-right side) and the "frontal bone" (the front
>part of Kennedy's skull).
>
>I maintain that the following portion of that Clark Panel determination
>about the skull fragmentation is too non-exacting for these words to be
>utilized as definitive proof that the VERY BACK PORTIONS of President
>Kennedy's head (including "occipital" regions, which aren't mentioned at
>all in that quoted Clark Panel passage) were severely fragmented (i.e.,
>falling to pieces):
>
> "...to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone
>behind."
Lurker's here's another point DVP will run from.
Ok, your vaunted Clark Panel said the skull was fragmented from the
front-right all the way back to the "vicinity of the posterior margin of
the parietal bone behind"....right? Yes, that's right. SO, IF THAT WAS
EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE, HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH CAN THE BOTTOM HALF OF
THE ENTRY BE SEEN IN F8, ***AS STATED BY THE HSCA***, ON THE EDGE OF THE
**INTACT** REAR SKULL??????????????????????????????????????????
If the Clark Panel was correct and the entry was in the fragmented
posterior parietal bone, then when they reflected the scalp the entire
entry should have been on the table in one of the bone pieces that came
loose. But it wasn't, because the ClarK Panel was wrong, i.e. the entry
wasn't nearly that high....and they proved it with their own claims. So
much for their credibility.
The explanation is that they were defending a lie---and it should be
obvious to all.
Here's comes Fred Astaire, brought back to life...no, ah shucks, it's only
DVP with more of his own boring dance routines and "Trust baden, VB and I
do" rhetoric.
:-)
John Canal
paul seaton
On May 9, 11:49 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
wrote:
> ##you can't see the margins of the remaining bone in that photo,
> consequently it's pretty useless for your purposes.
I don't know what you are talking about when you say "for your purposes".
The question was whether the Ida Dox forensic medical drawing was an
accurate representation of an autopsy photograph. The answer: Yes, it is.
## PS says : Then tell me, in which autopsy photograph do the bone margins
around the defect appear ( in toto ) as per the Dox drawing ? They
certainly don't appear in the photo you cited. Perhaps you are thinking of
some other photo ?
> Plus it tells you
> absolutely nothing about the state of the rear skull - which is, in case
> you
> haven't realised it yet, actually absent.
The rear of the skull is right there in the photograph
### PS says : *&^*&^*&^& g!!!!!! ?????????????????? WHAT PHOTOGRAPH ???
( see above). Certainly not the BOH photo you referred to. The rear skull
DOES NOT APPEAR in the that photo. ( The rear *scalp* does... but that it
not much help is it ?) I repeat : The rear skull DOES NOT APPEAR in the
that photo. ( Or any of the BOH photos ).
and in the drawing made from the photograph. As I said above, a piece of
skull flap is being held in place by the hand visible in both pictures, to
make the posterior head wound visible.
## PS says : Whatever. I want to see this autopsy photo you claim to know
of that shows the *complete circumference of the defect in the bone as
shown in the Dox drawing*. The photo upon which, you seem to be claiming,
the Dox drawing was based. I would love to see it. I can think of at
least 10 other people who would sell their mothers to see it. You could
make a fortune auctioning it on ebay. Post a link. I have been looking for
that one for about 15 years. This is a great breakthrough.
paul S
David Von Pein
>>> "This is the very same BOH that you, David, on nothing more than an
over-confident hunch, describe as 'undamaged'." <<<
I'm not relying on any "hunch", for Pete (Paul) sake!
I'm relying on the autopsy PICTURES and the X-RAYS and THE ZAPRUDER FILM
(in tandem!). And I'm also relying on these words that were spoken by the
chief pathologist for the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (who MUST
certainly be a liar, or just totally incompetent, if Paul Seaton and John
Canal are correct about their head-wound theories):
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other
than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN; January 8th, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page #408 of
Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History"]
David Von Pein
F8 is worthless, John. Stop propping it up so much. It's useless for
definitively PROVING anything...and surely you know this is true.
And BTW, you DO need the scalp of President Kennedy to be EXTENSIVELY
DAMAGED in the RIGHT-REAR (occipital) area of his head in order for
your theory to hold together....because if JFK's head is not
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED in the RIGHT-REAR, the Parkland witnesses just
flat-out CANNOT and COULD NOT have possibly seen the type of gaping
wound in the BOH (occipital!) that they each said they saw.*
* = Which is why the "pooling blood toward the back of the head"
theory makes the most (common) sense when trying to answer one of the
big-ticket questions connected to JFK's murder:
WHY DID THE PARKLAND WITNESSES SAY THEY SAW A GREAT-BIG HOLE IN THE
BACK (OCCIPITAL) PART OF KENNEDY'S HEAD?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1c7aaaecde8edd2b
>>> "And you evidently can't read either. I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, THE REAR SCALP was LACERATED [a la "cut"], not "extensively damaged" with none missing. .... Try to remember that the next time you post your silly refutations of what you claim I said. Again, I never said the occipital scalp was "extensively damaged" like you said I claim it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" <<<
I didn't say that you did SAY that (at least I didn't imply that in
the post of mine that you are responding to here).
Here's exactly what I said (in the post you were just replying to):
"John C. needs to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's
head to be extensively damaged in order for his theory to be correct,
which is a theory that has all of the Parkland witnesses being
correct." -- DVP
Now, where in the above statement did I say that YOU SAID that the
right-rear of JFK's head was "extensively damaged"?
Answer -- Nowhere.
What I said is that you "NEED" to have the scalp in the occipital to
be "extensively damaged". And you do "need" that, whether you want to
admit it or not.
Looks like it's John C. who "can't read" (or comprehend) in this
instance, instead of DVP, isn't it now?
>>> "Stop misrepresenting what I say...dammit!" <<<
Again, in this "extensively damaged" instance, I didn't misrepresent
what you said in the slightest. I merely was stating what you truly
NEED to have (i.e., an "extensively damaged" right-rear of JFK's BOH)
in order for your silly theory to have any hope of surviving at all --
and I'm right too....you NEED to have the right-rear "extensively
damaged" in order for your theory to be accurate regarding all of the
Parkland Hospital witnesses.
Or do you, John C., actually want to think that the Parkland witnesses
saw what they SAID they saw (i.e., a huge, gaping hole in the back of
JFK's head), even though there was only merely a fairly-small "cut" or
"laceration" in the scalp?
Via such a screwy scenario, we have many Parkland witnesses (somehow)
supposedly seeing this large-ish, "gaping" wound that would have been
visible through what was (per John A. Canal) only a VERY SMALL
"CUT"/"LACERATION" IN THE RIGHT-REAR SCALP.
Is that the story/theory you're trying to peddle here, John Canal?
At Dr. Robert McClelland's request, this diagram of John F. Kennedy's
head was created:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif
Now, did McClelland supposedly see all of that damage to the back of
JFK's head through just a "quarter"-sized "cut" or "laceration" that
existed in the dead President's scalp? That was quite a feat by
McClelland if John C. is correct.
In short -- John Canal is MAKING UP THEORIES to suit his "BOH"
purposes. It's as simple as that, IMO.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>>>> "This is the very same BOH that you, David, on nothing more than an
>over-confident hunch, describe as 'undamaged'." <<<
>
>I'm not relying on any "hunch", for Pete (Paul) sake!
>
>I'm relying on the autopsy PICTURES and the X-RAYS and THE ZAPRUDER FILM
>(in tandem!). And I'm also relying on these words that were spoken by the
>chief pathologist for the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (who MUST
>certainly be a liar, or just totally incompetent, if Paul Seaton and John
>Canal are correct about their head-wound theories):
I think Paul and I disagree on this, but, IMO, you're oversimplifying it.
Let me try this approach. What is the most likely scenario:
1. Fisher, in spite of the autopsy report and the testimony and statements
of dozens of credible eyewitnesses who said they saw a BOH wound, did not
find that the occipital was fragmented...possibly trying to make sure the
medical evidence (no BOH wound) did not support Jim Garrison's Grassy
Knoll shooter claims. (###note: Ramsey Clark had publicly criticized
Garrison, who was denied access to the autopsy materials). Then, Baden,
had a choice, i.e. refute the findings of the highly credentialed Dr.
Fisher or those of three unknown, inexperienced autopsists. There really
was no choice--with Baden, perhaps thinking he was doing so in the best
interests of the nation, backing up Fisher.
Sure this scenario sound far-fetched--I agree, but remember one thing:
Dr. Joe Davis tried to tell the rest of his FPP colleagues, on the record,
that there was evidence on the lateral film that the bullet impacted near
the EOP....and was brought to the woodshed for it. Why is this important?
It shows to me that Baden et. al. may have had predetermined findings in
line with Fisher's, and not Humes'.
2. That dozens of individuals, including two neurosurgeons and the autopsy
doctors, who saw or literally had the body in their hands were wrong when
they described a BOH wound.
For me the more likely scenario, again (as wacky as most of you may think
it is) is no. 1.
Remember two more things:
1. If the BOH skull was fragmented (collateral damage), it's just a small
leap to concluding one or two of those rear skull fragments could have
moved out of position exposing JFK's brain COMPARED TO THE "MEGALEAP" one
must make to conclude 20+ credible witnesses, including the autopsists and
other Bethesda witnesses, were collectively wrong about seeing a BOH
wound.
2. The record is full of statements and testimony that make it absolutely
clear, if not a no=brainer, that the BOH skull was fragmented.
John Canal
P.S. VB has said, in writing, that he can't drop everything to "get to the
bottom of this". Bad timing, IMO, for Barb, Paul, and I...that's all, just
bad timing....because I know VB has a passion for the truth and he senses
what's in the record on these issues is hardly the truth......meaning he'd
re-investigate these issues if he had time. Actually, I don't blame him
for concentrating his time working with Tom Hanks on a project based on RH
rather that getting back into this bucket of worms.
[...]
paul seaton
>
>
>
>>>> "This is the very same BOH that you, David, on nothing more than an
> over-confident hunch, describe as 'undamaged'." <<<
>
> I'm not relying on any "hunch", for Pete (Paul) sake!
>
> I'm relying on the autopsy PICTURES
The BOH PICTURES, David, don't show the rear skull. So let's be clear that ,
whatever you think you are doing, you are actually not relying on the
pictures. It seems very odd to me that this very simple fact still escapes
you.
> and the X-RAYS
Well, you certainly aren't relying on any official, qualified
interpretation of the x-rays either, because these analyses, which I took
the trouble to post for you over & over again, also contradict you. The
only interesting question is why you continue to believe 'you are relying on
them' . The best we can say is that you are relying on DVP's personal
interpretation of the x-rays. But then , your buff radiology carries little
weight, except apparently with yourself. Has it occurred to you that you may
be overestimating your ability in this department?
> and THE ZAPRUDER FILM
Then please tell me in which frame you get your clear view of the state of
the rear skull.
So far, as to the condition of the rear skull, you are'relying' on 1) photos
that don't show the rear skull 2) you own idiosyncratic interpretation of
the skull x-rays, which contradicts the official reports 3) a movie which
doesn't show the rear skull.
It's obviously pointless trying to explain to you where this strange
methodology is flawed, because I already have, about 10 times, and you just
keep on going back to it , apparently fully confident that the world really
is flat, because.... well.... just because you believe it must be.
I don't think you are convincing anyone else, frankly.
> (in tandem!). And I'm also relying on these words that were spoken by the
> chief pathologist for the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (who MUST
> certainly be a liar, or just totally incompetent, if Paul Seaton and John
> Canal are correct about their head-wound theories):
>
>
> "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other
> than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- DR.
> MICHAEL BADEN; January 8th, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page #408 of
> Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History"]
I covered this - and there's only so much repetition I can stand.
But there are a few questions that didn't get covered, if you recall. You
need to explain ( at a bare minimum) how the brain was removed 'a la Dox' ,
David. Until you take your courage in both hands & address that, & thereby
provide some substantive evidence for your peculiar beliefs, I no longer
feel this qualifies as a serious discussion.
Paul S
paul seaton
OK, David, for the very last time, I am going to ask you , as a personal
favour, & to give you a chance to confound my expectations, to tell me how
you think the brain was removed through the 'Dox Drawing' skull defect.
I am not ( at the moment ) interested in side issues, endless repetitions,
and general waltzing around the park, so please spare me that.
I just want to know the specific details of the procedure that you, David
von Pein, believe Humes used to get that brain out there, bearing in mind
that the hole in the skull is barely big enough for Humes to get ONE of his
(big) hands into, let alone find the brain stem , let alone cut the brain
stem , let alone accurately cut around the tentorium, let alone get the
brain out. ( Also of course bearing in mind all the other evidence we have
from the autopsy on the issue - something which puts a few more constraints
on any answer, as you are doubtless aware).
How do you think they did it, David ?
And further WHY do you think they did it, David, given that they had a saw
handy ?
The floor is yours.
I am all ears.
David Von Pein
I'll keep this one short, Paul......
You think Michael Baden is a liar.
I do not.
Bye.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:726b4251-7a99-4374...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 9, 11:49 am, "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com>
> wrote:
>> ##you can't see the margins of the remaining bone in that photo,
>> consequently it's pretty useless for your purposes.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about when you say "for your
> purposes". The question was whether the Ida Dox forensic medical drawing
> was an accurate representation of an autopsy photograph. The answer:
> Yes, it is.
