What kind of explanation do you think the "NO-Large-right-rear-BOH-wound" (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?
>>> "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):
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.
>>>>"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):
>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?
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.
John Canal wrote: > In article <08c53457-94be-48e9-b9c0-27ae3bb25...@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):
>> 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.
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
>>> "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) 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):
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:
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.
John Canal wrote: > 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.
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.
> 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.
