Question for anyone
John Canal
(AKA "20-something PH and Bethesda EYEwitnesses were lying, hallucinating
or stupid") believers have for the fact that Humes testified that, at the
time he saw brain tissue exuding out the large wound (that was chiefly
parietal but extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital), he also
saw part of a severely lacerated cerebellum (you know--that part of the
brain that sits inside the skull just below the EOP)?
Heck, let's guess what they might say.
How about this. Humes was so inexperienced he didn't know "falx cerebri"
(pretty much a membrane that seperates the two halfs of the cerebrum), and
"flocculus cerebri" (part of the cerebellum--thanks again, J. Hunt)....so
when he said the "flocculus cerebri" was severely lacerated, he really
didn't mean that. That is even though, 10 PH witnesses stated they saw
cerebellum...with McClelland saying he "DEFINITELY saw cerebellum!"
How about, they were all lying?
How about John Canal is so rude, while we have a solid explanation, we
don't respond to anything he asks? Ok, but what if someone else asks them
the same question?
John Canal
David Von Pein
I've come to the conclusion that by far THE BEST EVIDENCE that exists
with respect to the "BOH" debate is this X-ray of President Kennedy's
head (IMHO):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
In this case, a picture really does speak a thousand words. And in
this case, it's a verified-by-the-HSCA-as-authentic-and-"unaltered"
picture that is saying (very loudly and very clearly) the following
fact:
THERE WAS NO LARGE HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF JFK'S SKULL.
PERIOD! It just simply is not there.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
So, you evidently think Humes was lying, or didn't realize there was really no
brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from any wound that
extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?
Did you ever consider the possibility that Boswell may have "smoothed" loose
rear skull pieces back into place before the X-rays? No, of course not....even
though he said he replaced pieces of rear kull before the X-rays. If the skull
pieces were still adhrered to the scalp (just out of position) that would have
been pretty easy to do, IMHO.
Sad.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <08c53457-94be-48e9...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>>>> "What kind of explanation do you think the "NO-Large-right-rear-BOH-wound"
>>>>> believers have for the fact that Humes testified that, at the time he saw brain
>>>>> tissue exuding out the large wound (that was chiefly parietal but extended
>>>>> somewhat into the temporal and occipital), he also saw part of a severely
>>>>> lacerated cerebellum (you know--that part of the brain that sits inside the
>>>>> skull just below the EOP)?" <<<
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that by far THE BEST EVIDENCE that exists
>> with respect to the "BOH" debate is this X-ray of President Kennedy's
>> head (IMHO):
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>
>>
>> In this case, a picture really does speak a thousand words. And in
>> this case, it's a verified-by-the-HSCA-as-authentic-and-"unaltered"
>> picture that is saying (very loudly and very clearly) the following
>> fact:
>>
>> THERE WAS NO LARGE HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF JFK'S SKULL.
>> PERIOD! It just simply is not there.
>
> So, you evidently think Humes was lying, or didn't realize there was really no
> brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from any wound that
> extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?
>
Occipital does not mean cerebellum. Occipital means REAR. Cerebellum is
blow the cerebrum.
David Von Pein
really no brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from
any wound that extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?" <<<
Guess so. Because this X-ray PROVES BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that there
was no big BOH hole. Period. ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>>>> "So, you evidently think Humes was lying, or didn't realize there was
>really no brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from
>any wound that extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?" <<<
>
>
>Guess so. Because this X-ray PROVES BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that there
>was no big BOH hole. Period. ....
Yes or no, please. Do you think it would have been imposible for Boswell to
"smooth" [push] the rear scalp (with one or two loose pieces of bone adhered to
its underside) back into place before the X-rays, if it had moved out of
position in DP? Don't bother answering that...I know your well-thought-out
answer already.
And you think Humes was a liar. Great.
Hell, you must think Boswell was a liar too......he said he replaced some pieces
of skull before the X-rays. Cripes, good thing Finck didn't show up until a
little later, you probably would have had him lying too....not to mention about
25 PH and other Bethesda EYEwitnesses.
What good are autopsies when the prosectors are deemed to be liars?
Nuff said, between us on this.
John Canal
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>
geovu...@gmail.com
> In article <367ba4be-5c6f-4fce-ad4f-db5dfe60c...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
> >>>> "So, you evidently think Humes was lying, or didn't realize there was
> >really no brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from
> >any wound that extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?" <<<
>
> >Guess so. Because this X-ray PROVES BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that there
> >was no big BOH hole. Period. ....
>
> Yes or no, please. Do you think it would have been imposible for Boswell to
> "smooth" [push] the rear scalp (with one or two loose pieces of bone adhered to
> its underside) back into place before the X-rays, if it had moved out of
> position in DP? Don't bother answering that...I know your well-thought-out
> answer already.
If you are going to ask that question, don't you have to ask whether it's
possible for a bullet to enter at the front, exit at the back, and yet not
destroy the skull to the point that it's possible to simply smooth the
pieces back into place? Don't you also have to believe that the Zapruder
film and the autopsy photos are altered? I find it easier to believe that
witnesses under stress could mistake damaged brain matter for cerebellum
than I can believe that the evidence could be altered without being
detectable by all experts down the line of history. Saying that anyone
that disagrees with them thinks they are liars is not true. It's very
different from saying that they knowingly smoothed and repaired wounds to
mislead investigators. That's unquestionably calling out someone as a
liar and it requires proof of the lie.
David Von Pein
adhered to its underside) back into place before the X-rays, if it had
moved out of position in DP?" <<<
Based on the X-ray pictured below, the answer to that question almost
certainly has to be 'Yes'. Such activity by Boswell is "impossible" (IMO)
and yet still have the "loose pieces of bone [skull]" NOT SHOW UP AS
CRACKS ON THIS X-RAY (which they don't at all; not a crack in the skull to
be seen in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the BOH):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
How did the multiple fracture lines and cracks in JFK's skull (cracks and
fracture lines that would most assuredly have existed on his cranium if
major skull damage did, in fact, exist in the far RIGHT- REAR portion of
Kennedy's head) go completely undetected by the above "unaltered in any
manner" X-ray? How?
>>> "Don't bother answering that...I know your well-thought-out answer
already." <<<
But you decided you'd ask the question anyway. Nice.
>>> "And you think Humes was a liar. Great." <<<
When did I ever say that?
Answer: Never.
>>> "Hell, you must think Boswell was a liar too....he said he replaced
some pieces of skull before the X-rays." <<<
I'm dubious about Boswell's chronology there (as he recounts it 33 years
later). I don't think he "lied". I think he's merely mistaken.
And the only pieces of skull that were probably put back in were the three
pieces of skull that arrived at Bethesda from Dallas during the autopsy.
But it's highly doubtful that ANY pieces of skull were "put back in"
BEFORE the X-rays were taken. That's just...well...dumb.
>>> "Cripes, good thing Finck didn't show up until a little later, you
probably would have had him lying too....not to mention about 25 PH and
other Bethesda EYEwitnesses." <<<
~sigh~
>>> "What good are autopsies when the prosectors are deemed to be liars?"
<<<
None of autopsy doctors lied. None.
>>> "Nuff said, between us on this." <<<
Wanna bet?
Bottom Line (once again):
BY FAR the best evidence supporting NO LARGE BOH WOUND is this X-ray
showing the whole RIGHT SIDE of John F. Kennedy's head at autopsy:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
If you can find some way to debunk what I'm seeing in the above X-ray, I'd
love to hear that argument.