>
Which drawing? Not F-66.
The others were tracings which were enhanced and modified as per Baden's
orders.
paul seaton
>
> I'll keep this one short, Paul......
>
> You think Michael Baden is a liar.
>
> I do not.
I too will keep this short.
1) You think you read x-rays better than the experts. ( McDonnel & Russell
Morgan - an issue that is apparently too complex for you to address , so ,
of course, you sweep it under the carpet & pretend it's gone away. After
all, 'Michael Baden wouldn't lie to me'.... )
2) You think you are a greater forensic pathologist than Larry Angel.
(Who described as 'obviously frontal bone' a chunk of bone found in the
limo which is miraculously stuck solidly back on the skull in the Dox
drawing - another issue that is apparently too complex for you to address.
Hey, a piece of bone can be firmly attached to the skull & simultaneously
on a table in another room, what's the problem ? After all, 'Michael Baden
wouldn't lie to me...' )
3) You look at a photograph of some hair & seem to think it is bone. ( A
common enough complaint for which there appears to be no cure. And anyway
, 'Michael Baden wouldn't lie to me...')
4) You believe you can diagnose any degree of skull damage through hair at
70 feet by some kind of mystical union with the Z film. ( hey who needs
x-rays? And anyway , 'Michael Baden wouldn't lie to me...')
5) You believe in something a 5 year old can see in 2 seconds flat is
geometrically impossible. ( Removal of the brain via a defect barely large
enough for Humes to get his hand through - another issue that is
apparently too complex for you to address . Because Michael Baden wouldn't
lie to you ... would he ? )
6) And , finally, you, my friend, think the Clark Panel were a bunch of
liars, with their clearly stated belief in the 'gross distortion' of your
sainted 'undamaged' back of the head. (Another issue that is apparently
too complex for you to address . For Michael Baden wouldn't lie to you ..
though the Clark Panel would, it seems ...)
You remind me of those worthy gentlemen who took issue with the notion
that the earth went around the sun - despite all the pesky evidence - on
the basis that they 'didn't think the Pope was liar'.
Either Michael Baden is lying to you, or the Clark Panel are.
For someone disposed to leave his decision making to 'higher powers' , I
can see this sort of authoritarian dilemma could cause a terrible
headache.
You have been given a brain.
Use it.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> OK, David, for the very last time, I am going to ask you , as a personal
> favour, & to give you a chance to confound my expectations, to tell me
> how you think the brain was removed through the 'Dox Drawing' skull defect.
>
For the last time, that is stupid. The Dox drawing does NOT represent
the actual condition of the skull at the time of the removal of the
brain. You can see for yourself that more frontal bone is missing in the
autopsy photos than the Dox drawing shows. The autopsy photos of the
inside of the head do not match the Dox drawing.
paul seaton
> On 5/11/2009 12:27 PM, paul seaton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, David, for the very last time, I am going to ask you , as a personal
>> favour, & to give you a chance to confound my expectations, to tell me
>> how you think the brain was removed through the 'Dox Drawing' skull
>> defect.
>>
>
> For the last time, that is stupid. The Dox drawing does NOT represent the
> actual condition of the skull at the time of the removal of the brain.
I know it doesn't Tony.
Maybe you haven't noticed - though how that could have happened I don't
now - but a whole lot of people do. It's an article of religion. The Dox
drawing is the 'bible' on the skull damage for those who have been
indoctrinated with this daft, ongoing ' BOH intact' mantra. In a nutshell,
the reasoning is : "The BOH was 'intact' because the Dox drawing says it
was "
It is THE ONLY officially produced evidence that carries this totally
misleading implication, but the Dox Infection is very widespread. It's a bit
of a pandemic. So- don't tell ME it's not accurate, I am the one who first
started pointing out here that it's not accurate.
You can see for yourself that more frontal bone is missing in the
> autopsy photos than the Dox drawing shows. The autopsy photos of the
> inside of the head do not match the Dox drawing.
Absolutely.
Couldn't agree more.
But try explaining that to DVP or Florentino.
Paul s
David Von Pein
>>> "How do you think they did it [removed JFK's brain at autopsy], David?
handy?" <<<
President Kennedy's lead autopsy surgeon, Dr. James J. Humes, provides us
with the answer, plain as day, in the transcript of his February 13, 1996,
ARRB testimony/deposition:
DR. HUMES -- "Sure, we had to make an incision to remove the
brain." ....
QUESTION -- "Where was the first incision made?"
DR. HUMES -- "I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the
skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to
approach the removal of the brain."
QUESTION -- "And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you
need to cut--?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, we had to cut some bone as well."
============================
This chunk of Dr. Humes' ARRB session is worth repeating for both Mr.
Paul Seaton and Mr. John A. Canal:
"WE HAD TO CUT SOME BONE AS WELL." -- DR. J.J. HUMES; 02/13/1996
And we know that the cutting of that "bone" to get JFK's brain out of
his head most certainly occurred AFTER this X-ray was taken (and not
before the X-ray was taken):
Here is the relevant testimony given by Dr. Humes concerning the
"photo timeline" topic during his 1996 ARRB session:
QUESTION -- "There is one photograph, or one series of photographs,
that shows what looks to be a gaping wound in the head with the scalp
reflected."
DR. HUMES -- "Yeah."
QUESTION -- "Other than that series of photographs, were the remainder
of the photographs all taken at the beginning of the autopsy, do you
recall?"
DR. HUMES -- "Virtually all of them were, yeah. .... There's only
basically two that weren't. One was the inside of the occipital region,
which we interpreted as the wound of entrance, for obvious reasons, and
one that never came--whatever happened to it, I was very disturbed by it.
We took one of the interior of the right side of the thorax because there
was a contusion of the right upper lobe of the lung. So the missile had
passed across the dome of the parietal pleura and contused the right lobe.
I wanted to have a picture of that, and I never saw it. It never--whether
it was under-exposed or over-exposed or what happened to it, I don't know.
And it's three years later when we were looking at it, of course. But we
didn't see that photograph. So that was taken later, and the one of the
inside of the skull was taken later. But all the rest of them were taken
at the onset of examination."
QUESTION -- "Okay. With regard to X-rays, when were they taken in
relationship to the photographs?"
DR. HUMES -- "I would guess that most of the X-rays were taken prior to
any of the photographs. But, I mean, I just don't have that crystal clear
in my mind. But I think so. I think most of them were taken before."
QUESTION -- "Were any skull fragments rearranged or put into place or
removed prior to the time that the first X-rays were taken?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Were any skull fragments rearranged or moved at any time
during any time that there was an X-ray of the cranium?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "So there was no reconstruction whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. There was nothing to reconstruct. No."
============================
Of course, to be fair, there's the following ARRB testimony of Dr. J.
Thornton Boswell, which totally contradicts what Dr. Humes said
regarding the removal of JFK's brain:
QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in
order to remove the brain?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the cranium?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
============================
So, I guess it's a matter of: "Who should be believed, Humes or
Boswell?"
But since it was Dr. Humes himself who physically removed the brain
from President Kennedy's head....
QUESTION -- "Who was involved in the process of removal of the brain?"
DR. HUMES (1996; ARRB) -- "I was."
....perhaps it would be best to defer to his testimony on this matter:
"WE HAD TO CUT SOME BONE AS WELL." -- Dr. Humes
============================
For what it's worth, I'd like to add two "bonus" quotes below (just
for the record):
QUESTION -- "Do you recall whether Colonel Finck arrived before or
after the brain was removed?"
DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "Oh, before."
------------------
Via Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History":
"When I spoke to [autopsy photographer John] Stringer, he said there
was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the
president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear."
.... When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the
president's head, he said "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to
the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed
out this entrance wound to everyone."" -- Page 410 of Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007) [Via Telephone interview of John Stringer by
Bugliosi on September 21, 2000.]
============================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>>>>"How do you think they did it [removed JFK's brain at autopsy], David? And
>>>>further WHY do you think they did it, David, given that they had a saw handy?"
>>>><<<
Your stubborness reminds me of a fight I had once. The other guy would get
up and hit me, then get up and hit me again, then get up an hit me
again...well, you get the picture.
Candidly, you've got a hell of a nerve playing the citation game with Paul
and I...Do you think were stupid...and made up this BOH wound theory out
of whole cloth? That theory isbased solidly on the medical record....no
just what Baden said. Cripes Paul has been combing the medical record
longer than I and I've been at it (almost exclusivey regarding the head
wounds) for going on 10 years...since my book on the assassination was
published. I promise you that VB has not researched the medical evidence
nearly as thoroughly as Paul, Barb or myself....and VB assumed Baden was
being fully truthful and/or accurate, which he wasn't--if you'd ead the
complete medical record you'd figure that out for yourself--I think.
>President Kennedy's lead autopsy surgeon, Dr. James J. Humes, provides
>us with the answer, plain as day, in the transcript of his February
>13, 1996, ARRB testimony/deposition:
>
>DR. HUMES -- "Sure, we had to make an incision to remove the
>brain." ....
>
>QUESTION -- "Where was the first incision made?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the
>skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and
>to approach the removal of the brain."
>
>QUESTION -- "And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you
>need to cut--?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "No, we had to cut some bone as well."
*****
>And we know that the cutting of that "bone" to get JFK's brain out of
>his head most certainly occurred BEFORE this X-ray was taken:
See below, but first, if there was any cutting of the bone, it was
insignificant. Second, if there was even any insignificant cutting, it was
done AFTER that X-ray!!!!!!!!!!!! Was that a typo...or are you that
confused about the medical evidence?
>Of course, to be fair, there's the following ARRB testimony of Dr. J.
>Thornton Boswell, which totally contradicts what Dr. Humes said
>regarding the removal of JFK's brain:
>
>QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in
>order to remove the brain?"
>
>DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
>
>QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the cranium?"
>
>DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
>============================
>So, I guess it's a matter of: "Who should be believed, Humes or
>Boswell?"
>
>But since it was Dr. Humes himself who physically removed the brain
>from President Kennedy's head....
>
>QUESTION -- "Who was involved in the process of removal of the brain?"
>
>DR. HUMES (1996; ARRB) -- "I was."
>
>....perhaps it would be best to defer to his testimony on this matter:
Ooops, you might have included this---just an oversight that you didn't,
right?
Q. "Did anyone else assist you with that" [brain removal]?
Humes: "Maybe J. I'm not sure now."
So before you go deferring toHumes or Boswell, maybe you ought to remember
that they were depending on 33 year-old recollections.
In any case, what Humes and Boswell said here supports Boswell's claim
that no sawing was necessary to remove the brain.
Humes: "Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could be
removed, you know by picking them up because they were not held together
very well, other than by the dura--it was all falling apart. ARRB dep. pg.
102
Boswell: "When the scalp was lifted posteriorly skull pieces were
attached". ARRB dep.,pg. 58
****
Humes misremembered about when photos were taken.
Here's Finck in his letter to Blumberg, dtd 1 Feb., 1965....AGAIN!
"The brain, the heart an the lungs had been removed before my arrival."
"I help [sic] the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital
wound (EXTERNAL and internal aspects) as well as of the wound in the
back."
Now, David think real hard and see if you can recall any other photos of
the EXTERNAL aspect of the ocipital [entry] wound besides the ones you
have included ad nauseam in your posts.
Not trying to stress you out or anything, but, if you'll put 2 + 2
together, you'll come out with an understanding that the photos showing
the entry in the BOH scalp were taken after the brain had een removed.
Oh, and I don't want to overwhelm you so, besides Finck's statements
above, let me add just a "few" of the numerous citations that make it
clear that photos were taken throughout the night.
1. "Photographs were taken a various stages of the autopsy. Burkley".
(ARRB-MD-7, p. 17)
2. "Yes, photgraphs were taken throughout the autopsy." Stringer says that
TWICE, once during a 4/8/96 telephone interview with an ARRB staffer and
again during his 7/16/96 ARRB deposition.
3. Boswell: "Yes. He [Stringer] was the photographer."
Q. "Did he take photographs at that time, as best you recall.
Boswell: Throughout the autopsy. His ARRB dep., pg. 129
**************
>For what it's worth, I'd like to add two "bonus" quotes below (just
>for the record):
>
>QUESTION -- "Do you recall whether Colonel Finck arrived before or
>after the brain was removed?"
>
>DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "Oh, before."
And here's a bonus quote from you, and it's not a 33 year old one either:
"The brain, the heart an the lungs had been removed before my arrival."
Fink--Blumberg Letter, Feb, 1965
*****
>Via Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History":
> "When I spoke to [autopsy photographer John] Stringer, he said
>there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the
>president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right
>ear." .... When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear
>of the president's head, he said "No. All there was was a small
>entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the
>autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."" --
>Page 410 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (c.2007) [Via
>Telephone interview of John Stringer by Bugliosi on September 21,
>2000.]
But he told the ARBB that the occipital was fractured and some of the bone
there was disrupted. I'm not saying ANY of the rear bone was
missing...just fragmented and a couple of pieces dislodged. In any case,
Here's an exchange between Lifton and Stringer that was videotaped:
Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away
was in the occipital?"
Stringer: "Yes, the back part."
It's hard enough to defend one's own lie, but it's all but impossible to
defend someone else's....and you'll look silly doing it.