I.E., find a way to convince a reasonable person (which I consider myself
to be) that a portion of the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull (all of which
is visible in the above-linked X-ray) was badly damaged to the point where
pieces from this far-right-rear area of his skull actually BROKE FREE from
the remainder of his head....and yet (after a doctor re-inserted these
multiple skull fragments into their proper places in the far-right-rear
section of JFK's cranium BEFORE any X- rays were taken) NOT A SINGLE
VISIBLE FRACTURE LINE OR CRACK IS TO BE SEEN IN THE FAR-RIGHT-REAR AREA OF
PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD VIA THE ABOVE X-RAY.
Good luck.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <367ba4be-5c6f-4fce...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>>>> "So, you evidently think Humes was lying, or didn't realize there was
>> really no brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from
>> any wound that extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?" <<<
>>
>>
>> Guess so. Because this X-ray PROVES BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that there
>> was no big BOH hole. Period. ....
>
> Yes or no, please. Do you think it would have been imposible for Boswell to
> "smooth" [push] the rear scalp (with one or two loose pieces of bone adhered to
> its underside) back into place before the X-rays, if it had moved out of
> position in DP? Don't bother answering that...I know your well-thought-out
> answer already.
>
Why are you pussy footing around? Just come right out and claim that
Boswell and/or Humes stitched up the scalp on the back of the head. You
actually believe there was a big wound in the back of the head. That makes
you a conspiracy believer.
> And you think Humes was a liar. Great.
>
You already know Humes was a liar.
> Hell, you must think Boswell was a liar too......he said he replaced some pieces
You already know that Boswell was a liar too. .................you saw how
he moved up the back wound for the Baltimore Sun-Times article.
> of skull before the X-rays. Cripes, good thing Finck didn't show up until a
> little later, you probably would have had him lying too....not to mention about
> 25 PH and other Bethesda EYEwitnesses.
Finck lied in the Clay Shaw trial, but when he showed up at the autopsy he
did not yet know what he was supposed to lie about.
>
> What good are autopsies when the prosectors are deemed to be liars?
>
Indeed it happens all too often.
Look out at the Frank Olson case.
tomnln
<geovu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00834cf6-b216-4d27...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Do you think he {Vincent T. Bugliosi} would have simply ignored such
>information? I have an extremely hard time believing he would." <<<
>
>
>
>Upon doing some searching in VB's book and CD, it appears that Vince has
>not addressed the Zimmerman/Sturdivan "trail of opacities low on the
>X-ray" topic. At least I cannot find any such reference in VB's hefty book
>(and CD).
>
>However, I could have possibly missed a reference to it in the actual book
>itself, since the book is so immense (and there's no quick "Search" tool
>to scan the actual book, like there is for the PDF file on the CD).
>
>Perhaps Vince didn't see anything in Sturdivan's book (starting at Page
>193) that would be DEFINITIVE enough in VB's mind to indicate that the
>bullet that killed JFK positively entered at the much-lower location on
>the head (vs. the HSCA's cowlick area determination).
>
>Then, too, perhaps my next comment (below John's next comment) explains
>things even better (from VB's point-of-view).....
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Perhaps you don't think the conflict over the entry location mattered
>to him {VB}?" <<<
>
>
>
>I think this passage from Vincent's book sums that up fairly well:
>
>
>
> "Much has been made in the assassination literature of the fact that
>the autopsy surgeons were wrong on the location of the entrance wound. But
>is there any real significance to the head entrance wound being 3 inches
>higher than the autopsy surgeons said it was other than as a reflection of
>the ALLEGED incompetence of the surgeons? "No, not really," Dr. Werner
>Spitz...said. "It's just a red herring. We know from the autopsy photos
>and X-rays that there was only one entrance wound to the back of the
>president's head. The only significance this matter has is academic."
>(Telephone interview of Dr. Werner Spitz by author [VB] on March 26,
>2005)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 395-396 of "Reclaiming History"
>(footnote)(c.2007)
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Baden wrote that Humes was incompetent and that the autopsy was one
>of the worst ever. He went on to say that the four-inch miscalculation was
>the biggest mistake. So, if it turns out that it was Baden et. al. who
>were wrong about the entry, and not Humes, doesn't that restore at least a
>little credibility to the autopsy? That'd be pretty significant,
>IMHO...something that mattered." <<<
>
>
>I can't fully explain why Humes wanted to originally depict the entry
>wound way too low on the head (when we can see that it was HIGH on the
>head from the autopsy photo). But the fact also remains that Humes DID
>reverse himself in 1978. He admitted he was wrong about the exact
>entry-wound location:
>
> "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... The upper
>object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it
>was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that
>is the wound of entry." -- JAMES J. HUMES; HSCA TESTIMONY
>
Come on David, I posted what he said in his letter to the ARRB already where he
said he was confused during his HSCA testimony and stands by what was in the
autopsy report re. the ntry location.
>>>> "And what about the credibility of Baden's panel? If they were grossly
>wrong about the entry location, what else were they wrong about?" <<<
>
>
>Well, offhand, I can think of two major things that the HSCA got wrong:
>
>1.) Their conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a
>conspiracy. .....
>
>
>www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5a2c37b0a094ce90
>
>
>
>-- And: --
>
>
>2.) Their conclusion that the wound in JFK's throat was anatomically
>HIGHER than the wound in Kennedy's upper back. .....
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
Not to mention little lapses in memory such as:
1. Baden testifying all the radiologists unaminously reported that an entry
could be seen at the upper site on the X-rays, when Dr. Seaman said such a
conclusion was "inconclusive" (he also said there was no low entry to be seen
either).
2. Baden testified that there was no lower brain damage reported but
misremembered evidently because the autopsists reported a laceration that began
at the tip of the occipital lobe.
3. Baden testified that there was nothing on the films to support any low enrty
but Dr. Davis told him there was a trail of opacities seen on the lateral film
extending anteriorly from near the EOP.
4. Baden testified that the trajectory line connecting the high entry and
official exit was fairly accurate, but Dale Myers reported that Baden's line
pointed back juuuuuust a tiny bit high and to the right of the TSBD (actually
about 126 feet above the roof of the da-tex bldg.).
5. Baden testified that the semicircular lookng defect above the right eye, as
seen in F8, corresponded to the official exit along the coronal suture, but
these two points are not even close.
Just mistakes...not lies, of course.
>The HSCA, however, probably wasn't wrong about the location of the entry
>wound on the back of President Kennedy's head.
"Probably?" A least now you're not sure and are making progress.
>You win some and you lose some, I guess. ~shrug~
>
>I, myself, favor the Warren Commission's investigation over the one
>conducted by the HSCA (all things considered).
They did not contest the near-EOP entry location nor the statements in the
autopsy report describing brain tissue exuding from the large wound that
extended somewhat into the occipital...which meant, if true (and it was), there
had to have been a BOH wound.
>The HSCA was also wrong about the SBT timeline too (I forgot to mention
>that one earlier). But the WC got it right by "bracketing" the SBT gunshot
>into Zapruder frames 210 to 225 (which is perfect, considering the fact
>that the actual "SBT" frame [Z224, IMO] does, indeed, rest within that
>bracketed range).
>
>The HSCA's Z190 estimate for the SBT shot is ridiculously early....and
>even Vince Bugliosi thinks so too (although Vince DID seem to endorse such
>an early Z190 SBT hit at the 1986 TV Docu-Trial in London).
>
>I suspect that VB's further post-1986 research, however, set Vince
>straight on the SBT matter (or a little bit straighter anyway, as he seems
>to favor Z210 as the approx. time for the SBT bullet strike in his book).
>
>Mr. Bugliosi, though, still misses (and totally ignores) the obvious
>initial involuntary reactions of Governor Connally that are easily seen in
>Z-Film frames 224 to 230:
>
>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
>But at least VB knows that the SBT (regardless of the exact Z-Film frame)
>is a rock-solid fact....as do I.