John Canal
paul seaton
>
>>>> "How do you think they did it [removed JFK's brain at autopsy], David?
> And further WHY do you think they did it, David, given that they had a saw
> handy?" <<<
>
> President Kennedy's lead autopsy surgeon, Dr. James J. Humes, provides us
> with the answer, plain as day, in the transcript of his February 13, 1996,
> ARRB testimony/deposition:
>
> DR. HUMES -- "Sure, we had to make an incision to remove the
> brain." ....
>
> QUESTION -- "Where was the first incision made?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the
> skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to
> approach the removal of the brain."
>
> QUESTION -- "And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you
> need to cut--?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "No, we had to cut some bone as well."
Hi David,
First I should say that I am grateful you have turned to an examination of
the evidence, something which usually turns out to be educational for all
concerned - & I don't exclude myself.
Now, Humes' statement to the ARRB ( which you quote above) was made in
1996, 33 years after the event. Were it the only evidence on the matter, I
suppose it would have to stand as the best evidence , but fortunately it
isn't. Heading backwards in time, 4 years earlier he was giving this
graphic description to JAMA :
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image06.htm
" the head was so devastated by the exploding bullet .... ** that we did
not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap ...We peeled the scalp
back and the calvarium crumbled in my hands from the fracture lines which
went off in all directions ** "
( JAMA interview with Humes May 1992 )
Thus, the fact that he *didn't* have to use a saw seems pretty vivid in
his mind as of 4 years previously.
Then of course we have Finck's letter to Gen Blumberg, of 25th Jan ** 1965
** , post dating the autopsy by little more than ONE year, and in a letter
which could have no Public Relations aspect, as it was for internal
consumption only :
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/blumberg.htm
Finck states that " The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes
when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the
lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull
was necessary."
I find it very hard to fathom in what way Finck could have imagined he was
told this, if he actually wasn't. he told the arrb he had notes on the
autopsy. His letter was sent to Blumberg ( Brig. Gen.. J.M. Blumberg, MC,
USA Director Armed Forces Institute of Pathology ) in response to a
request from Blumberg for Finck's notes on the autopsy. One can only
imagine that the letter was constructed with the aid of those notes.
Now, you ask : "So, I guess it's a matter of: "Who should be believed,
Humes or Boswell?"
It now seems that it is more a case of who should be believed, Humes (1996
) OR { Boswell (1996) & Humes (1992) & Finck ( 1965) } .
From Humes' ARRB which you quoted, in which Humes claims he DID have to
cut skull , Gunn goes on to ask :
" Q Where did you cut the bone?
A I find that--it's hard to recall. Once we
got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could
just be removed, you know, by picking them up,
picking them up because they were just not held
together very well, other than by the dura, I
suppose. So other than that, we probably made it
like we normally do, in a circumferential fashion
from books, like right above the ear around. But
it was a real problem because it was all falling
apart, the skull. And I can't recall the details
of exactly how we managed to maneuver that, because
it was a problem."
Thus,in 96, though Humes claims he did saw the skull, he can't actually
recall doing so. ( 'We 'probably' made like we normally do...' ' I can't
recall the details ..' ) I would assert that the probability is that by
96 he had simply forgotten exactly what had happened. But note that he
DOES recall the details he recalled in 92 , namely the skull falling apart
in his hands .
In sum, so far we have 4 statements, one from each autopsist saying no
sawing. ( Finck, unequivocal, Humes unequivocal, Boswell unequivocal )
and one from Humes contradicting both himself 4 years earlier & each of
the others, which describes ( again) the collapsing skull, but which shows
no sign of any actual memory of doing any sawing. ( 'We 'probably' made
like we normally do...' ' I can't recall the details ..' )
Thus the weight of evidence - from the testimony - is heavily in favour of
'no sawing'.
But we don't have to limit ourselves to oral testimony.
We also have *photographic* evidence.
We have a photo ( or 2 .. or 3 ..) which no less a person than your friend
Michael Baden has vouched to be a view of the top of JFK's head, after
reflection of the scalp ( & obviously after brain removal) , looking from
the front towards the back, across the empty cavity. The photo is our old
friend F8.
I understand ( from reading a few of your posts here ) that you don't put
much weight on it, but you appear to put weight on Baden ( too much imho
:-) so I will assume you feel duty bound to agree with him on what that
photo represents.
Now, looking at the picture, we see the remains of the bone of the
forehead in the foreground, and in the depths of the picture a few jagged
peaks of broken bone at the rear of the skull.
One thing stands out loud & clear.
None of those bone edges are sawn.
Not one.
Another thing is clear.
The brain is out.
So, finally, we know - from the photos - that neither at the front nor at
the rear was any sawing neccessary to remove the brain. ( Or we would see
the straight sawn edges in F8).
In sum =>
Boswell 1996 : (which, in all fairness, you do quote, somewhat against
your own interest ) :
QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in order
to remove the brain?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the cranium?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
Humes 1992 :
HUMES : " we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap ...We
peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumbled in my hands from the
fracture lines which went off in all directions "
Finck 1965 :
FINCK : "Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the
scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."
The outlier is Humes in 1996. He contradicts both himself & the other 2
guys & the photos. I think we can take it that his memory had simply
faded over the years.
================================
So, after all that, where does that get us ?
Well, if they DIDN'T have to saw the skull ( as the meat & potatoes of the
ev. shows) then A LOT of skull must have 'crumbled' in Humes' hands.
Enough to leave him basically craniotomised, down to the 'equator' ( as
John F put it ).
If so, again, the Dox drawing is vastly misleading. It may indeed
represent what Baden took to be the skull bone *actually missing* 1 second
after the shot ( the Harper fragment was found in the Plaza & the 'large
late fragment' - it has no better name - was found in the limo) but it
does not ( as Marsh points out) represent in any real way the very large
amount of LOOSE / fragmented bone that basically fell out when they
reflected the scalp.
And even if they DID saw the skull ( though if they did, it's a real flaky
argument to make how come all 3 autopsists thought they didn't till at
least 1996..) ... well, there is still no bone behind the rear scalp in
the boh photos, because , as Finck says, HE ASSISTED with the photography
of the head wound . (Therefore the brain was out at the time the pictures
were taken ).
> > For what it's worth, I'd like to add two "bonus" quotes below (just
> for the record):
>
> QUESTION -- "Do you recall whether Colon
el Finck arrived before or
> after the brain was removed?"
>
> DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "Oh, before."
Finck clearly states otherwise. For eg, he tells the ARRB he NEVER SAW THE
BRAIN during the autopsy:
Q: Do you have any recollection in examining
[16] the brain at the time of the autopsy itself? Not
[17] the supplementary examination, but during the
[18] autopsy?
[19] A: It had been removed before my arrival. I
[20] don't remember seeing it at the time of the
[21] autopsy.
...
A: The brain, the heart and lungs had been
[17] removed before my arrival.
( Finck arrb)
The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when 1 arrived. Cdr
Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp
before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.
( Finck to Blumberg, Feb 1965 )
If Finck was there during the brain removal, why did he need Humes to tell
him that no sawing was neccessary ? ( Did he maybe stand in the corner
with his eyes shut and his fingers in his ears while it was done ? :-)
"I help the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital wound (
external and internal aspects ) as well as of the wound in the back. " (
Finck to Blumberg, Feb 1965 )
Thus Finck was present during all the 'BOH' photography. ( His own
statement to his C/O little more than a year after the events) Thus the
brain was out during all the BOH photography. ( Because the brain had
been removed before he got there . His own statement to his C/O little
more than a year after the events)
>
> ------------------
>
> Via Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History":
>
> "When I spoke to [autopsy photographer John] Stringer, he said there
> was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the
> president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear."
> .... When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the
> president's head, he said "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to
> the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed
> out this entrance wound to everyone."" -- Page 410 of Vincent Bugliosi's
> "Reclaiming History" (c.2007) [Via Telephone interview of John Stringer by
> Bugliosi on September 21, 2000.]
[4] LIFTON: Yeah. Okay. Well, when
[5] you...when you...when you lifted him out, was the
[6] main damage to the skull on the top, or in the
[7] back?
[8] STRINGER: In the back.
[9] LIFTON: In the back? In the back. High
[10] in the back, or lower in the back?
[11] STRINGER: Oh, the occipital part in the
[12) back there, (GARBLED) up above the neck.
[13] LIFTON: Yeah. In other words, the main
[14] part of his head that was blasted away was in the
[15] occipital part of the skull?
[16] STRINGER: Yes, the back part.
(interview 1972)
Shall we agree to say that Stringer's testimony is ambiguous enough that we
should for the moment at least ignore it ?
==============================
The upshot of all this is that
a) IF THERE THE SKULL NEEDED SAWING ( which looks extremely unlikely,
taking a reasonable view of the comments of HB &F over the years, and
looking at baden's own interpretation of F8 there can't have been much in
the area of interest ) then in any case THERE IS NO BONE ( OR VERY LITTLE
) BEHIND THE REAR SCALP IN THE BOH PICTURES because the brain had been
removed by that time ( see Finck's letter ) and the rear skull must
neccessarily have been removed/sawn down to about the eop level to remove
it.
b) IF THE SKULL DID NOT NEED SAWING, (which looks close enough to
certainty) then ditto on the skull in the photos, but also ( and this
seems much more probable) the rear skull was a mass of loose bone
fragments down to about the eop. This area of skull essentially fell apart
when they reflected the skull.
Can we agree on that ?
Paul S
David Von Pein
>>> "If there was even any insignificant cutting, it was done AFTER that
X-ray!!!!!!!!!!!! Was that a typo...or are you that confused about the
medical evidence?" <<<
Yes, that was an error on my part. I deleted my first post (at least from
Google anyway).
BTW, I changed that "BEFORE" remark to "AFTER" before I ever saw your post
here, John. (Just "for the record".)
David Von Pein
The testimonial record of virtually everyone concerning the autopsy and
the exact condition of President Kennedy's head wounds is, without doubt,
a convoluted and (many times) totally-contradictory record of official
testimony (as well as private statements, like those given by John
Stringer to official sources vs. Stringer's completely- contradictory
remarks that he made to Vincent Bugliosi in September 2000).
It's very difficult to know WHO'S GOT THINGS PRECISELY ACCURATE. Each
person in question probably has some stuff right, but also has some things
wrong too.
Human nature and 33-years' worth of elapsed time since the event took
place would tend to support the logical view that virtually everyone will
make some errors when talking about something that occurred that long ago
(even a President's autopsy, which one would think would have been seared
into each man's memory forever--even 33 years later--every last detail).
But apparently that's not the case....not by a longshot.
But, as quoted previously, I did find a reference to some "bone" (i.e.,
skull) of JFK's head having been "cut" (per Dr. Humes in 1996) prior to
the removal of the President's brain. And that was the "meat and potatoes"
of this question asked of me by Mr. Paul Seaton on May 11th:
"How do you think they did it [removed JFK's brain at autopsy],
David? And further WHY do you think they did it, David, given that they
had a saw handy?" -- Paul Seaton; 05/11/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/875e8ac2365565f7
Here's the "Humes Instant Replay", which, whether anyone likes it or not
(and whether anyone chooses to believe it or not), IS a part of the
official deposition given by Dr. James J. Humes to the Assassination
Records Review Board in February of 1996:
"WE HAD TO CUT SOME BONE AS WELL." -- JAMES HUMES; 2/13/96
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein
David Von Pein
For any "lurkers" out there who might be following these "Head Wound"
threads (as they probably say to themselves: "Gimini Christmas, don't
these people ever SHUT UP?!" ~grin~), I want to add the following addendum
to my last post above (I'm constantly having to do this "addendum" thing,
because I always want to either add something else or, most likely,
correct a typo, after I've already submitted a post to the aaj moderated
forum....it's an unavoidable way of "addendum" life it seems; ~sigh~):
With respect to the main and (by far) most important conclusions reached
by the three autopsy doctors concerning President John F. Kennedy's
autopsy, the following conclusions are things that all three of those
doctors have always agreed on (from Day 1 in 1963), and those conclusions
are these:
"It is our opinion that the deceased [John Fitzgerald Kennedy] died
as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity
projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were
fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."
-- Via JFK's Official 1963 Autopsy Report, Signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell,
and Finck
Regards,
David Von Pein
P.S. -- Here's yet another (fuller) "acj" version of my previous post (the
one above this one). It's not contradicting my aaj message in any way, it
just expands upon it slightly; and (as usual) I had to correct a couple of
small grammatic errors:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bde9244a25dd723d
Anthony Marsh
Well, since you think it is fun to cite Humes statements as if they are
absolute proof of something, let me borrow one of his phrases to prove
my theory.
>
> " the head was so devastated by the exploding bullet .... ** that we did
Humes just said, "exploding bullet."
This proves that it was an exploding bullet as I have said, not an
ordinary FMJ bullet.
See, that was fun, wasn't it?
paul seaton
Anything as long as you're enjoying yourself, Tony.
paul s
David Von Pein
To Paul Seaton,
I want to say that you've done a nice job presenting your arguments in
favor of your stated position regarding President Kennedy's head
wounds. Thank you.
But I'd like to add the following comments and observations......
The fractured and fragmented skull of the late President John F.
Kennedy was certainly "falling to pieces" into the hands of the
autopsy doctors at Bethesda, Maryland, on the night of November 22,
1963. From the testimonial record of the autopsy physicians, I think
that point has been made abundantly clear.
But, in my opinion, there is still a question as to exactly what
specific sections of the President's head were severely fragmented
(i.e., "falling to pieces").
Upon looking at my favorite lateral X-ray once again (even though it
isn't an "orginal" X-ray), I think that that question can be answered
(for the most part anyway):
We can see from the X-ray linked above that there are some fracture
LINES that extend into the rear portions of JFK's head (even one clear
fracture line that extends into the right-rear, i.e., into the
occipital area of the head).
But these "rear" fracture lines do not seem to MEET UP with any other
fracture lines. Hence, it's my opinion that these fractures did not
result in any FRAGMENTATION ("falling to pieces") in the rear portions
of President Kennedy's head.
But when we look at the VERY TOP of the head in that X-ray, we can see
extensive and multiple fractures and, indeed, FRAGMENTATION of the top
of the skull. This is quite obvious, with some of the fractured/
fragmented skull bone even overlapping other parts of JFK's skull at
the VERY TOP of his head.
This area, the VERY TOP of the head, where severe fractures and
fragmentation are clearly visible in the lateral X-ray, is where I
believe the bulk of the "pieces" of JFK's head came from when Dr.
Humes (et al) descibed the head as literally "falling to pieces" after
the scalp was reflected in order to remove the President's brain.
Now, yes, I suppose that a small amount of skull in the "back" part of
the head could have come loose too...but I still maintain that no part
of the OCCIPITAL region of the head/skull was fragmented or was
"falling to pieces". The X-ray just does not show the kind of severe
fragmentation that is needed for the occipital area of JFK's head to
have been part of Humes' (et al) testimony with respect to "falling to
pieces" observations of the autopsy doctors.
I still think it's quite likely that Dr. Humes did have to "cut" (or
"saw") some of the bone at the top portions of JFK's head in order to
remove the brain (and, as mentioned, Humes is on record in 1996 [in
front of the ARRB] as saying: "We had to cut some bone" [J.J. Humes;
02/13/96] in order to get the brain out of the President's cranium).
I think it makes a lot of sense (especially when we take another look
at the severely-fragmented condition of the VERY TOP of JFK's head) to
believe that the parts of the President's head that were "falling to
pieces" after the scalp was pulled back were mainly portions of the
VERY TOP of the head, rather than the back parts of the head.
And it makes sense from another standpoint too....a standpoint that
can be prefaced with this question:
What part of a deceased person's head is required to be removed in
order to extract the brain from that person's head?
And the answer is, of course, THE VERY TOP OF THE HEAD.
Yes, I suppose a portion of the "back" of the head would be included
when an autopsist does his usual cutting/sawing to remove a
brain....but the "back/rear" portions of the head in such a case would
certainly NOT include the "occipital" area of the skull. It would only
need to include the TOP portion of the very BACK of the head in order
to extract a brain.
Therefore, if a large portion of the very top of JFK's head was
severely fragmented at the time his scalp was peeled back (and the X-
ray certainly proves that it was), in conjunction with the large
amount of skull that was missing at the RIGHT-FRONT area of the head
(i.e., the actual exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet), then it
seems reasonable that this combination of things that affected the TOP
and RIGHT side of JFK's head could have resulted in a situation where
the autopsy doctors had to perform very little cutting (or sawing) of
the head in order to remove the President's brain.
But I just cannot place any faith at all in the specific head-wound
theories that have been placed on the table by Mr. John A. Canal in
recent years. (And I can only assume, based on Paul's recent posts
here at the aaj forum, that Paul Seaton does not agree with the bulk
of Mr. Canal's hypothesis concerning the "BOH" wounds and the "scalp-
stretching" and the "lacerated scalp" of JFK, etc.; is that correct,
Paul? If I don't have your position precisely correct, I apologize.)
Anyway, John Canal's theory has the autopsy doctors engaging in a
mini-"cover up" (at least to a certain extent, since John believes
that those doctors were not as forthcoming about certain back-of-the-
head injuries as they could have been). And that's just something that
I bluntly have called "idiotic" in previous Internet posts (and I
still think it is).
And John C. really requires a good-sized chunk of JFK's right-rear
SCALP to be damaged too, in order for the Parkland Hospital witnesses
to be correct (and John C. has stated that he does think the Parkland
witnesses DID see a large-ish wound in the occipital area of JFK's
head on 11/22/63; but I just cannot agree with John on this point at
all).
And to emphasize my own "BOH" position yet again, I'll once more re-
post the following quote from Dr. Michael Baden, the chief pathologist
on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel:
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." --
Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408
of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]
Also:
For the benefit of any "lurkers" who might be viewing these endless
"BOH" threads here at alt.assassination.jfk, I want to add the
following important comment:
Even though there is a considerable amount of disagreement among John
Canal, Paul Seaton, and myself regarding these head-wound issues (but
I think my own disagreement with Mr. Seaton is to a much lesser
extent), these disagreements do not in any way undermine or negate the
BOTTOM-LINE conclusion that all three of us believe -- with that
bottom-line conclusion being: Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only
gunman who struck any victims in Dealey Plaza with rifle bullets on
November 22, 1963.
So, in the final analysis, if I were being forced to summarize all of
this "BOH" talk in just a few words (as impossible as that might be to
believe coming from a windbag named Von Pein ~grin~), I'd sum things
up this way (and I'm guessing that "Reclaiming History" author Vincent
Bugliosi would agree with me here, too):
When it comes to JUST the specific issue of President Kennedy's skull
"falling to pieces" AFTER his scalp was reflected (and after the
President was shot in the head by just ONE bullet fired from the Texas
School Book Depository, with that one bullet undeniably coming out of
the gun owned by Lee Harvey Oswald), I'd sum things up with these
words:
SO WHAT?
But when it comes to the specific "Back-Of-The-Head Wound" and "Scalp-
Stretching" theories that have been espoused by John A. Canal for the
last several years, I'd sum things up with these two words:
NO WAY.
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
============================================
RELATED ARTICLES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bde9244a25dd723d
============================================
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>To Paul Seaton,
I feel badly aboutb butting in here, but you mentioned my name so many times, I
thought I ought to.
>I want to say that you've done a nice job presenting your arguments in
>favor of your stated position regarding President Kennedy's head
>wounds. Thank you.
>
>But I'd like to add the following comments and observations......
>
>The fractured and fragmented skull of the late President John F.
>Kennedy was certainly "falling to pieces" into the hands of the
>autopsy doctors at Bethesda, Maryland, on the night of November 22,
>1963. From the testimonial record of the autopsy physicians, I think
>that point has been made abundantly clear.
You've said my theories are idiotic but when you say that the autopsy report is
flat out wrong with respect to the nature of the head wounds, if wonder whose
beliefs are truly idiotic.
The report clearly says that multiple fragments resulted from the fractures
extending from the wound in the occiput. Denying that they were mistaken about
or didn't mean to say the occipital was fragmented is worse than silly. Boswell
even drew on his face sheet a piece of bone that fit onto the intact skull with
the bottom portion of the entry. He also drew three triangular pieces that also
exend into the occipital. Do you think he was doodling or something. Good grief
man...an you call my theories idiotic. Can't you see Baden et. al. were wrong
and VB assumed, with all their credentials they couldn't be wrong?
Chad Zimmerman, who reads x-rays daily, and who you have automatically (because
he agrees with me on most of my theories) cast into the "they were wrong, Baden
was right club", clearly stated in writing, after closely examining the original
x-rays, that some of those rear fragments could have ome unlatched.
Do you ever get tired of calling so many individuals mistaken (other than Baden
et. al.)? Your list is long, very long, you know.
As far as that oes, remember this: those dozens of witnesses who you say are
wrong had no reason whatsoever to distort the truth--but Baden did....he didn't
want to disagree with Dr. Fisher or refute what one government inquiry (Clark
Panel) reported that had already refuted what an earlier government
investigation reported (Warren Commission), regarding the nature of the head
wounds.
>I still think it's quite likely that Dr. Humes did have to "cut" (or
>"saw") some of the bone at the top portions of JFK's head in order to
>remove the brain (and, as mentioned, Humes is on record in 1996 [in
>front of the ARRB] as saying: "We had to cut some bone" [J.J. Humes;
>02/13/96] in order to get the brain out of the President's cranium).
Even if he did cut a little, the rear skull was still fragmented. Cripes, look
at the autopsy descriptive sheet.
[...]
>But I just cannot place any faith at all in the specific head-wound
>theories that have been placed on the table by Mr. John A. Canal in
>recent years. (And I can only assume, based on Paul's recent posts
>here at the aaj forum, that Paul Seaton does not agree with the bulk
>of Mr. Canal's hypothesis concerning the "BOH" wounds and the "scalp-
>stretching"
IMO, the scalp stretching theory is one that, as far-fetched as it sounds, must
be accepted by anyone who believes the bullet entered where Humes said it did.
If the bullet entered near the EOP at frame Z-312, then it penetrated his scalp
no more than 3-4" above his hairline.....but the photois showing the entry in
the scalp show it to be very roughly seven inches above his hairline. Therefore,
unless the other near-EOP entry believers can come up with an explanation of how
the entry, as seen in the photos, migrated up 3" from the instant it was
created, they are stuck with that silly sounding scalp stretching theory.
As a matter of fact, more than once, I've asked anyone here who belives that
Humes was correct about the entry to explain that afroementioned conflict, and
none, including Dr. Rahn, Dr. Zimmerman, Barb, or Whiskey Joe, have come
forward.
Even Larry Sturdivan, not to metion the autopsists, rather than to agree with my
scalp-stretching theory, evidently deny the red splotch in the BOH photos is the
entry. IOW, they, like D. Horne and Henry Lee, think the entry is lower (as seen
in the photos), but hidden by his hair. Ok, so what is that red splotch...a
deformity?
Of course, I didn't pull that theory, as strange as it sounds, out of thin air.
In the voluminous record of evidence on this case, I'd venture to say that the
word, "undermined" appears only ONCE. Humes slipped that in during his ARRB
dep.--it identifies a special process to maximize the stretchability of the
scalp. I also pestered the local moricians and no less tha five have gone on
record as saying the scalp from the EOP to his hairline could possibly have been
stretched 3". One more thing: if you'll look closley at the hair in he photos
from the EOP area to his hairline, you'll see that the texture is markedly
different there from that above the EOP. Because the scalp in that area was
stretched?
Talk about crazy sounding theories that must be correct, how about the
SBT...that scenario sounds off-the-charts nuts, but it's true...isn't it?
>and the "lacerated scalp" of JFK, etc.; is that correct,
>Paul? If I don't have your position precisely correct, I apologize.)
If Paul believes there was a BOH wound, and I believe he does, wouldn't he have
to believe the scalp was lacerated there...unless the entire rear scalp hung
down. I don't want to speak for Paul, but, if the entire rear scalp was hanging
doewn at some point, I would ask anyone who believed that how no loose rear
fragments fell out before the scalp was reflected at Bethesda? Also, the
autopsists said they did cut the scalp free from the skull when they reflected
it.
>Anyway, John Canal's theory has the autopsy doctors engaging in a
>mini-"cover up" (at least to a certain extent, since John believes
>that those doctors were not as forthcoming about certain back-of-the-
>head injuries as they could have been).
If the BOH wound extended far enough down to enable 11 witnesses to say they saw
cerebellum, then the word, "somewhat" is an understatement, IMO, as inluded in
the autopsy report phrase, "somewhat into the occipital" that described the
posterior extent of the large wound.
Also, the fact that there were no pictures taken from the rear of the BOH when
the body was first received was not likely to have been coincidental, IMO.
Also, Humes failed to say in his report that he saw cerebellum, but waited about
4 months to innocuously say he saw the flocculus severely lacerated. So why wait
the 4 months and why not come right out and say that he saw part of the
cerebellum lacerated...instead of flocculus? BTW, that was so innocuous that I
believe him slipping that in 4 months later wasn't noticed for decades by any
researcher or JFK author until recently.
IMO, Burkley was the one who wanted the fact there was a BOH wound understated,
not HB or F.
Again, my running on like that was intended for the benefit of lurkers, not
you...because, unless VB publicly says what he has acknowledged to me privately
(that these issues deserve re-investigation), your positon is stuck...with Baden
et. al. and they are weak reeds to lean on, IMO.
John Canal
[cutting out the usual rhetoric...]
Anthony Marsh
You can see pieces of skull jutting out in the back of the head. These
are the ones which fell out. Below that is extensive fracturing. That
did not fall out, but it was lower than the equator needed to remove the
brain.
> But when we look at the VERY TOP of the head in that X-ray, we can see
> extensive and multiple fractures and, indeed, FRAGMENTATION of the top
> of the skull. This is quite obvious, with some of the fractured/
> fragmented skull bone even overlapping other parts of JFK's skull at
> the VERY TOP of his head.
>
> This area, the VERY TOP of the head, where severe fractures and
> fragmentation are clearly visible in the lateral X-ray, is where I
> believe the bulk of the "pieces" of JFK's head came from when Dr.
> Humes (et al) descibed the head as literally "falling to pieces" after
> the scalp was reflected in order to remove the President's brain.