>
>
>
>>>> "I don't see how VB would have been able to get into his book any
>developments that weren't really available to him until, at the earliest,
>late 2005, considering the incredibly monumental task of working with the
>editors editing what had already been submitted." <<<
>
>
>Oh, Vince references Sturdivan's 2005 book ("The JFK Myths") several times
>throughout "Reclaiming History" (on pages 810, 814, and 854, to name three
>instances within the physical book itself, plus many additional references
>to "JFK Myths" within the CD's Endnotes). So Vince, quite obviously, most
>certainly had read Sturdivan's book before his own book, "RH", went to
>press.
>
>And, btw, I was correct when I said this in an earlier post:
>
> "VB's book wasn't put to bed with the Norton publishers until mid to
>late November 2006 (and published 05/15/07). VB was still able to add
>insertions into the manuscript up until that time in November '06." --
>DVP; 03/27/08
>
>I dug up these passages from the CD's Endnotes for VB's "Reclaiming
>History", confirming what I just said above:
>
>
> "...I told him that I would be calling him close to the time the
>book was going to press for a number up to that point, which turned out to
>be in late November 2006. In a telephone conversation with Sawa on
>November 26, 2006, he told me that as of that date..."
>
> "Right near the time of my submission of final proofs for this book
>to my publisher in November 2006, I called Steve Tilley to get a wrap-up
>to date on some facts and figures."
>
>
>So, as can be seen, references to phone calls that were made in November
>of 2006 found their way into the final published first edition of VB's
>"RH".
>
>There are many, many other "2006" source references listed in "RH" as
>well. Here's just one more example (from Endnotes page #146):
>
> "Telephone interview of Judge John Tunheim by author [VB] on November
>3, 2006."
>
>
>
>BTW, here's a direct reference to Chad Zimmerman and Larry Sturdivan
>(concerning the 6.5mm object/opacity) made by VB in a footnote on the
>CD-ROM (with another reference to Sturdivan's 2005 book as well,
>indicating once again that Vince had indeed read that book before
>finishing his own):
>
>
> "Warren Commission and HSCA ballistic expert Larry Sturdivan and
>assassination researcher Dr. Chad R. Zimmerman have in later years
>analyzed the object seen in the X-rays. Sturdivan concluded it was not a
>bullet fragment but Zimmerman is not sure.
>
> "However, both concluded it was not a forgery but an artifact of
>unknown origin. (Sturdivan: E-mail to Stuart Wexler, March 9, 1998, in
>Mantik, "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Medical Evidence
>Decoded," in Fetzer, Murder in Dealey Plaza, p.266; Zimmerman: Letter from
>Chad Zimmerman to author dated April 30, 2005).
>
> "In his 2005 book, 'The JFK Myths', Sturdivan writes that it is
>"probably a bone chip spalled off the outside of the skull as it crashed
>at that location in the explosion of Kennedy's head" nearby (Sturdivan,
>JFK Myths, p.194).
>
> "In a 2006 letter to me, Dr. Zimmerman wrote that "Larry and I both
>believe that the 6.5 mm fragment on the frontal x-ray is real and was not
>added later, as Mantik posits. Basically, [neither] Larry nor I know what
>it is because it wasn't...retrieved. Larry does not believe that it is a
>bullet fragment. However, it is metal. Personally, I think it may actually
>have been a bullet fragment that was stuck in the hair or on the skin and
>later fell off...I feel that it is real because of the lack of film grid
>lines in the surrounding area, which, in my opinion, are an absolute
>must...in order for it to be a post-autopsy forgery. Since it is not seen
>on the lateral x-rays, it is by definition an artifact. An artifact may be
>a real object or a defect in film processing...The term does not mean that
>it is an artificial object" (Letter from Dr. Zimmerman to author dated
>March 15, 2006)." -- VB; Pages 221-222 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)
Sooo, VB buys an artifact that just happens to be the same appx. diameter as the
ammo LHO used and the same apx. distance right of idline as the prosectors low
entry, and just happens to end up vertically where an entry might "seem" more
consistent with a shot from six floors up than an entry location near the EOP
would? Now, that's not to mention that none of the autopsy docs recall seeing
and recovering it on 11-22-63......and that Ebersole had the x-rays in his hot
litle mitts a month after the assassination (when only E. warren was supposed to
have access to them), supposedly to take measurements from for a bust of
JFK...with this little project being given a code name--"Aunt Margret's
Skirts"--like some clandestine CIA operation or something. Nah, nothing to check
out there. VB's sliping, IMO.
BTW, Sturdivan admits all that would be one Hell of a coincidence...but goes on
to say coincidences happen. Sure, my friend, sure they do.
>ANOTHER STURDIVAN ADDENDUM:
>
>
>While searching for "Sturdivan" via the PDF file's search tool on the "RH"
>CD-ROM disc, I found the following passage, which is interesting too--in a
>purely "common sense" kind of fashion (and there are hundreds and hundreds
>of such commonsense-filled passages in "RH", btw). Of course, those who
>vigorously oppose Dr. Guinn's NAA conclusions will deem the following
>quotes pure trash. But, so be it:
>
>
> "Eighteen years later, Larry M. Sturdivan and K. A. Rahn made
>essentially the same point and extended it by pointing out that therefore
>(and assuming, of course, that NAA evidence is conclusive, which it is
>not) the hotly disputed issue of the "location of the rear head wound is
>irrelevant."
>
> "The reasoning, they note, "is very simple. Since NAA ties the tiny
>fragments from JFK's brain...to the large fragment found in the front
>seat, and since ballistics shows that the front-seat fragment came from
>Oswald's rifle (in the depository behind Kennedy), the front- seat
>fragment originated in the depository, passed through the head from rear
>to front and deposited tiny fragments along the way, and came to rest in
>the front-seat.
>
> "Since we know where it started, where it ended, and that it passed
>through the head along the way, the details of its entrance and exit in
>the head are not needed to determine the source of the shots." (Sturdivan
>and Rahn, "Neutron Activation and the JFK Assassination, Part II," p.220)"
>-- VB; Page 434 of "RH" Endnotes (footnote)(c.2007)
>www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>>>> "Do you think it would have been imposible [sic] for Boswell to
>"smooth" [push] the rear scalp (with one or two loose pieces of bone
>adhered to its underside) back into place before the X-rays, if it had
>moved out of position in DP?" <<<
>
>
>Based on the X-ray pictured below, the answer to that question almost
>certainly has to be 'Yes'. Such activity by Boswell is "impossible" (IMO)
I'm glad you added IMO...that's huge.
>and yet still have the "loose pieces of bone [skull]" NOT SHOW UP AS
>CRACKS ON THIS X-RAY (which they don't at all; not a crack in the skull to
>be seen in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the BOH):
And you would be examining the originals to determine that...or
God-knows-how-many generation scans of copies of the films?
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>
>How did the multiple fracture lines and cracks in JFK's skull (cracks and
>fracture lines that would most assuredly have existed on his cranium if
>major skull damage did, in fact, exist in the far RIGHT- REAR portion of
>Kennedy's head) go completely undetected by the above "unaltered in any
>manner" X-ray? How?
See above.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman, who, BTW, reads X-rays as part of his profession, and has
examined the "original" films, stated, "I do find it possible that those
fragments may have unlatched and have moved a bit..."
Furthermore, not that you believe any of the autopsy doctors'
testimony, Humes testified that the there were loose fragments of rear skull
near the EOP.
You just can't see everything you want to see on the copies!
>>>> "Don't bother answering that...I know your well-thought-out answer
>already." <<<
>
>
>But you decided you'd ask the question anyway. Nice.
Made my point.
>>>> "And you think Humes was a liar. Great." <<<
>
>
>When did I ever say that?
He said:
1) He saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated...and the only way
that would have been possible is that there had to have been an opening low in
the BOH...and you say there was no opening.
2) He said there were loose piece of skull near the EOP and see above for what
you concluded about that possibility from your in-depth examination of the
published probably multi-generation scans copies of the X-rays.
>Answer: Never.
OIC, when he says something that you say is untrue he's just mistaken, not
lying.
>
>>>> "Hell, you must think Boswell was a liar too....he said he replaced
>some pieces of skull before the X-rays." <<<
>
>
>I'm dubious about Boswell's chronology there (as he recounts it 33 years
>later). I don't think he "lied". I think he's merely mistaken.
He didn't say he "THOUGHT" he replaced pieces of bone before the X-rays, he said
he DID!
So, like Humes, when you say Boswell said something that's untrue, he's simply
mistaken.
HOW ABOUT YOU LISTING RIGHT HERE FOR ALL OF US TO SEE ALL THE NAMES OF WITNESSES
WHO SAW THE BODY WHO YOU THINK WERE CORRECT ABOUT ANYTHING THEY SAID THEY SAW,
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, REGARDING ANY NEAR-EOP ENTRY AND/OR BOH WOUND...I'll leave
you the space you probably need:_.
>And the only pieces of skull that were probably put back in were the three
>pieces of skull that arrived at Bethesda from Dallas during the autopsy.
>But it's highly doubtful that ANY pieces of skull were "put back in"
>BEFORE the X-rays were taken. That's just...well...dumb.
Boswell is just dumb now?...Well, that's a downgrade from being mistaken which
at least is an upgrade from being a liar (which you've never said exactly).
Geesh!
>>>> "Cripes, good thing Finck didn't show up until a little later, you
>probably would have had him lying too....not to mention about 25 PH and
>other Bethesda EYEwitnesses." <<<
>
>~sigh~
>
>
>>>> "What good are autopsies when the prosectors are deemed to be liars?"
><<<
>
>
>None of autopsy doctors lied. None.
Just said many things you've determined were untrue...that's all, right?
>>>> "Nuff said, between us on this." <<<
>
>Wanna bet?
First correct thing you've said on this issue.
>Bottom Line (once again):
>
>BY FAR the best evidence supporting NO LARGE BOH WOUND is this X-ray
>showing the whole RIGHT SIDE of John F. Kennedy's head at autopsy:
Humes saw part of the cerebellum. O'Neill testified that they must have put
"stuff" [brain matter] back in before the BOH photo was taken. Another liar? Or
just mistaken? And his testimony cooberates the testimony and statements of
literally dozens of others...all mistaken?...of course, sure.
I'll say one thing, you're a good soldier...you're taking "bullets" for the
team....IOW, do you see any other no-BOH-wound theorists out here making silly
statements defending their no-BOH wound conclusion? Yup, the others are on the
sidelines hoping you'll hang in there...regardless of how many eyewitnesses you
need to say were liars (oops, I mean mistaken)....and regardless of statements
you make like the one (if I read you right) about being able to tell from scans
of copies of the X-rays that there are no loose right rear bone fragments.
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>If you can find some way to debunk what I'm seeing in the above X-ray, I'd
>love to hear that argument.
What you just said speaks volumes ["what I'm seeing"]! Why don't you read that
back to yourself and think about what you've said and that you, because of your
observations, have deemed dozens of witnesses who saw the actual body to
be...telling untruths.
>I.E., find a way to convince a reasonable person (which I consider myself
>to be) that a portion of the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull (all of which
>is visible in the above-linked X-ray) was badly damaged to the point where
>pieces from this far-right-rear area of his skull actually BROKE FREE from
>the remainder of his head....and yet (after a doctor re-inserted these
>multiple skull fragments into their proper places in the far-right-rear
>section of JFK's cranium BEFORE any X- rays were taken) NOT A SINGLE
>VISIBLE FRACTURE LINE OR CRACK IS TO BE SEEN IN THE FAR-RIGHT-REAR AREA OF
>PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD VIA THE ABOVE X-RAY.
>
>Good luck.
I don't need luck to convince you, I'd need a frickin miracle, because as long
as VB says the PH docs were "mistaken" (not liars, of course..you guys don't say
the "L" word), you'll never change your mind.
Humes said he saw part of the cerebellum so there had to have been an opening
there and 20+ witnesses agree with him--you just can't live with it.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "And you would be examining the originals to determine that...or
God-knows-how-many generation scans of copies of the films?" <<<
I'm utilizing the image of the X-ray that appears on Page 112 of WC Volume
7. What makes you think this image is many, many generations removed from
the original?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
Several "fracture lines" and cracks in the skull are easily visible in
that X-ray above (regardless of "generation" number).
I guess we're supposed to believe, per Mr. Canal's theory, that ONLY
fracture lines and skull cracks that support his theory about BOH damage
are totally invisible in that X-ray (while other cracks are highly
visible). Eh, John?
>>> "You just can't see everything you want to see on the copies!" <<<
How convenient for you (and your BOH theory).
>>> "OIC, when he {Dr. Humes} says something that you say is untrue, he's
just mistaken, not lying." <<<
Yes. Exactly. Of course. I thought that would be obvious (especially to
another LNer).
In short -- Humes would not have had the slightest reason or desire to
want to lie about ANYTHING relating to John Kennedy's autopsy. None. Zero.
Zilch.
And he didn't lie. He seems to have been a bit of a bonehead about some
stuff, yes. I won't argue with you on that score. But was he a "liar"? Get
real. Of course he wasn't. And never was.
>>> "Humes said he saw part of the cerebellum so there had to have been an
opening there and 20+ witnesses agree with him--you just can't live with
it." <<<
But you liked it when you could point out earlier that Humes was
"confused" re. his HSCA testimony (where he totally changed his mind about
the location of the entry hole in the head).
Maybe Humes was "confused" about seeing cerebellum oozing out of a 6- mm.
entry hole at the back of JFK's head too. Ya think?
Or was he supposedly seeing this cerebellum coming out of your make-
believe LARGE BOH HOLE at the back of Kennedy's skull? You know, the hole
that doesn't exist and never did, as proven by the X-ray:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
David Von Pein
diameter as the ammo LHO used and the same approx. distance right of
midline as the prosectors low entry, and just happens to end up vertically
to say coincidences happen. Sure, my friend, sure they do." <<<
But WHERE does the "6.5 mm. opacity" (or "object") take you John? Where?
It's certainly not taking you toward a second gunman...because you don't
believe there WAS a second gunman in Dealey Plaza. Nor do I.
The "object" is a complete "UNKNOWABLE". We don't know WHAT the heck it
is. Nobody ever has known for certain what the heck it is/was.
I, for one, have filed the "6.5mm. object" topic away in my "Forever
Unknowable" drawer. And I think Vincent T. Bugliosi has done the same
thing too.
Maybe you, John, should consider labelling one of your file drawers in the
same manner. Because not every last thing CAN be known with 100% certainty
about this murder case.*
* = With another good example of an "unknowable" in the JFK case being ---
The exact positions of JFK & JBC at the instant each man was struck by the
SBT bullet on Elm Street.
We can NEVER know with geometric perfection the exact location and
physical posture of the men as they sat in their seats while they were
being hit by that bullet (although Dale Myers' computer re-creation has
probably come as close to mimicking the victims' positions as humanly
possible), especially when such complete knowledge is literally impossible
to ascertain, since the Stemmons freeway sign is blocking our view of
President Kennedy when he is hit by Bullet CE399.
But that "unknowable" doesn't mean we can't determine beyond all
reasonable doubt (when utilizing other evidence in the case) that CE399
did, in fact, pass through both men on November 22nd.
I sometimes think that CTers are of the odd opinion that EVERY last thing
MUST be known with 100% certainty in order to render an informed opinion
about a particular topic -- the SBT specifically.