>
> Now, yes, I suppose that a small amount of skull in the "back" part of
> the head could have come loose too...but I still maintain that no part
> of the OCCIPITAL region of the head/skull was fragmented or was
> "falling to pieces". The X-ray just does not show the kind of severe
> fragmentation that is needed for the occipital area of JFK's head to
> have been part of Humes' (et al) testimony with respect to "falling to
> pieces" observations of the autopsy doctors.
>
See the drawings of Wecht/Smith and Lattimer to see the fracture lines
in the occipital bone. Those did not fall out, but they indicate
fragmentation from the rest of the skull.
> I still think it's quite likely that Dr. Humes did have to "cut" (or
> "saw") some of the bone at the top portions of JFK's head in order to
> remove the brain (and, as mentioned, Humes is on record in 1996 [in
> front of the ARRB] as saying: "We had to cut some bone" [J.J. Humes;
> 02/13/96] in order to get the brain out of the President's cranium).
>
Not much. And look at the entrance wound in the frontal bone. It defines
the margin of the skull blown out above it.
> I think it makes a lot of sense (especially when we take another look
> at the severely-fragmented condition of the VERY TOP of JFK's head) to
> believe that the parts of the President's head that were "falling to
> pieces" after the scalp was pulled back were mainly portions of the
> VERY TOP of the head, rather than the back parts of the head.
>
The very top of the head extended into the back parts of the head.
> And it makes sense from another standpoint too....a standpoint that
> can be prefaced with this question:
>
> What part of a deceased person's head is required to be removed in
> order to extract the brain from that person's head?
>
The top half of the head.
Take a look at some real life craniotomies.
> And the answer is, of course, THE VERY TOP OF THE HEAD.
>
> Yes, I suppose a portion of the "back" of the head would be included
> when an autopsist does his usual cutting/sawing to remove a
> brain....but the "back/rear" portions of the head in such a case would
> certainly NOT include the "occipital" area of the skull. It would only
> need to include the TOP portion of the very BACK of the head in order
> to extract a brain.
>
The occipital area is a vague reference to the entire back of the head.
Not strictly the occipital bone only. And the occipital bone goes higher
on the back of the head than you realize.
> Therefore, if a large portion of the very top of JFK's head was
> severely fragmented at the time his scalp was peeled back (and the X-
> ray certainly proves that it was), in conjunction with the large
> amount of skull that was missing at the RIGHT-FRONT area of the head
> (i.e., the actual exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet), then it
> seems reasonable that this combination of things that affected the TOP
> and RIGHT side of JFK's head could have resulted in a situation where
> the autopsy doctors had to perform very little cutting (or sawing) of
> the head in order to remove the President's brain.
>
> But I just cannot place any faith at all in the specific head-wound
> theories that have been placed on the table by Mr. John A. Canal in
> recent years. (And I can only assume, based on Paul's recent posts
> here at the aaj forum, that Paul Seaton does not agree with the bulk
> of Mr. Canal's hypothesis concerning the "BOH" wounds and the "scalp-
> stretching" and the "lacerated scalp" of JFK, etc.; is that correct,
> Paul? If I don't have your position precisely correct, I apologize.)
>
> Anyway, John Canal's theory has the autopsy doctors engaging in a
> mini-"cover up" (at least to a certain extent, since John believes
> that those doctors were not as forthcoming about certain back-of-the-
> head injuries as they could have been). And that's just something that
> I bluntly have called "idiotic" in previous Internet posts (and I
> still think it is).
>
Cover-up you say? And yet he pretends to be a WC defender and defends
the autopsy doctors? Therefore Canal must be defending the cover-up.
David Von Pein
>>> "The scalp stretching theory is one that, as far-fetched as it sounds,
must be accepted by anyone who believes the bullet entered where Humes
said it did." <<<
There's the rub -- the entry wound wasn't near the EOP. It was near the
cowlick ("100 millimeters [10 cm.] above the EOP", per the Clark Panel).
All researchers who possess at least one functioning eyeball can come to
only reasonable and logical conclusion about the entry-wound location --
it was high on JFK's head, near the cowlick.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "The scalp stretching theory is one that, as far-fetched as it sounds,
>must be accepted by anyone who believes the bullet entered where Humes
>said it did." <<<
>There's the rub -- the entry wound wasn't near the EOP.
No, here's the "rub": I wasn't arguing with you about where the entry
wound was, I was simply stating that, IMO, those of us who believe the
entry was near the EOP "must" believe the scalp was stretched. Even you
can't argue with that. You know you ought to read more carefully.
>It was near the
>cowlick ("100 millimeters [10 cm.] above the EOP", per the Clark Panel).
>
>All researchers who possess at least one functioning eyeball can come to
>only reasonable and logical conclusion about the entry-wound location --
>it was high on JFK's head, near the cowlick.
No again--the fact is that all researchers who can figure out a simple
photo [F8] know the entry was near the EOP....unfortunately, you're left
out of that group.
Indeed, DVP would prefers to determine the location of the enrty in the
skull by examining a photo of the enrty in the scalp [F3], as opposed to
examining a photo of the entry in the skull [F8]. And I added A. Marsh to
my killfile instead of him [DVP]. As Barb says, "sigh".
Now, here's a pop quiz for DVP...any lurkers out there should get ready
for DVP's Fred Astaire impersonation:
Out of all the witnesses who said they saw where the entry was on the
body, how many said it was in the cowlick and how many said it was near
the EOP?
Lurkers, want to see some more dancing by DVP as opposed to his rhetoric?
Ok, I'll ask him to explain "why", "if" the Clark panel reported that the
skull was severely fragmented posteriorly to the Lamboid suture and that
the entry was several cm anterior to the Lamboid suture, can part of the
entry be seen in F8 along the edge of the "INTACT" rear skull? IOW, if it
was in the part of the skull that was fragmented, then why did even the
HSCA report that part of the entry was in the INTACT bone?
DVP will ignore that because he has no clue what I'm talking about...which
is due to his lack of understanding of the medical evidence....which
doesn't prevent him or even slow him down from arguing with those who do
have such an understanding. See if I'm right.
If VB would only read these exchanges, well...IMO, he'd be embarrassed for
you.
I'm looking forward to reading your scholarly answers/explanations.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
Then how do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually
examining the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the
obvious wound and think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance
wound?
This should be fun. Go ahead.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c7d5183b6974117
>>> "How do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually
examining the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the
obvious wound and think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance
wound?" <<<
The autopsy surgeons didn't "miss" the wound, Tony. On November 22nd,
those doctors obviously saw the entry wound just EXACTLY where we know it
was located (via the photographs AND X-rays) -- high on the head near the
cowlick, 10 centimeters above the EOP.
But, for some silly reason, Humes (et al) decided to NOT measure the
cowlick entry wound from any body landmark. Instead, Humes writes
"slightly above the EOP" in the autopsy report. That was mistake #1.
Also -- "Slightly above the EOP" obviously means that all three autopsists
were crocked when they all later claimed that the piece of dried brain
tissue near the hairline was the location of the bullet's entry hole. That
was mistake #2.
Based on such obvious silliness (regarding the location of the head entry
wound) on the part of Humes, Finck, and Boswell when they testified in
front of the various Governmental organizations in the years that followed
the assassination, I'm of the opinion that the answer to this "4-inch
discrepancy" regarding the exact location of the entry wound in President
Kennedy's head is a fairly simple one:
The autopsy doctors just didn't want to admit that they had made a mistake
about the location of the entry wound. That was mistake #3.
And the photos and X-rays (in tandem!) provide ample proof that the
autopsy doctors definitely DID make a mistake.
Plus, it's possible that Dr. Humes was also embarrassed (as he should have
been) about not measuring the head entry wound from a fixed landmark on
JFK's body. Instead, we're left with the very meager description of
"slightly above the EOP". That's ridiculous.
However, I will add the fact that Dr. Humes actually did come to his
senses for a brief period of time in 1978 when he changed his mind in
front of the HSCA, with Humes saying that the cowlick "red spot" was,
indeed, the entrance perforation.
So, in the final analysis, the three autopsy doctors (quite obviously) saw
the one and only bullet entry hole in JFK's head on 11/22/63 (which was
positively located in the cowlick region of the head), but for one reason
or another those three physicians were compelled to give an incorrect
location for that head entry wound whenever they spoke about President
Kennedy's autopsy "on the record" (except for Humes' reversal in 1978, as
I mentioned).
A picture speaks a thousand words (and debunks three autopsy surgeons, to
boot):
John Canal
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c7d5183b6974117
>
>>>>"How do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually examining
>>>>the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the obvious wound and
>>>>think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance wound?" <<<
>The autopsy surgeons didn't "miss" the wound, Tony. On November 22nd,
>those doctors obviously saw the entry wound just EXACTLY where we know
>it was located (via the photographs AND X-rays) -- high on the head
>near the cowlick, 10 centimeters above the EOP.
>But, for some silly reason, Humes (et al) decided to NOT measure the
>cowlick entry wound from any body landmark. Instead, Humes writes
>"slightly above the EOP" in the autopsy report. That was mistake >#1.
You are a piece of work, DVP. Firstly, when the wound was one inch right of
midline they measured it to be 2.5 cm...so, you think they' say, "slightly
above" to mean four inches above? Good grief--somebody throw this man a reality
rope.
Now you can cut the following but lurkers will see that you do because you have
no real explanations for:
1. The trail of opacities that Dr. Joe Davis told Baden, on the record, was
evidence of a low hit.
2. The lack of any such trail (which represents the pieces of bone that were
beveled out from the inner skull table around the entry) at the proposed high
sight.
3. The fact that D. Myers' computer analysis revealed the cowlick entry
trajectory pointed back 124' above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building.
4. The fact that a channel-like laceration began at the the tip of the occipital
lobe far from the parietal lobe where a bullet entering in the cowlick would
have been.
5. The fact that a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting at the official
exit site cannot be reconciled with the windshield damage.
6. The fact that F8, the Clark Panel's report, F8, the autopsy report, and the
autopsy descriptive sheet all prove that the area of skull where the high entry
was supposed to be was fragmented....while the HSCA claimed part of the entry
was in intact bone.
7. The fact that one of the HSCA's own radiologists reported that evidence for a
high entry on the x-rays was inconclusive.
8. The fact that another one of the HSCA's own radiologists stated that the
entry was in the right occipital bone.
9. The fact that the HSCA's own witness, NASA's Dr. Thomas Canning, had to fudge
JFK's forward lean by more than half, just to get the cowlick entry trajectory
pointed back even close to the SN.
10. The fact that four researchers and/or JFK authors have independently
replicated the photo of the wound in the SKULL and have all concluded,
scientifically, that Humes' entry was near the EOP.
So other than not explaining these few facts that make it obvious to
third-graders and above that the entry was not in the cowlick, you've done a
yeoman's job at making your case....not! And DVP alls the CTs and me nuts.
Yikes!
>Also -- "Slightly above the EOP" obviously means that all three
>autopsists were crocked when they all later claimed that the piece of
>dried brain tissue near the hairline was the location of the bullet's
>entry hole. That was mistake #2.
How about digging out the citations for me where Boswell and Finck said that
tissue was the entry...considerng that I'm new at this medical evidence stuff
and that you've studied it so thoroughly. Thanks.
>Based on such obvious silliness (regarding the location of the head
>entry wound)...[....]
Yup, sillyness is what I deleted.
Thanks for your explanations and those citations...I'm sure they're forthcoming.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c7d5183b6974117
>>
>>>>> "How do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually examining
>>>>> the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the obvious wound and
>>>>> think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance wound?"<<<
>
>> The autopsy surgeons didn't "miss" the wound, Tony. On November 22nd,
>> those doctors obviously saw the entry wound just EXACTLY where we know
>> it was located (via the photographs AND X-rays) -- high on the head
>> near the cowlick, 10 centimeters above the EOP.
>> But, for some silly reason, Humes (et al) decided to NOT measure the
>> cowlick entry wound from any body landmark. Instead, Humes writes
>> "slightly above the EOP" in the autopsy report. That was mistake>#1.
>
> You are a piece of work, DVP. Firstly, when the wound was one inch right of
> midline they measured it to be 2.5 cm...so, you think they' say, "slightly
> above" to mean four inches above? Good grief--somebody throw this man a reality
> rope.
>
> Now you can cut the following but lurkers will see that you do because you have
> no real explanations for:
>
> 1. The trail of opacities that Dr. Joe Davis told Baden, on the record, was
> evidence of a low hit.
>
No, and you have yet to prove this trail of opacities.
> 2. The lack of any such trail (which represents the pieces of bone that were
> beveled out from the inner skull table around the entry) at the proposed high
> sight.
>
And yet you ignore the very high trail of lead fragments in the top of
the head. Try explaining that.
> 3. The fact that D. Myers' computer analysis revealed the cowlick entry
> trajectory pointed back 124' above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building.
>
Given the incorrect assumptions about the HSCA exit wound and falsely
assuming a perfectly straight line path of an intact bullet. Any chance
you will ever answer a direct question? Do you believe that bullet broke
up while inside the head or not?
> 4. The fact that a channel-like laceration began at the the tip of the occipital
> lobe far from the parietal lobe where a bullet entering in the cowlick would
> have been.