And I'm guessing that as long as ANY "unknowables" (such as that 6.5mm.
"object") still exist with respect to the JFK assassination, then certain
CTers will use those unknowable things to prop up visions of conspiracy
and shady underhandedness on the part of somebody connected with the case.
But, again, where does such a thing really take the theorist?
Answer: Down a dead-end street. Like always.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "And you would be examining the originals to determine that...or
>God-knows-how-many generation scans of copies of the films?" <<<
>
>
>I'm utilizing the image of the X-ray that appears on Page 112 of WC Volume
>7. What makes you think this image is many, many generations removed from
>the original?:
I said God knows how many...you don't know how many nor do I. The main
point is you've not seen the originals. You have no idea how many experts
I sent copies of F8 to for their analysis and, in every case except for
one, they said they needed the original. The one "expert" that provided
his opinion based on the copy was wrong with his analysis. The bottom line
is that there's too much evidence for a BOH wound that you're trying to
counter with your analysis of a copy of an x-ray.
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>Several "fracture lines" and cracks in the skull are easily visible in
>that X-ray above (regardless of "generation" number).
>
>I guess we're supposed to believe, per Mr. Canal's theory, that ONLY
>fracture lines and skull cracks that support his theory about BOH damage
>are totally invisible in that X-ray (while other cracks are highly
>visible). Eh, John?
Are you nuts? For starters, the best evidence is the autopsy report which
stated that the BOH skull was fragmented. That is cooberated by F8 (yah,
the photo you could care less about)....it shows the edge of the intact
skul ragged to the extetthat it was not cut by a saw...translation the
pieces of bone fell out when they reflected the scalp...just like they
said. Now, if there were loose pieces of skull back there when the scalp
was reflected, then there were loose pieces back there when the X-rays
were taken. Doesn't that make sense to you?
And that's not counting the cooberation by all the witnesses (including
Humes) who said they saw a BOH wound...how could they see such a wound if
the rear skull was intact? THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THE
REAR SKULL WAS NOT FRAGMENTED [LOOSE]...AND, IF YOU CAN'T YOU SHOULD DEFER
TO ALL THE BOH WOUND WITNESSES.
>>>> "You just can't see everything you want to see on the copies!" <<<
>
>
>How convenient for you (and your BOH theory).
My BOH wound theory?....earth to DVP: that theory started when the PH docs
finished writing their satements on 11-22-63.
>>>> "OIC, when he {Dr. Humes} says something that you say is untrue, he's
>just mistaken, not lying." <<<
>
>
>Yes. Exactly. Of course. I thought that would be obvious (especially to
>another LNer).
I may be a LNer but I want to see the truth come out.
>In short -- Humes would not have had the slightest reason or desire to
>want to lie about ANYTHING relating to John Kennedy's autopsy. None. Zero.
>Zilch.
But he did on other things...but not about seeing part of the cerebellum
which substantiates what the PH and ther witnesses said about seeing a BOH
wound.
>And he didn't lie. He seems to have been a bit of a bonehead about some
>stuff, yes. I won't argue with you on that score. But was he a "liar"? Get
>real. Of course he wasn't. And never was.
He lied...more than once---but the lies were well intended...heck,
probably just like the intentions of the HSCA when they said the PH docs
were mistaken about seeing a BOH wound...even though doctors like
McClelland said he "definitely" saw cerebellum and even though two
neurosurgeons also said they saw that part of the brain.
>>>> "Humes said he saw part of the cerebellum so there had to have been an
>opening there and 20+ witnesses agree with him--you just can't live with
>it." <<<
>
>
>But you liked it when you could point out earlier that Humes was
>"confused" re. his HSCA testimony (where he totally changed his mind about
>the location of the entry hole in the head).
>
>Maybe Humes was "confused" about seeing cerebellum oozing out of a 6- mm.
>entry hole at the back of JFK's head too. Ya think?
LOL! He was confused like so many others that had the BOH photo shoved in
his face when he was asked to show the entry on it..you know the photo
that does appear to show the wound high...Hell, he had some choice, i.e.
tell them that they forged the photo or sa he was mistaken. He took the
easy route, but later to JAMA and to the ARRB he was definitive and
adamant about the near-EOP entry.
And to set the record straight, he said the brain matter exuded from the
large wound that extended somewhat into the occipital, not from the small
entry wound.
>Or was he supposedly seeing this cerebellum coming out of your make-
>believe LARGE BOH HOLE at the back of Kennedy's skull? You know, the hole
>that doesn't exist and never did, as proven by the X-ray:
David, I think we are about done here. You are on record as saying the
X-ray "almost certainly" and "in your opinion" shows that Boswell coudn't
have "smoothed" [pushed] a couple of loose pieces of rear skull back into
place...and now you say the x-rays are proof that couldn't have been done.
As a matter of fact, a long time ago, I'm almost certain you said you'd
always been bothered because of all the BOH witnesses...and I also seem to
recall you saying I mght be right about a BOH wound (is my recollection
pretty accurate?)......then along comes RH and your position morphs to
being certain these guys are lying (sorry, mistaken). Good grief!
Let's agree to disagree, Ok?
John Canal
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.ht
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>>>> "So, VB buys an artifact that just happens to be the same approx.
>diameter as the ammo LHO used and the same approx. distance right of
>midline as the prosectors low entry, and just happens to end up vertically
>where an entry might "seem" more consistent with a shot from six floors up
>than an entry location near the EOP would? .... VB's slipping, IMO. BTW,
>Sturdivan admits all that would be one Hell of a coincidence...but goes on
>to say coincidences happen. Sure, my friend, sure they do." <<<
>
>
>But WHERE does the "6.5 mm. opacity" (or "object") take you John? Where?
>
>It's certainly not taking you toward a second gunman...because you don't
>believe there WAS a second gunman in Dealey Plaza. Nor do I.
>
>The "object" is a complete "UNKNOWABLE". We don't know WHAT the heck it
>is. Nobody ever has known for certain what the heck it is/was.
>
>I, for one, have filed the "6.5mm. object" topic away in my "Forever
>Unknowable" drawer. And I think Vincent T. Bugliosi has done the same
>thing too.
>
>Maybe you, John, should consider labelling one of your file drawers in the
>same manner. Because not every last thing CAN be known with 100% certainty
>about this murder case.*
I on't think, at least the 6.5 mm opacity, is unknowable. And, IMHO, if it
was planted, it shows that there were one or two in charge that were
worried, if not paranoid, about the evidence showing there was only one
gunman....thus, that's why the entry was moved up to that opacity
(appearing more consistent with a six floor gunman)...... And it didn't
stop there, IMO,...the BOH wound was understated by the autopsists and not
photographed.
All well intended David, but they should have left the frickin ev. alone
and reported it just as they saw it----if they just could have had more
patience and waited for the ev. to all point to one lone assassin---LHO,
we wouldn't be going round and round here.
>* = With another good example of an "unknowable" in the JFK case being ---
>The exact positions of JFK & JBC at the instant each man was struck by the
>SBT bullet on Elm Street.
I agree that the precise positions at 223-224 are unknowable, but, IMHO,
and I refuse to argue about it with anyone (BTW, Marsh, I've killfiled
you), what's imporant is that the weight of the evidence shows the two men
were aligned so that one bullet could have caused the seven wounds to
them.
>We can NEVER know with geometric perfection the exact location and
>physical posture of the men as they sat in their seats while they were
>being hit by that bullet (although Dale Myers' computer re-creation has
>probably come as close to mimicking the victims' positions as humanly
>possible), especially when such complete knowledge is literally impossible
>to ascertain, since the Stemmons freeway sign is blocking our view of
>President Kennedy when he is hit by Bullet CE399.
>
>But that "unknowable" doesn't mean we can't determine beyond all
>reasonable doubt (when utilizing other evidence in the case) that CE399
>did, in fact, pass through both men on November 22nd.
>
>I sometimes think that CTers are of the odd opinion that EVERY last thing
>MUST be known with 100% certainty in order to render an informed opinion
>about a particular topic -- the SBT specifically.
>
>And I'm guessing that as long as ANY "unknowables" (such as that 6.5mm.
>"object") still exist with respect to the JFK assassination, then certain
>CTers will use those unknowable things to prop up visions of conspiracy
>and shady underhandedness on the part of somebody connected with the case.
>
>But, again, where does such a thing really take the theorist?
>
>Answer: Down a dead-end street. Like always.
Well, we agree on all that. Let's end our circular discussion about the
other issues for now because we're repeating ourselves. I'm still hoping
the Discovery Channel will resolve some of those issues...probably won't
but we'll see.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
The point is that, just like Bugliosi's errors, it is symptomatic of
incompetence and makes you wonder what else they got wrong, such as
missing the throat wound.
At some point in life you must demand excellence.
>
>
>
>>>> "Baden wrote that Humes was incompetent and that the autopsy was one
> of the worst ever. He went on to say that the four-inch miscalculation was
> the biggest mistake. So, if it turns out that it was Baden et. al. who
> were wrong about the entry, and not Humes, doesn't that restore at least a
> little credibility to the autopsy? That'd be pretty significant,
> IMHO...something that mattered." <<<
>
>
> I can't fully explain why Humes wanted to originally depict the entry
> wound way too low on the head (when we can see that it was HIGH on the
> head from the autopsy photo). But the fact also remains that Humes DID
> reverse himself in 1978. He admitted he was wrong about the exact
> entry-wound location:
>
> "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... The upper
> object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it
> was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that
> is the wound of entry." -- JAMES J. HUMES; HSCA TESTIMONY
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "And what about the credibility of Baden's panel? If they were grossly
> wrong about the entry location, what else were they wrong about?" <<<
>
>
> Well, offhand, I can think of two major things that the HSCA got wrong:
>
> 1.) Their conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a
> conspiracy. .....
>
>
> www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5a2c37b0a094ce90
>
>
>
> -- And: --
>
>
> 2.) Their conclusion that the wound in JFK's throat was anatomically
> HIGHER than the wound in Kennedy's upper back. .....
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
>
>
> The HSCA, however, probably wasn't wrong about the location of the entry
> wound on the back of President Kennedy's head.
>
> You win some and you lose some, I guess. ~shrug~
>
> I, myself, favor the Warren Commission's investigation over the one
> conducted by the HSCA (all things considered).
>
David Von Pein
>>> "THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THE REAR SKULL WAS NOT
FRAGMENTED [LOOSE]. AND IF YOU CAN'T, YOU SHOULD DEFER TO ALL THE BOH
WOUND WITNESSES." <<<
I disagree. The image below is as close as you can possibly get to
verifiable "proof" that there was no large hole in the back of John F.
Kennedy's head:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>> "I may be a LNer, but I want to see the truth come out." <<<
In my opinion, the truth has come out.
>>> "He {Dr. Humes} lied...more than once---but the lies were well
intended." <<<
These "lies", therefore, couldn't have possibly been "mistakes in
judgment" or "mistakes in interpretation" or just plain garden-variety
"mistakes" that human beings make every day (even during some autopsies I
would surmise), could they John?
Let's review the official definition of that much-bandied-about word "LIE"
for just a moment (via Dictionary.com):
"LIE" -- (noun):
1. A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. Something intended or serving to
convey a false impression; imposture. 3. An inaccurate or false statement.
4. The charge or accusation of lying -- [as in the following example:] "He
flung the lie back at his accusers."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Now, out of the above 4 possible definitions for the noun "Lie", how many
can be applied to Dr. James Joseph Humes?
#1 cannot be applied. No way. No how. (And this is the primary definition
that most people think of when they think of the word "Lie"; hence, it's
the #1 definition for this noun.)
#2, IMO, also cannot be applied to Dr. Humes with respect to anything he
has said concerning JFK's wounds or his autopsy since 1963. (Your mileage
on this one may vary, and no doubt shall.)
#3 is the one where we could honestly say that Dr. Humes could fit (with
respect to his original version of the very-low location for JFK's head
entry wound). But as far as the "intent to deceive" part of #3 here....no
way. (IMO.)(YMMV.)
#4 doesn't apply to Humes either. #4 deals with the way the word is
utilized after having already been defined as either #1, #2, or #3 above.
So, if you want to call Dr. Humes a "liar", you've got only the third
definition to work with, because none of the others describes Humes'
conduct, IMO.
And that would seem to be more of a semantics game than anything else (via
the #3 definition above). Technically, via the dictionary, "An inaccurate
or false statement" does equal a "Lie"....but without #1 in place, #3
falls flat. Because a #3 "lie" can just as easily equal a "mistake" or
"innocent error"....which is the case with Dr. Humes (IMO).
>>> "LOL! He {James "I'm All Confused" Humes} was confused like so many
others that had the BOH photo shoved in his face when he was asked to show
the entry on it...you know the photo that does appear to show the wound
high." <<<
Yeah, I thought you'd get a kick out of my "confused" comment. ;)
>>> "David, I think we are about done here. You are on record as saying
the X-ray "almost certainly" and "in your opinion" shows that Boswell
couldn't have "smoothed" [pushed] a couple of loose pieces of rear skull
back into place...and now you say the x-rays are proof that couldn't have
been done." <<<
Yes, that's my opinion as of this date (03/30/2008 AD).
>>> "As a matter of fact, a long time ago, I'm almost certain you said
you'd always been bothered because of all the BOH witnesses..." <<<
Yes, I certainly did say that. And those witnesses still bother me. I
can't fully explain them. But there's BETTER EVIDENCE than those BOH
witnesses' eyeballs, IMO. And that better evidence is the autopsy photos
and X-rays and the autopsy report. And those things just simply do NOT
support your theory regarding a large-sized BOH wound, John.
>>> "...and I also seem to recall you saying I might be right about a BOH
wound (is my recollection pretty accurate?)..." <<<
You are 100% accurate on that point, John. You've got a good memory, and I
was kind of wondering if you would be reminding me of that fact in this
thread. Two of my original posts regarding that matter (from May 2007 and
November 2007) are linked below:
"But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH wound
(i.e., a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's head.
"Because if it did exist, IMO the LNers (including myself of course)
have got a very, very big problem. And that problem is: THREE LYING
AUTOPSY DOCTORS.
"And I just don't think we have that in this case. I simply cannot
wrap my brain around the idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors, from Humes
to Boswell to Finck, for whatever reason, would tell what amounts to
40-plus years worth of deception with respect to the true nature of the
wounds of an assassinated U.S. President.
"Perhaps John Canal is 100% correct and I'm dead wrong. That's
possible...I'll admit it. But I just cannot embrace the thus-far-
unsupported notion that HB&F could be that deceptive (for years on end)
with respect to the most important autopsy any of them would ever perform
in their entire lives. "Military orders" or not." -- DVP; May 7, 2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d74b90344959920
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ed1a4df6942f264
Footnote -- Since I wrote those above-linked posts, I've taken a better
look at the X-ray below, and just cannot see any way around the following
fact: THERE SIMPLY IS NO LARGE-SIZED HOLE IN THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S
HEAD. IT JUST ISN'T THERE. PERIOD. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
But I will say this (so that I don't have all of my eggs in just one
basket): You still may be right John. Hardly anything is totally
"impossible" -- if, that is, you can align your theories properly, and in
just the right sequence (while ignoring a good deal of common sense while
you're aligning them).