>
> 5. The fact that a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting at the official
> exit site cannot be reconciled with the windshield damage.
>
First you only assume that the windshield damage was caused by your shot
through the head. But you don't realize that the windshield damage can
only come from a bullet which had already broken up into several smaller
pieces.
> 6. The fact that F8, the Clark Panel's report, F8, the autopsy report, and the
> autopsy descriptive sheet all prove that the area of skull where the high entry
> was supposed to be was fragmented....while the HSCA claimed part of the entry
> was in intact bone.
>
> 7. The fact that one of the HSCA's own radiologists reported that evidence for a
> high entry on the x-rays was inconclusive.
>
> 8. The fact that another one of the HSCA's own radiologists stated that the
> entry was in the right occipital bone.
>
But he didn't say near the EOP.
> 9. The fact that the HSCA's own witness, NASA's Dr. Thomas Canning, had to fudge
> JFK's forward lean by more than half, just to get the cowlick entry trajectory
> pointed back even close to the SN.
Given the false assumptions of an intact bullet and the wrong exit wound.
>
> 10. The fact that four researchers and/or JFK authors have independently
> replicated the photo of the wound in the SKULL and have all concluded,
> scientifically, that Humes' entry was near the EOP.
>
No, they haven't.
> So other than not explaining these few facts that make it obvious to
> third-graders and above that the entry was not in the cowlick, you've done a
> yeoman's job at making your case....not! And DVP alls the CTs and me nuts.
> Yikes!
>
>> Also -- "Slightly above the EOP" obviously means that all three
>> autopsists were crocked when they all later claimed that the piece of
>> dried brain tissue near the hairline was the location of the bullet's
>> entry hole. That was mistake #2.
>
> How about digging out the citations for me where Boswell and Finck said that
> tissue was the entry...considerng that I'm new at this medical evidence stuff
> and that you've studied it so thoroughly. Thanks.
>
No one said that they admitted that was their mistake.
It's obvious to Baden and others that it was their mistake.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6c7d5183b6974117
>
>
>>>> "How do you explain how all three autopsy doctors who were actually
> examining the body real time and not just in photographs could miss the
> obvious wound and think a dab of tissue near the hairline was an entrance
> wound?"<<<
>
>
> The autopsy surgeons didn't "miss" the wound, Tony. On November 22nd,
> those doctors obviously saw the entry wound just EXACTLY where we know it
> was located (via the photographs AND X-rays) -- high on the head near the
> cowlick, 10 centimeters above the EOP.
>
No, they didn't. They did not write down or mark that was where a bullet
wound was.
> But, for some silly reason, Humes (et al) decided to NOT measure the
> cowlick entry wound from any body landmark. Instead, Humes writes
> "slightly above the EOP" in the autopsy report. That was mistake #1.
>
Slightly above is not 4 inches.
> Also -- "Slightly above the EOP" obviously means that all three autopsists
> were crocked when they all later claimed that the piece of dried brain
> tissue near the hairline was the location of the bullet's entry hole. That
> was mistake #2.
>
They did not claim that. We think that is the mistake they made.
And we don't know it was brain tissue. Others think it was fat.
> Based on such obvious silliness (regarding the location of the head entry
> wound) on the part of Humes, Finck, and Boswell when they testified in
> front of the various Governmental organizations in the years that followed
> the assassination, I'm of the opinion that the answer to this "4-inch
> discrepancy" regarding the exact location of the entry wound in President
> Kennedy's head is a fairly simple one:
>
> The autopsy doctors just didn't want to admit that they had made a mistake
> about the location of the entry wound. That was mistake #3.
>
> And the photos and X-rays (in tandem!) provide ample proof that the
> autopsy doctors definitely DID make a mistake.
>
> Plus, it's possible that Dr. Humes was also embarrassed (as he should have
> been) about not measuring the head entry wound from a fixed landmark on
> JFK's body. Instead, we're left with the very meager description of
> "slightly above the EOP". That's ridiculous.
>
How about shaving the hair and photographing the wound?
> However, I will add the fact that Dr. Humes actually did come to his
> senses for a brief period of time in 1978 when he changed his mind in
> front of the HSCA, with Humes saying that the cowlick "red spot" was,
> indeed, the entrance perforation.
>
Under intense badgering and then he quickly recanted it.
> So, in the final analysis, the three autopsy doctors (quite obviously) saw
> the one and only bullet entry hole in JFK's head on 11/22/63 (which was
> positively located in the cowlick region of the head), but for one reason
> or another those three physicians were compelled to give an incorrect
> location for that head entry wound whenever they spoke about President
> Kennedy's autopsy "on the record" (except for Humes' reversal in 1978, as
> I mentioned).
>
One reason or another? How about because they were simply incompetent?
None of them noticed the throat wound or the semi-circular defect in the
frontal bone.
>
> A picture speaks a thousand words (and debunks three autopsy surgeons, to
> boot):
>
No, it doesn't. I show the autopsy photo showing the semi-circular
defect in the frontal bone and the WC defenders either deny it is there
or claim that JFK was born that way.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a639a602d7146d40
>>> "The fact is that all researchers who can figure out a simple photo
[F8] know the entry was near the EOP....unfortunately, you're left out of
that group." <<<
LOL time.
John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why Dr. Baden
testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh?
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/f8.jpg
For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major disagreements
concerning F8 over the years among the people who post on just the
alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very smart people
posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one thing, while a
different batch of people say that F8 is depicting something else
entirely.
A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and useless
mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph, more power
to ya (I guess).
>>> "Out of all the witnesses who said they saw where the [head] entry was
on the body [of JFK], how many said it was in the cowlick and how many
said it was near the EOP?" <<<
"Slightly above the EOP" -- 3 (Humes, Finck, Boswell).
All other specific locations on JFK's head (including the "cowlick")
-- 0. (AFAIK.)
But when we get to 1968 and 1975 and 1978, we have these stats:
Approximately "10 centimeters above the EOP" -- Every pathologist who
examined the autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel (in 1968), the
Rockefeller Commission (in 1975), and the HSCA (in 1978).
DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "This is a drawing [JFK Exhibit F-48] made from
photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the
President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of discoloration
in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the scalp, which the panel
determined was an entrance perforation, an entrance bullet perforation."
....
MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately represent
the location of the wound in the back of the President's head?"
DR. BADEN -- "Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the panel
members."
EXHIBIT F-48:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0119b.htm
>>> "I'll ask him [DVP] to explain "why", "if" the Clark panel reported that the skull was severely fragmented posteriorly to the Lamboid suture and that the entry was several cm anterior to the Lamboid suture, can part of the entry be seen in F8 along the edge of the "INTACT" rear skull? IOW, if it was in the part of the skull that was fragmented, then why did even the HSCA report that part of the entry was in the INTACT bone? DVP will ignore that because he has no clue what I'm talking about...which is due to his lack of understanding of the medical evidence....which doesn't prevent him or even slow him down from arguing with those who do have such an understanding. See if I'm right." <<<
Well, since you're talking about a photograph of the inside of
President Kennedy's head (F8) that I think is completely useless, I'll
have to pass. In my opinion, F8 is worthless for trying to PROVE
exactly where the wounds (or anything!) are located in JFK's head.
You disagree. Okay, fine. So be it.
>>> "If VB [Vincent Bugliosi] would only read these exchanges, well...IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you." <<<
IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you, John -- particularly with respect to
your theory about the autopsy doctors deliberately engaging in some
kind of cover-up regarding JFK's head wounds. THAT'S really an
embarrassing theory, IMO. And Vince thinks so too:
"John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the
autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who
has read my book and still believes this, there obviously is nothing I
can say to him or her to infuse their mind with common sense." --
Vince Bugliosi; 04/19/09
David Von Pein
May 16-17, 2009
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
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 the 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. 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?
John Canal
[...] I deleted all the cut and paste rhetoric.
pjspeare
>
> >>> "I'll ask him [DVP] to explain "why", "if" the Clark panel reported that the skull was severely fragmented posteriorly to the Lamboid suture and that the entry was several cm anterior to the Lamboid suture, can part of the entry be seen in F8 along the edge of the "INTACT" rear skull? IOW, if it was in the part of the skull that was fragmented, then why did even the HSCA report that part of the entry was in the INTACT bone? DVP will ignore that because he has no clue what I'm talking about...which is due to his lack of understanding of the medical evidence....which doesn't prevent him or even slow him down from arguing with those who do have such an understanding. See if I'm right." <<<
>
> Well, since you're talking about a photograph of the inside of
> President Kennedy's head (F8) that I think is completely useless, I'll
> have to pass. In my opinion, F8 is worthless for trying to PROVE
> exactly where the wounds (or anything!) are located in JFK's head.
>
> You disagree. Okay, fine. So be it.
>
> >>> "If VB [Vincent Bugliosi] would only read these exchanges, well...IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you." <<<
>
> IMO, he'd be embarrassed for you, John -- particularly with respect to
> your theory about the autopsy doctors deliberately engaging in some
> kind of cover-up regarding JFK's head wounds. THAT'S really an
> embarrassing theory, IMO. And Vince thinks so too:
>
> "John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the
> autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who
> has read my book and still believes this, there obviously is nothing I
> can say to him or her to infuse their mind with common sense." --
> Vince Bugliosi; 04/19/09
>
> David Von Pein
> May 16-17, 2009
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
What a gutless response by Bugliosi! "Anyone who disagrees with me--
even those who disagree with me based on information I've never
studied--is lacking in common sense." Pathetic. It's clear Bugliosi
has cashed his check from Tom Hanks and is running for the hills.
David Von Pein
John Fiorentino was oh so right when he said that there's no end to
this unless I stop it.
But, I think I might go a few more rounds (much to moderator John
McAdams' chagrin, no doubt). [and PF]
Prof. McAdams must certainly wonder where on Earth we find the time to
argue about Mr. Canal's silly theories, 24/7. :)
David Von Pein
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "How many frickin times do I have to tell you that they (probably Admiral Burkley) must have been concerned that a BOH wound with an exposed cerebellum could be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot." <<<
DVP SAID:
Which is precisely why I used these words in a previous post to knock
down your nonsense regarding this particular issue:
"John Canal...thinks that the autopsy doctors decided to
deliberately underplay (or under-represent) the wounds to JFK's head
for no GOOD REASON whatsoever." -- DVP
IOW -- Your reason is not good enough. Not nearly. There was only ONE
entry wound in President Kennedy's head, and it came FROM BEHIND (not
the front). Burkley knew this; Humes knew this; and so did everybody
else at the Bethesda autopsy.
In short -- John Canal's theory about Dr. Burkley (et al) wanting to
cover stuff up relating to wounds WHICH WERE ALL PROVABLY CAUSED BY
GUNSHOTS FROM A LOCATION BEHIND THE PRESIDENT is pure bunk.
paul seaton
If anyone cares, I am trying to find time to catch up with this thread, but
not finding it easy at the moment :-)
paul s
David Von Pein
>>> "What a gutless response by Bugliosi!" <<<
There's more to Bugliosi's response. I just didn't print all of it in
that post. Here's the rest of it:
"...However, in the spirit of scholarship that guided me while
writing Reclaiming History, if it comes out in a second edition, I
will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory,
including Mr. Canal's, that came out subsequent to the publication of
the book." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 04/19/09
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
>>>>"How many frickin times do I have to tell you that they (probably Admiral
>>>>Burkley) must have been concerned that a BOH wound with an exposed cerebellum
>>>>could be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot." <<<
>
>DVP SAID:
>
>Which is precisely why I used these words in a previous post to knock
>down your nonsense regarding this particular issue:
>
> "John Canal...thinks that the autopsy doctors decided to
>deliberately underplay (or under-represent) the wounds to JFK's head
>for no GOOD REASON whatsoever." -- DVP
[...]
I won't say you're delusional--at least here--because I don't want this to get
cut....so let's just say I think you're not thinking straight.
Follow this to see why I think that.
1. No, nada, zilcho, zero photos were taken of the BOH when the body was first
received? You, of course, think that's meaningless, and if that event had no
possible connection with a coule of other curious events, I might agree. But,
let's move on.
2. In the autopsy report they stated that the large wound extended posteriorly
only "somewhat" into the occipital, but later said the bone was loose all the
way down to the EOP. Not only that, F8 confirms that fact, i.e. the bone came
loose all the way down to the EOP. So, again, "somewhat" into the occipital is
an understatement.
3. There is no, nada, zero, zilcho, mention in the repoart of any part of the
cerebellum being lacerated...but four months later, Humes drops a
bombshell--they saw a lacerated flocculus. What's especially interesting is that
he said that innocuously....IOW, why say "flocculus" (an unfamiliar medical
term) instead of saying cerebellum?
These can't possibly appear as unrelated coincidences to any person
with a lick of common sense.
The obvious connection is that Burkley, unnecessarily--we know that now--decided
to understate and not photograph a BOH wound that about three dozen witneses say
existed for fear such a wound might be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal
shot.....EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CERTAIN THE BULLET THAT CAUSED THAT BOH WOUND WAS
FIRED FROM BEHIND.
Anyway, stop rolling you eyes and read this dialog below...if you keep reading
it might just sink in to you why some--not me of course--might call you
delusional.
Here you do:
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.