Just ask Oliver Stone and the late Jim Garrison about that. Those guys
actually think/thought it wasn't "impossible" to pull off the miracle "One
Patsy In The Depository" plot of the ages, when a bunch of shooters got
together and decided, per Stone & Garrison, to shoot up Dealey Plaza like
it was the back lot at MGM Studios and kill JFK from multiple angles while
attempting to frame JUST Lee Harvey Oswald at the SAME TIME! How's that
for believing that the "impossible" can actually come true?
>>> "...then along comes RH {"Reclaiming History"} and your position
morphs to being certain these guys are lying (sorry, mistaken)." <<<
It's not so much VB and RH, John. It's this X-ray (again)....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
....Which is a photo that I really hadn't thought about too much before
writing the essay below in late December 2007:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
I knew that the X-ray existed, of course; and I also knew it had been
deemed "unaltered in any manner" by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations in the 1970s (like all the other X-rays and autopsy
photographs of JFK).
But until fairly recently I just hadn't really thought about how much that
one single X-ray of President Kennedy's head tends to totally demolish a
whole series of theories (usually put forth by conspiracy theorists, of
course, concerning a purported rifle bullet that struck JFK's head from
the front and caused a massive blow-out at the rear of his head....which
is just NOT THERE in that X-ray).
>>> "Good grief!" <<<
http://www.childrensmuseum.org/special_exhibits/good_grief/images/logo_goodgrief.jpg
<g>
>>> "Let's agree to disagree, OK?" <<<
Ten-Four. ;)
David Von Pein
>>> "At some point in life you must demand excellence." <<<
Well, like it or not, Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell are the only
autopsists we have to work with here. That fact isn't going anywhere.
So I guess we'll just have to accept (and wade through) what we've got
and the reports and evidence on the table -- warts and all.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>>>> "THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THE REAR SKULL WAS NOT
>FRAGMENTED [LOOSE]. AND IF YOU CAN'T, YOU SHOULD DEFER TO ALL THE BOH
>WOUND WITNESSES." <<<
>
>
>
>I disagree. The image below is as close as you can possibly get to
>verifiable "proof" that there was no large hole in the back of John F.
>Kennedy's head:
"As close as you can get?" Well, weigh **YOUR** "close as you can get"
evidence against; 1) the fact that Dr. Zimmerman, who has forgotten more
about reading x-rays than you can imagine ever knowing and has examined
the originals, says that some of those pieces could have been a bit
unlatched (that means he's acknowledging that there could have been gaps
between the pieces, further meaning brain matter could have exuded out
those gaps), and 2) that about 25 individuals, WHO SAW THE BODY, including
Humes said they saw a BOH wound, and 3) that the experts who started this
"No-BOH-wound crap have been proven to be very, very wrong about several
aspects of the medical evidence (the HSCA's, FPP), and 4) Posner and VB
took Baden (yes, the chairman of that FPP) at his word on most of this
stuff.
Unbelievable.
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>>> "I may be a LNer, but I want to see the truth come out." <<<
>
>
>In my opinion, the truth has come out.
IMO, your opinion carries some weight in other areas besides the medical
evidence. You've told me that you don't care about understanding F8, and
that happens to be one of the most important autopsy photos. That speaks
volumes about how valued your opinion should be on the medical evidence,
IMO.
>>>> "He {Dr. Humes} lied...more than once---but the lies were well
>intended." <<<
>These "lies", therefore, couldn't have possibly been "mistakes in
>judgment" or "mistakes in interpretation" or just plain garden-variety
>"mistakes" that human beings make every day (even during some autopsies I
>would surmise), could they John?
You would know the answer to that if you'd closely read Humes' testimony,
which you haven't...obviously. Which again speaks to your opinion re. the
medical evidence being valued.
>Let's review the official definition of that much-bandied-about word "LIE"
>for just a moment (via Dictionary.com):
>
>
>
>"LIE" -- (noun):
[...]
Read Humes' testimony CLOSLEY and we'll discuss whether he lied or not.
I won't hold your breath, your too busy reading RH.
[....]
>>>> "LOL! He {James "I'm All Confused" Humes} was confused like so many
>others that had the BOH photo shoved in his face when he was asked to show
>the entry on it...you know the photo that does appear to show the wound
>high." <<<
>Yeah, I thought you'd get a kick out of my "confused" comment. ;)
Did you ever read his letter to the ARRB where he said that? Didn't have
time? I understand.
>>>> "David, I think we are about done here. You are on record as saying
>the X-ray "almost certainly" and "in your opinion" shows that Boswell
>couldn't have "smoothed" [pushed] a couple of loose pieces of rear skull
>back into place...and now you say the x-rays are proof that couldn't have
>been done." <<<
>Yes, that's my opinion as of this date (03/30/2008 AD).
Amazing how much knowledge you can get, such as digesting Humes' WC
testimony, when you read RH.
>>>> "As a matter of fact, a long time ago, I'm almost certain you said
>you'd always been bothered because of all the BOH witnesses..." <<<
>
>
>Yes, I certainly did say that. And those witnesses still bother me. I
>can't fully explain them. But there's BETTER EVIDENCE than those BOH
>witnesses' eyeballs, IMO. And that better evidence is the autopsy photos
>and X-rays and the autopsy report. And those things just simply do NOT
>support your theory regarding a large-sized BOH wound, John.
What? The frickin autopsy report stated there was a BOH wound...or haven't
you had time to read that either?
And the BOH photo was undoubtedly taken near the end of the autopsy...and
the evidence for that includes:
1) If that photo did reflect the condition of the scalp when the body was
first received, Humes (not to mention all the other BOH wound witnesses)
must have been smoking that funny stuff, because there's no way on earth
he could have seen p/o the cerebellum.
2) Francis X. O'Neill testified that the BOH photo must have been taken
towards the end of the autopsy, because he said, "They must have put stuff
back in". He stayed in the morgue, BTW, until the scalp was stretched and
almost entirely closed and the body was sent to the Rotunda.
3) We know that the scalp was stretched and almost entirely closed (not
just O'Neill's testimony) before Humes left the morgue, so no one can
prove that the BOH photo and the one of the back wound weren't taken after
some of that rear scalp was closed.
Your "best" evidence for there being no BOH is indeed the x-rays, but see
above on those.
You know, to not see the originals and make the determination anyway that
dozens of witnesses were wrong about seeing a BOH wound, gives new meaning
to the tradition of NOT giving anyone the benefit of the doubt....and
there sure as Hell ought to be doubt in your mind...because you're neither
a radiologist nor even half an expert on the medical evidence...not to
mention the fact that you've never seen the originals.
>>>> "...and I also seem to recall you saying I might be right about a BOH
>wound (is my recollection pretty accurate?)..." <<<
>
>You are 100% accurate on that point, John. You've got a good memory, and I
>was kind of wondering if you would be reminding me of that fact in this
>thread. Two of my original posts regarding that matter (from May 2007 and
>November 2007) are linked below:
> "But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH wound
>(i.e., a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's head.
>
> "Because if it did exist, IMO the LNers (including myself of course)
>have got a very, very big problem. And that problem is: THREE LYING
>AUTOPSY DOCTORS.
I know you haven't read much of the medical testimony, but the least you
could do is read what I post here. The autopsy report says there was a BOH
wound...one that Humes could see a severely lacerated flocculus cerebri
through! Got it? Geesh, am I talking to________ (I killfiled him)?
> "And I just don't think we have that in this case. I simply cannot
>wrap my brain around the idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors, from Humes
>to Boswell to Finck, for whatever reason, would tell what amounts to
>40-plus years worth of deception with respect to the true nature of the
>wounds of an assassinated U.S. President.
>
> "Perhaps John Canal is 100% correct and I'm dead wrong. That's
>possible...I'll admit it.
That's good enough for me.
We're done...please!
I should leave on that.
You didn't need to put the links below for me...I've printed out most of
my exchanges on this NG.
>But I just cannot embrace the thus-far-
>unsupported notion that HB&F could be that deceptive (for years on end)
>with respect to the most important autopsy any of them would ever perform
>in their entire lives. "Military orders" or not." -- DVP; May 7, 2007
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d74b90344959920
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ed1a4df6942f264
>
>Footnote -- Since I wrote those above-linked posts, I've taken a better
>look at the X-ray below,
VERY IMPORTANT CORRECTION--that'd be copy of the X-ray, not "the X-ray".
>and just cannot see any way around the following
>fact: THERE SIMPLY IS NO LARGE-SIZED HOLE IN THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S
>HEAD. IT JUST ISN'T THERE. PERIOD. .....
Yes, hello...obviously there was no large hole there when the X-rays were taken.
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>But I will say this (so that I don't have all of my eggs in just one
>basket): You still may be right John. Hardly anything is totally
>"impossible" -- if, that is, you can align your theories properly, and in
>just the right sequence (while ignoring a good deal of common sense while
>you're aligning them).
And you're abusing CS&L when you say 25 doctors, including Humes, didn't
know what they were talking about....based on not totally conclusive
evidence.
>Just ask Oliver Stone and the late Jim Garrison about that. Those guys
[...]
>>>> "...then along comes RH {"Reclaiming History"} and your position
>morphs to being certain these guys are lying (sorry, mistaken)." <<<
>It's not so much VB and RH, John. It's this X-ray (again)....
You mean the copy? Is it first generation? Second? Do you know...and what
difference does it make---you're not a radiologist and are disagreeing
with a radiologist that has seen the originals.
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>
>
>....Which is a photo that I really hadn't thought about too much before
>writing the essay below in late December 2007:
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
>
>
>I knew that the X-ray existed, of course; and I also knew it had been
>deemed "unaltered in any manner" by the House Select Committee on
>Assassinations in the 1970s (like all the other X-rays and autopsy
>photographs of JFK).
>
>But until fairly recently I just hadn't really thought about how much that
>one single X-ray of President Kennedy's head tends to totally demolish a
>whole series of theories (usually put forth by conspiracy theorists, of
>course, concerning a purported rifle bullet that struck JFK's head from
>the front and caused a massive blow-out at the rear of his head....which
>is just NOT THERE in that X-ray).
You're right on one point and wrong on the other.
You're wrong because the copy of the X-ray doesn't prove one way or the
other if a BOH wound existed.
You're right that it helps immensely to dispel any shot-from-the theory
because all the rear bone is clearly present. IOW, a BOH wound that was an
exit wound would have undoubtedly blown a few rear pieces of skull into
DP..didn't happen.
>>>> "Good grief!" <<<
>http://www.childrensmuseum.org/special_exhibits/good_grief/images/logo_goodgrief.jpg
>
>
><g>
>
>
>>>> "Let's agree to disagree, OK?" <<<
>
>Ten-Four. ;)
Yup, after I post this.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <9ba5f4d4-aec4-431e...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>>>> "THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THE REAR SKULL WAS NOT
>> FRAGMENTED [LOOSE]. AND IF YOU CAN'T, YOU SHOULD DEFER TO ALL THE BOH
>> WOUND WITNESSES." <<<
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The image below is as close as you can possibly get to
>> verifiable "proof" that there was no large hole in the back of John F.
>> Kennedy's head:
>
> "As close as you can get?" Well, weigh **YOUR** "close as you can get"
> evidence against; 1) the fact that Dr. Zimmerman, who has forgotten more
False. Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
And Zimmerman is not an expert.
His field is chiropractic.
> about reading x-rays than you can imagine ever knowing and has examined
> the originals, says that some of those pieces could have been a bit
> unlatched (that means he's acknowledging that there could have been gaps
> between the pieces, further meaning brain matter could have exuded out
> those gaps), and 2) that about 25 individuals, WHO SAW THE BODY, including
> Humes said they saw a BOH wound, and 3) that the experts who started this
False. Argumentum ad Populum. Just because 100 people say they saw a UFO
does not mean it is real.
They did not say the same thing that the Parkland personnel did.
> And the BOH photo was undoubtedly taken near the end of the autopsy...and
> the evidence for that includes:
>
> 1) If that photo did reflect the condition of the scalp when the body was
> first received, Humes (not to mention all the other BOH wound witnesses)
> must have been smoking that funny stuff, because there's no way on earth
> he could have seen p/o the cerebellum.
>
> 2) Francis X. O'Neill testified that the BOH photo must have been taken
> towards the end of the autopsy, because he said, "They must have put stuff
> back in". He stayed in the morgue, BTW, until the scalp was stretched and
> almost entirely closed and the body was sent to the Rotunda.
>
And the hair had been washed by then.
> 3) We know that the scalp was stretched and almost entirely closed (not
> just O'Neill's testimony) before Humes left the morgue, so no one can
> prove that the BOH photo and the one of the back wound weren't taken after
> some of that rear scalp was closed.
>
Closed as in sutured? Show me the sutures.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "At some point in life you must demand excellence." <<<
>
>
> Well, like it or not, Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell are the only
> autopsists we have to work with here. That fact isn't going anywhere.
>
Wrong. That's why you have expert reviews.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THE REAR SKULL WAS NOT
> FRAGMENTED [LOOSE]. AND IF YOU CAN'T, YOU SHOULD DEFER TO ALL THE BOH
> WOUND WITNESSES." <<<
>
>
>
> I disagree. The image below is as close as you can possibly get to
> verifiable "proof" that there was no large hole in the back of John F.
> Kennedy's head:
>
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>
>
>
>>>> "I may be a LNer, but I want to see the truth come out." <<<
>
>
> In my opinion, the truth has come out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "He {Dr. Humes} lied...more than once---but the lies were well
> intended." <<<
>
>
>
> These "lies", therefore, couldn't have possibly been "mistakes in
> judgment" or "mistakes in interpretation" or just plain garden-variety
> "mistakes" that human beings make every day (even during some autopsies I
> would surmise), could they John?
>
No, not when they are such whoppers and so consistent and so necessary.
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
>>> "Well, like it or not, Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell are the only
autopsists we have to work with here. That fact isn't going anywhere." <<<
DR. MARSH SAID:
>>> "Wrong." <<<
DVP SAYS:
I guess Dr. Marsh REALLY WAS the 4th autopsist on 11/22/63. (Gee, and I
thought I was merely making a "funny" when I said that previously.)
David Von Pein
>>> "That's why you have expert reviews." <<<
Oh, you mean "expert reviews" like, say, the WC and HSCA, which both
said that Oswald was the only gunman to strike any victims with any
bullets on Nov. 22, 1963?
That kind of "expert reviews", Tony?
Or don't the WC & HSCA count in a conspiracist's world of "expert
reviews"?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "That's why you have expert reviews." <<<
>
>
> Oh, you mean "expert reviews" like, say, the WC and HSCA, which both
> said that Oswald was the only gunman to strike any victims with any
> bullets on Nov. 22, 1963?
>
The WC was not an expert review.
And the HSCA said it was a conspiracy.
> That kind of "expert reviews", Tony?
>
> Or don't the WC & HSCA count in a conspiracist's world of "expert
> reviews"?
>
Definitely the WC does not count for anything.
David Von Pein
>>> "And the HSCA said it was a conspiracy." <<<
And they also said that only Oswald struck any victims with any
bullets. (Go figure.)
Try again.
Anthony Marsh
Just start by admitting that we won and you lost. Get over it.