##### BUT #####
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 the 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?
John Canal
[....] I deleted all the usual cut and paste rhetoric.
David Von Pein
To John Canal,
Since moving these "BOH" discussions over to the acj unmoderated side of
the forum fence, the debates have grown very intense and way too personal
in nature (regarding the invective we've been using). I apologize for my
part in such mud-slinging. There's really no reason to do that.
Although, unless I'm mistake and I don't think I am, I don't think I have
ever once used the proverbial "K" word ["kook"] to describe you
personally. Yes, I love to use that word on many of the conspiracy-
thirsty nuts that populate this unmoderate acj newsgroup on a daily basis,
but I try not to use that word when I'm talking to reasonable CTers or
LNers (in general).
Yes, I think your BOH theories are, indeed, pure bullshit and nonsense,
and I've said so very boldly. But it's your THEORIES that I've called
"bullshit". I've tried not get too personal, but I'm sorry to say that it
has, in a way, gotten a little too "personal". Of course, we couldn't get
that "personal" if we wanted to at the aaj board, because .John won't
permit it.
Anyway, I just wanted to make the above statement. And I will make an
effort to tone down the negative nature of any future Internet exchanges I
have with John A. Canal. It might not be easy for me to do, but I will
make that effort. :)
A "BOH"-RELATED NOTE:
I recently added an interesting 1964 NBC-TV program to my extensive
JFK-related YouTube video channel (it's the 9/27/64 NBC program called
"The Warren Commission Report"), and I took note of something kind of
strange---
While summarizing the evidence in the JFK case (and NBC did a very nice
and succinct job of doing that, btw, in the limited time available during
that 9/27/64 program), Robert MacNeil of NBC News shows us a hand-drawn
diagram of JFK's head wounds....and the entry hole is placed fairly high
on the head of the President.
The diagram actually shows the entry wound from two different perspectives
(a profile POV and a "directly from behind" vantage point)....with the
"from behind" view depicting the entry hole in what looks to me like a
VERY HIGH place on Kennedy's head. (The wound is shown too far to the
right of the midline, but that's another story.)
But the profile view shows the entry hole to be a bit lower on JFK's head
(with the President's head also leaning forward way too far, but, again,
that's another argument entirely).
It could just be the angle, or maybe the illustrator of the sketch made an
error somewhere, but I found it interesting that NBC-TV would be reporting
that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located
fairly HIGH on his head (based on one of the views presented in that
diagram anyway).
I have no idea where NBC would have arrived at any HIGH entry point (as of
September '64). They certainly didn't get that kind of information from
the autopsy report or the just-released Warren Report.
Anyhow, it's a very interesting NBC-TV program nonetheless, which can be
seen at the links below (the head-wound diagram is shown at the 8:45 mark
in Part 1 of this video series):
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=3cdHgzD5qDo
www.YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=27E4DD51DA4F7D70
www.JFK-Audio-Video-Page.blogspot.com
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>To John Canal,
[...]
>Yes, I think your BOH theories are, indeed, pure bullshit and >nonsense,
Really? For your reading enjoyment:
 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.
##### BUT #####
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 the 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?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> To John Canal,
>
> Since moving these "BOH" discussions over to the acj unmoderated side of
> the forum fence, the debates have grown very intense and way too personal
> in nature (regarding the invective we've been using). I apologize for my
> part in such mud-slinging. There's really no reason to do that.
>
> Although, unless I'm mistake and I don't think I am, I don't think I have
> ever once used the proverbial "K" word ["kook"] to describe you
Hey, would you do a favor and use that on my behalf about him as I am
not allowed to use it here?
> personally. Yes, I love to use that word on many of the conspiracy-
> thirsty nuts that populate this unmoderate acj newsgroup on a daily basis,
> but I try not to use that word when I'm talking to reasonable CTers or
> LNers (in general).
>
I use it about the WC defenders all the time. What about the Hickey did
it theory?
David Von Pein
>>> "The obvious connection is that Burkley, unnecessarily--we know that now--decided to understate and not photograph a BOH wound that about three dozen witnes[s]es say existed for fear such a wound might be misinterpreted as evidence of a frontal shot.....EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CERTAIN THE BULLET THAT CAUSED THAT BOH WOUND WAS FIRED FROM BEHIND." <<<
John Canal, of course, still has a huge hurdle to climb....that hurdle
being, of course:
THERE WAS NO LARGE "BOH" WOUND IN THE **SCALP** OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
ON 11/22/63 (and the photos below prove it):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
And John's whole "LN/BOH" theory crumbles into a pile of dust when
just a tad bit of common sense and logic are applied to it (in
conjunction with the three photos linked above)....and that's because:
John wants to believe that a bullet from Oswald's gun (fired from the
TSBD) entered the back of JFK's head and (somehow) caused a good-sized
chunk of the RIGHT-REAR SCALP AND SKULL of the President to break open
(even though John will readily acknowledge that the RIGHT-REAR of
Kennedy's head was not part of the EXIT wound at all for Lee Oswald's
bullet).
Therefore, if the bullet actually EXITED in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP area
of JFK's head, then why on Earth would the OCCIPITAL SCALP in the
RIGHT-REAR of his head suddenly crack wide open?
It doesn't make any logical (or anatomical or ballistic) sense at all
(except to John Canal--who desperately NEEDS a gaping BOH wound
extending through President Kennedy's SCALP, in order to peddle the
silly theory that John's been peddling for the last ten years).
John C. positively requires such a gaping SCALP wound in JFK's head on
11/22/63 in order for him to believe that the Parkland witnesses were
correct about seeing such a gaping (or at least large-ish) wound in
the right-rear (occipital) area of JFK's head.
Without the SCALP of JFK being severely damaged while the President
was at Parkland (in order to expose a HOLE that nearly all of the
Parkland witnesses said they saw), then John Canal's "LN/BOH/THE
PARKLAND WITNESSES WERE RIGHT" theory goes sliding down the drain
immediately.
So, once again, when the facts and the photos (and some common sense)
are applied to the theories of John A. Canal, those theories vaporize
into nothingness.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b546912e160ea12
>>> "Obviously (see CE-388) realizing the low, near-EOP [entry] didn't "appear" to be consistent with a shot from six floors up, someone ordered Ebersole to add the 6.5 mm opacity to the AP x-ray in the cowlick......undoubtedly (for anyone with a lick of common sense) as a means to "adjust" the entry up on the back of his head about 4".......thereby making the "new" (rev[i]sed/corrected), higher entry location seem more consistent with a shot from six floors up than Humes' low, near-EOP entry." <<<
LOL.
John Canal's silliness never stops flowing, does it?
Of course, John cannot come even close to proving any of his
ridiculous theories. But that never stops a good conspiracy theorist,
does it now? (And make no mistake, John Canal IS a conspiracy
theorist. He thinks there were multiple "cover-up" operations in place
in the aftermath of JFK's assassination...hence, he is a "conspiracy
theorist".)
REPLAY (JUST FOR THE LAUGHS):
>>> "Someone ordered Ebersole to add the 6.5 mm opacity to the AP x-ray in the cowlick." <<<
LOL.
So, rather than merely rigging the hand-drawn CE388 diagram in some
way to make it appear that an EOP entry wound could easily have
created the large exit wound at the right/front of JFK's head,
somebody decided it would be better to physically add in a "6.5 mm.
opacity" to an existing X-ray of JFK's head. Is that about the size of
the situation, Mr. Canal?
In short -- That's just nuts!
Rydberg could have easily drawn CE388 to meet all the necessary "EOP
Entry" requirements (and without the ridiculously-skewed "leaning
forward" position of Kennedy's head in CE388). The bullet simply was
deflected after entering JFK's head, with the bullet then changing
course to exit where we know the bullet did exit -- at the Right/
Front/Top of the head.
Heck, even John Canal thinks that DID occur, with the bullet
deflecting upward to exit the Top/Right of the head. I wonder why
Rydberg and the "6.5 mm. object planters" didn't think of doing that
instead of planting an "object" onto an X-ray?
Were the "object planters" of the opinion (for some stupid reason)
that Oswald's FMJ bullet could not POSSIBLY have changed course after
entering JFK's head at full muzzle velocity of 2,165 fps?
The bullet, of course, could easily have deflected after striking the
skull, and there's no possible way to know for sure how a bullet is
going to behave after striking a hard object like Kennedy's head at
full velocity. That bullet almost certainly was deflected to some
extent, which CE388 does not depict at all, which is just plain silly.
CE388:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504b.htm
Also:
John C., why do you continually ignore the following determination
made by the Clark Panel in 1968 (re: the high point of entry in JFK's
head)? Do you really think that ALL FOUR Clark Panel doctors would
have signed a report that contained the following verbiage if they
really ALL didn't believe it was the truth?:
"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." --
From Clark Panel Report
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>Therefore, if the bullet actually EXITED in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP area
>of JFK's head, then why on Earth would the OCCIPITAL SCALP in the
>RIGHT-REAR of his head suddenly crack wide open?
What a stupid question? All that I know is that the autopsy revealed that's
exactly what happened....and those results were consistent with what dozens of
eyewitnesses reported seeing, not to mention F8.
In any case, 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
acknowledged that opacity represented an artifact....(but lately says he's not
sure).
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 the 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. 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?
John Canal
[...] I deleted all the cut and paste rhetoric.
David Von Pein
A COUPLE OF VERY GOOD 2004 QUOTES FROM JOHN McADAMS CONCERNING JFK'S
HEAD WOUNDS:
"Anybody can see that that defect is well above the EOP -- indeed
about four inches above. And anybody can see that the fractures in the AP
x-ray radiate from a point about four inches above the EOP. You guys just
have too much to explain away." -- John McAdams; May 13, 2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/daceaec260a0442a
"John [Canal], let me be frank. You and your fellow Back of the Head
Buffs are just amateurs trying to interpret materials you don't
understand. Indeed, most of the materials you have [are] quite poor
compared to those that the HSCA FPP had.
You need to explain all of the following:
1.) The back of the head photo.
2.) The lateral x-rays.
3.) The AP x-ray.
4.) The pair of photos that included F8, showing the entry.
You and Barb just huff and puff but you can't really interpret away
ALL of that."
-- John McAdams; May 13, 2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e619e898d1a36649
David Von Pein
DVP SAID (RE: THE "6.5-MM. OBJECT" ON JFK'S X-RAY):
>>> "It's not a "bullet" fragment at all."
DVP THEN LATER SAID:
>>> ""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 the 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." <<<
JOHN CANAL THEN SAID:
>>> "DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THOSE READING YOUR B/S ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THE 6.5 MM THING WAS "ADDED" BUT NOT "PLANTED"?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS (WHILE HEAVING A DEEP ~SIGH~):
John Canal should learn how to READ. I never ONCE said that I am of
the opinion that the 6.5-millimeter "object" on the X-ray was "added"
to the X-ray after 11/22/63 ("accidentally" or otherwise).
I'm admitting I have no idea what it is. But I specifically stated my
belief that WHATEVER it is, it certainly was not "planted" or "added"
to the X-ray film after the autopsy.
Whatever the "thing" is, it was certainly THERE ON NOVEMBER 22ND when
Dr. Humes (et al) looked at the X-rays at Bethesda.
I now give you Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):
"But if Dr. [David] Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit
the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of
cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which
enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an
actual bullet fragment?
"Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have
gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that
they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a
case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected
to the assassination is irrational on its face.
"One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were
willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary
to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the
attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
"Surely Dr. Mantik doesn’t want us to believe the “fragment” was
superimposed on the X-rays after the Warren Commission had already
concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman. Indeed, in his 2001 writing
on the subject, Mantik says the forgery was accomplished “shortly
after the autopsy,” which would be before the Warren Report came out,
ten months after the assassination.
"Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the
sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time
thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book
"Assassination Science"? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes section of "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton
& Co.)(c.2007)
David Von Pein
>>> "And, BTW, you don't have to say that I "admitted" the x-ray was taken before the scalp was reflected and brain removed, because I've been saying that for the past 10 years, because it's obvious it was." <<<
But in our discussions you seemingly have contradicted yourself on
this issue regarding the lateral X-ray (the X-ray which shows not a
hint of BOH damage or fragmentation).....because in the past, you
(John Canal) have told me that you believe that a major reason why
that particular X-ray is showing an INTACT right-rear of JFK's head is
because Dr. Boswell said he put pieces of skull back into JFK's head
BEFORE THE X-RAY WAS TAKEN (which would have to also mean that the X-
ray was taken AFTER the scalp was peeled back from JFK's head).
You said this last year:
"You [DVP] are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push
any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the
scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken….even though
Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays
or photos being taken?" -- John A. Canal; August 15, 2008
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
But you now readily admit that the X-ray in question was certainly
taken PRIOR to Boswell's having any such opportunity to put pieces of
skull back into JFK's head -- i.e., the X-ray was certainly taken
BEFORE the scalp was reflected and BEFORE the brain was removed and
BEFORE Boswell saw any loose bone fall from JFK's head as a result of
the scalp-reflection activity.
So, which way do you want to go with this one, John? Do you want to
stick with your previous argument where you insist that the X-ray
shows what it shows (i.e., a completely-intact BOH) because Boswell
put bones back into the head BEFORE the X-ray was taken?
Or do you now want to go with your revised version (at least as far as
I have interpreted our discussions on this matter, which are
discussions that date back to late 2006 and early 2007), which has the
X-ray positively being taken prior to any scalp-reflection being done
and definitely BEFORE Dr. Boswell could have possibly replaced any
loose bone into the head of President Kennedy?
Or will you, John C., now contend that when you said this in August
2008....
"Push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still
adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken."
....What you really meant is that Dr. Boswell (or Dr. Humes) replaced
loose bone fragments back into place on JFK's head BEFORE THE SCALP
WAS EVER EVEN PEELED BACK?
In other words, via that scenario, Boswell and Humes could tell that
some loose chunks of JFK's skull were out of place on the back of his
head, even though the scalp had not yet been peeled back to expose the
BACK of JFK's head at all at that point in time and the President's
scalp was still COVERING those loose bone fragments?
So, the doctors (per that scenario of bone-replacing activity) would
have been pushing on the SCALP of JFK in order to put some loose skull
back into its proper place on JFK's head.
But if that's the case, then how would a person like John Canal
explain the 1996 ARRB testimony of Dr. Boswell shown below, wherein
he, in effect, states that the bone he replaced into the skull of JFK
had "fallen out" of Kennedy's head PRIOR to some X-rays or photos
being taken (and the "or" in there could be a key too, since Boswell
could be talking about ONLY "PHOTOGRAPHS" in this testimony)?
But if Boswell really meant that he replaced the bone before the
lateral (right side) X-ray was taken, it logically would also have to
mean that Boswell was replacing that bone PRIOR to the scalp being
reflected, which would mean, if common sense is to be our guide here,
that it would have been impossible for Boswell to have handled a piece
of loose bone from the VERY BACK of JFK's head at that particular
time, since the scalp needed to be peeled back off JFK's head in order
for Boswell to have had access to any pieces of bone that could have
"fallen out" of the BACK of his head.
Here's the 1996 testimony in question:
QUESTION -- "Were any skull fragments put back into place before
photographs or before X-rays?"
DR. J. THORNTON BOSWELL -- "I think before we took the--the ones that
came from Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate
them to the ones that were present. But I think all the others were
left intact."
QUESTION -- "So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out
at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph
or X-ray was taken?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "What size fragments and where did you place them at
the--?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that
10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I
think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that
diagram also were out at one time or another. But those were all put
back."
John Canal
[...]
>Or will you, John C., now contend that when you said this in August
>2008....
>
> "Push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still
>adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken."
>
>
>....What you really meant is that Dr. Boswell (or Dr. Humes) replaced
>loose bone fragments back into place on JFK's head BEFORE THE SCALP
>WAS EVER EVEN PEELED BACK?
I've been "trying" to say for about 10 years that a couple of lower right
rear bone fragments (still adhered to the scalp) were dislodged when the
body arrived. There was a scalp tear in the same area---and that shouldn't
come as a shock, because the sharp edges of those dislodged pieces could
easily have torn the scalp.
So, with a simple swipe with pressure of Boswell's hand he could have
pushed the pieces back into their original places--no longer dislodged.
They THEN took the x-rays.
I don't see how I could have given the impression they did otherwise.
After they reflected the scalp they had to cut between the scalp and skull
and pieces came loose, falling to the table, etc.
>In other words, via that scenario, Boswell and Humes could tell that
>some loose chunks of JFK's skull were out of place on the back of his
>head, even though the scalp had not yet been peeled back to expose the
>BACK of JFK's head at all at that point in time and the President's
>scalp was still COVERING those loose bone fragments?
Yes, of course, and there was gore exposed and exuding out between the
gaps of those disloged pieces when the body arrived....easily noticeable.
As far as Boswell saying he put some pieces of skull that had fallen out
back...he could have been thinking about them putting the pieces that had
come out into the cranial cavity before they poored in the plaster of
paris. I've got a citation somewhere for them doing just that....and it
makes sense, because the only pieces of sull submited as evidence were the
ones that came later--three pieces arund midnigh and the Harper frag the
next day. By the time those three late-arriving pieces showed up from
dallas, the head had already been filled with plaster of paris.
>So, the doctors (per that scenario of bone-replacing activity) would
>have been pushing on the SCALP of JFK in order to put some loose skull
>back into its proper place on JFK's head.
Exactly.
>But if that's the case, then how would a person like John Canal
>explain the 1996 ARRB testimony of Dr. Boswell shown below, wherein
>he, in effect, states that the bone he replaced into the skull of JFK
>had "fallen out"
I know they put pieces back into his head that had fallen out...se
above....but I don't know what he was talking about as far as doing that
before any x-rays. Now, a possibility just came to me---the question to
Boswell was did you put skull fragments that had fallen out back into
place before a PHOTOGRAPH or x-ray was taken. Yes, they took photographs
at the end...he may have said "yes" meaning he put those pieces that had
fallen out back into the head before the plaster of paris was put in, the
scalp stetched and sutured closed, and photos taken.
That makes sense for me...I'm sure ou think that's crazy. So be it...I
think believing that about 30 witnesses, including the autopsists, were
wrong is worse than crazy.
David Von Pein
>>> "He [DVP] posted once that it always bothered him that there were so many BOH wound witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH ["Reclaiming History"] he threw all those (about 30 total) witnesses, including the autopsists under the bus...certain, I guess, that they were either lying or hallucinating." <<<
And those "BOH" witnesses DO still bother me to a large degree. It's
still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case.
I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it
totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a
reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed,
incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John
F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his
head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's
head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the
Zapruder Film.
In fact, author Vincent Bugliosi places quite a bit of confidence in
the Zapruder Film when it comes to specifically locating the large
(exit) wound in JFK's head. Such as when Vince says this in his book:
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large
exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly
provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively,
and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's
emphasis.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PARKLAND WITNESSES:
I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital
witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of
JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there
when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)?
Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the "flap" of scalp on the right side
of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would
still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to
see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT
exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount
of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is
what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those
Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of
the wound).
But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation,
mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland didn't claim to
see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head:
1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the
right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's
head).
and:
2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area
of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in
several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos,
the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit
wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and
unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes; June 1967
BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood-Pooling" theory before I ever read
this passage in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book (so it wasn't Mr.
Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best
explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations; in fact,
before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a
bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly,
BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses; but, alas, Vince doesn't
have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr.
Baden in the book excerpt shown below):
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 407-408 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:
"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many
different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing re. JFK's
head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive
amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right
side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was
resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the
incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where
the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae3d600e8e571fa6
>>> "What gets me is that in RH, Bugliosi used the HSCA's Baden as his number-one source and even DVP has admitted that Baden was wrong on at least two issues. Go figure." <<<
Well, for heaven's sake, John C., not everybody is 100% right ALL of
the time. Take yourself, for example. I think you are right when you
say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy.
But I sure as heck think you're 100% wrong about some of the other
things that you believe regarding this case -- such as your unique
"BOH" beliefs and your belief that the 6.5 mm. "object" was planted on
an X-ray, and your belief that Dr. Burkley "ordered" the autopsy
doctors to "understate" the true condition of JFK's head wounds.
Another "Not Always Right" example would be Vincent Bugliosi. I've
discovered multiple errors in Vince's JFK book (factual errors too,
not just minor typos):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
But, oddly enough, when those factual errors that I've noticed in
Bugliosi's book are corrected, it actually bolsters VB's lone-assassin
conclusions, instead of weakening his LN case.
I found that to be quite interesting. This is especially true
regarding a portion of VB's book when he's discussing the amount of
metal (bullet) fragments that were left inside Governor John
Connally's body after he was operated on.
Mr. Bugliosi, in what could be considered a fairly-large mistake,
leaves the readers of his book with the incorrect impression that
Governor Connally went to his grave in 1993 with up to "seven or
eight" bullet fragments from Bullet CE399 inside his right wrist.
But, in fact, the "seven or eight" fragments that Vince thinks are
BULLET fragments in Connally's wrist were not BULLET fragments at all
-- they were BONE fragments. And this fact can easily be discovered by
reading Dr. Charles Gregory's testimony in the Warren Commission
volumes.
Gregory was positively talking about BONE fragments when he said that
as many as "seven or eight" fragments (or possibly more) were seen
inside Connally's wrist via X-ray. Vince Bugliosi, however, thinks
that Gregory was talking about METAL fragments in that testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
So, when VB's "fragments" mistake is corrected, a strong argument can
really be made for as few as just ONE tiny bullet fragment (per the
totality of Dr. Gregory's testimony) being left in John Connally's
right wrist (plus the one very small bullet fragment that was left in
JBC's thigh wound) after he was operated on at Parkland Hospital in
November of 1963.
The official record, however, as Mr. Bugliosi rightly points out in
his book, is somewhat muddled and unclear as to the exact number of
small metallic (bullet) fragments that Connally took with him to his
grave.
But from the sources I can find (and by looking at Connally's post-
operative X-rays), it becomes pretty clear that only a very, very
small amount of metal was left inside Governor Connally's entire body
after he was operated on at Parkland. And it certainly was not an
amount of metal that would come even close to exceeding the
approximately 2.2 to 2.4 grains of lead that are missing from Bullet
CE399.
Sorry, I digressed to another topic entirely here. Forgive me. But I
wanted to put that on the newsgroup record anyway. And this seemed
like as good a time as any to do it. :)
BTW, thanks for the responses to my "poll" in this thread.
David Von Pein
May 21, 2009
John McAdams
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:439f1108-4add-4dc4...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I'll keep this one short, Paul......
>>
>> You think Michael Baden is a liar.
>>
>> I do not.
>
>I too will keep this short.
>
>1) You think you read x-rays better than the experts. ( McDonnel & Russell
>Morgan - an issue that is apparently too complex for you to address , so ,
>of course, you sweep it under the carpet & pretend it's gone away. After
>all, 'Michael Baden wouldn't lie to me'.... )
>
>2) You think you are a greater forensic pathologist than Larry Angel.
>(Who described as 'obviously frontal bone' a chunk of bone found in the
>limo which is miraculously stuck solidly back on the skull in the Dox
>drawing - another issue that is apparently too complex for you to address.
>Hey, a piece of bone can be firmly attached to the skull & simultaneously
>on a table in another room, what's the problem ? After all, 'Michael Baden
>wouldn't lie to me...' )
>
How does this matter if the issue is how far back the wound extended?
>3) You look at a photograph of some hair & seem to think it is bone. ( A
>common enough complaint for which there appears to be no cure. And anyway
>, 'Michael Baden wouldn't lie to me...')
>
Huh?
>4) You believe you can diagnose any degree of skull damage through hair at
>70 feet by some kind of mystical union with the Z film. ( hey who needs
>x-rays? And anyway , 'Michael Baden wouldn't lie to me...')
>
OIC. It's rather embarrassing that the Z-film doesn't show any
blow-out to the back of the head.
It also shows where the wound *was.*
Not where you want it.
>5) You believe in something a 5 year old can see in 2 seconds flat is
>geometrically impossible. ( Removal of the brain via a defect barely large
>enough for Humes to get his hand through - another issue that is
>apparently too complex for you to address . Because Michael Baden wouldn't
>lie to you ... would he ? )
>
>6) And , finally, you, my friend, think the Clark Panel were a bunch of
>liars, with their clearly stated belief in the 'gross distortion' of your
>sainted 'undamaged' back of the head. (Another issue that is apparently
>too complex for you to address . For Michael Baden wouldn't lie to you ..
>though the Clark Panel would, it seems ...)
>
Interesting that the Clark Panel did not say that the "great defect"
extended back into the occipital bone.
>You remind me of those worthy gentlemen who took issue with the notion
>that the earth went around the sun - despite all the pesky evidence - on
>the basis that they 'didn't think the Pope was liar'.
>
>Either Michael Baden is lying to you, or the Clark Panel are.
>
>For someone disposed to leave his decision making to 'higher powers' , I
>can see this sort of authoritarian dilemma could cause a terrible
>headache.
>
>You have been given a brain.
>
>Use it.
You are nitpicking the medical evidence, and then claiming that
everything in the HSCA just comes from Michael Baden.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> "He [DVP] posted once that it always bothered him that there
were so many BOH wound witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH
["Reclaiming History"] he threw all those (about 30 total) witnesses,
including the autopsists under the bus...certain, I guess, that they
were either lying or hallucinating." <<<
>
>And those "BOH" witnesses DO still bother me to a large degree. It's
>still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case.
>
>I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it
>totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a
>reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed,
>incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John
>F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his
>head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's
>head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the
>Zapruder Film.
>
But they didn't *all* get it wrong.
Indeed, believing that requires accepting the buff-filtered(tm)
version of their testimony.
Check out my critique of Aguilar's treatment of the "Back of the Head
Witnesses" here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
Just to give you one example: Aguilar treats Clint Hill as a "back of
the head" witness, based on his WC testimony. Let me quote Aguilar.
<Quote on>
19) SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at
Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was
lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was
so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or
not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion
of the head." (WC--V2:141)
<Quote off>
But does "right rear portion" put it where Aguilar wants it to be?
Apparently not.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
What the back of the head buffs are doing is exploiting the
imprecision of witness testimony. "Back" is assumed not to merely
mean "posterior," but to mean "in occipital bone."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm