Bizarre Post on the Education Forum

[John McAdams]

"Jack Ruby and funding research for WMD's?"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19500&#entry259791

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s637-5A9Gro

[slats]

John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in
news:39t458t06pkrk6hol...@4ax.com:

I've seen worse. Not surprised to see Simkin peddling this garbage.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19206

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Simkin is not "peddling" anything on that thread, Brendan.

[John Reagor King]

In article <l_v4s.30886$eq1....@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>,

I didn't know the Zionist Gestapo assassinated both JFK and RFK.

Ok, I'm converted now. I believe wholeheartedly in a vast conspiracy in
both assassinations. All of my subsequent articles will reflect this
epiphany.

Oh sorry, C&C warning.

[slats]

John Reagor King <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:caeruleo-A7C7A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

I look forward to Simkin posting some "Was the Holocaust a hoax?" columns,
courtesy of Al Jazeera.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are plenty of rightwing Republicans right here to do that.

[Ace Kefford]

On reading the heading "Bizarre Post on the Education Forum" my thought
was that's kind of like "Dog Bites Man" not really news!

[John Reagor King]

In article <MJS4s.76375$Mq1....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>,

slats <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> John Reagor King <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:caeruleo-A7C7A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>
> > In article <l_v4s.30886$eq1....@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > slats <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in
> >> news:39t458t06pkrk6hol...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Jack Ruby and funding research for WMD's?"
> >> >
> >> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19500&#entry25
> >> > 9791
> >> >
> >> > .John
> >> > --------------
> >> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >>
> >> I've seen worse. Not surprised to see Simkin peddling this garbage.
> >>
> >> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19206
> >
> > I didn't know the Zionist Gestapo assassinated both JFK and RFK.
> >
> > Ok, I'm converted now. I believe wholeheartedly in a vast conspiracy
> > in both assassinations. All of my subsequent articles will reflect
> > this epiphany.
> >
> > Oh sorry, C&C warning.
>
> I look forward to Simkin posting some "Was the Holocaust a hoax?" columns,
> courtesy of Al Jazeera.

Heh. One of my friends said that the only way she was able to remember
Ahmadinejad's name (he's yet another one who claimed the Holocaust
didn't happen) was to remember the phrase "I'm-a-dinner-jacket,"
although she got that from what was already all over the Internet
anyway. I will confess, to my immense shame, that I never could
remember how to pronounce his name until she told me that, and ever
since I've always remembered how to pronounce his name.

I still remember, with a mixture of hilarity and disgust, posting to
other newsgroups a year before I first posted here, right after
9-11-2001, a certain poster claiming to me that six million Jews being
killed by the Nazis was a myth because not nearly that many Jews existed
in Europe in the first place, as there were supposedly no records of
that many. I responded that, if even one million of them were killed,
isn't that more than enough of an abomination, isn't that more than
enough of an absolute atrocity?

To this, as is no surprise, he/she/it fell abruptly silent.

I am suspecting that this was the type of person who would also downplay
an average of at least 5000 people per day murdered in Rwanda for 100
days continuously in a row.

I also got all sorts of replies that Jews have always controlled
Hollywood (these people again fell abruptly silent when I told them that
Louis B. Mayer was a devout Catholic, and reminded them that MGM
[Metro-Goldwin-***MAYER***] was just a bit "dominant" in the movie
industry from the first talkies until the advent of U.S. television),
and were controlling the entire U.S. government and so forth and so on.

And just yesterday I read, for the first time in my life, that the
Zionist Gestapo was behind the assassinations of both Kennedys.

Ah, but does any of my obvious skepticism of the claims that Jews Are
Behind All The Problems On Earth, Not Just Some Of Them, But All Of Them
indicate any such hogwash such as that I, of all people, am even
slightly anti-Muslim, or more to the point, even slightly
anti-Palestinian?

Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!

Not.

I've long ago lost track of how many years, continuously in a row, I
have ardently believed, to the depths of my soul, that the only possible
fair solution that actually has a chance of reducing the violence
permanently is for equal respect and recognition to be given to both a
sovereign Israeli state, and a sovereign Palestinian state, with no
difference whatsoever.

I already know (I'm not nearly naive enough not to know it) that if more
than a tithe of Jews and Palestinians get wind of what I've just said,
at least some Jews, merely because I give the slightest credence to
Palestinians, will falsely accuse me of being anti-Jewish, and some
Palestinians will likewise falsely accuse me, for the opposite reason,
of being anti-Palestinian.

Like my father, may he rest in peace, told me once, when both extremes
criticize you equally, you're probably on the right track.

Wise man, my father.

Does this sort of thing ever happen here regarding the JFK assassination?

Yes, nearly every day.

I've long ago lost count of how many times CTs have criticized me.

I've long ago lost count of how many times LNs have criticized me.

I've long ago lost count of how many times I've criticized CTs.

I've long ago lost count of how many times I've criticized LNs.

A prime example of that is the issue of whether or not it "really is
true" that there was an obvious hole in the back of JFK's head through
which witnesses could see some portion of his brain. ("Raise your
virtual hand" if you are a regular reader of this newsgroup and you are
"surprised" that I've trotted this one out yet again; only if you have
been reading this newsgroup for less than 12 months, and/or have read
less than one percent of my articles are you excused.)

I will never, ever, ever get even slightly tired of saying this, no
matter how long I live, unless in my old age I suffer from Alzheimer's
or dementia or some other obvious cause of mental ineptitude:

The majority of CTs who ignore the obvious fact that the Zapruder film
clearly shows the vast majority of the damage to be forward of JFK's
right ear, and who instead irrationally emphasize the much less obvious
misshapen aspect of the rear of his head, some of whom additionally use
the flimsy excuse that the damage in front of his right ear represents
evidence of "fakery" or some such thing, merely because it conflicts
with their cherished beliefs of a frontal shot and for literally no
other reason, are clearly mistaken or purposefully pretending that a
hole in the back of his head "just has to be" exit damage due to a
frontal shot, and absolutely refuse and refuse and refuse to acknowledge
any alternate possibility for that rear hole. Likewise, but in the
opposite direction, far too many LNs, far too many, erroneously believe
that to admit that that hole really was there is the same thing as
admitting that the CTs are right about a frontal shot, and many of these
same LNs don't blink an eye when accepting at face value that the
majority of witnesses who claimed that there were only three shots were
obviously correct, but then exhibit an obvious double-standard when
claiming that the majority of witnesses who said that there was a hole
in the rear of JFK's head were "wrong," because witness statements are
often unreliable, even though they never, ever, ever say that about the
witnesses who said there were three shots, quite obviously because to
admit the rear hole was there conflicts with these LNs' cherished
beliefs, and the three-shot witnesses don't conflict with them, and for
literally no other reason.

When both extremes criticize me equally, I'm obviously on the right
track. I'll give someone, anyone, a run for their money if they claim
otherwise.

I've done it many times before.

Haven't I, everyone?

(Watch carefully, only the ones with an obvious agenda or an obvious
bias will say "no.")

[David Von Pein]

John King,

There was no big hole in the rear of JFK's head. And by far the best
evidence supporting that fact are the autopsy X-rays and photos, which
confirm (for all time) that there's no great-big hole in the back of
President Kennedy's head. It just is not there (regardless of how many
people at Parkland and Bethesda said otherwise):

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, you score a big point there. Because no one knows exactly how many
Jews were killed. But no one claimed that exactly 6,000,000 Jews were
killed in concentration camps.
Maybe the toial number of victims in all incidents was 5,999,999 or
maybe it was 6,000,001. None of that matters. 6 million is a rounded out
estimate.

> To this, as is no surprise, he/she/it fell abruptly silent.
>
> I am suspecting that this was the type of person who would also downplay
> an average of at least 5000 people per day murdered in Rwanda for 100
> days continuously in a row.
>

I am suspecting that you are the type of person who also downplays the
US killing millions of babies.

> I also got all sorts of replies that Jews have always controlled
> Hollywood (these people again fell abruptly silent when I told them that
> Louis B. Mayer was a devout Catholic, and reminded them that MGM
> [Metro-Goldwin-***MAYER***] was just a bit "dominant" in the movie
> industry from the first talkies until the advent of U.S. television),
> and were controlling the entire U.S. government and so forth and so on.
>
> And just yesterday I read, for the first time in my life, that the
> Zionist Gestapo was behind the assassinations of both Kennedys.
>
> Ah, but does any of my obvious skepticism of the claims that Jews Are
> Behind All The Problems On Earth, Not Just Some Of Them, But All Of Them
> indicate any such hogwash such as that I, of all people, am even
> slightly anti-Muslim, or more to the point, even slightly
> anti-Palestinian?
>
> Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> Not.
>
> I've long ago lost track of how many years, continuously in a row, I
> have ardently believed, to the depths of my soul, that the only possible
> fair solution that actually has a chance of reducing the violence
> permanently is for equal respect and recognition to be given to both a
> sovereign Israeli state, and a sovereign Palestinian state, with no
> difference whatsoever.
>

Impossible.

> I already know (I'm not nearly naive enough not to know it) that if more
> than a tithe of Jews and Palestinians get wind of what I've just said,
> at least some Jews, merely because I give the slightest credence to
> Palestinians, will falsely accuse me of being anti-Jewish, and some
> Palestinians will likewise falsely accuse me, for the opposite reason,
> of being anti-Palestinian.
>
> Like my father, may he rest in peace, told me once, when both extremes
> criticize you equally, you're probably on the right track.
>

That is exactly why both the conspiracy kooks and the WC defenders
attack me.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<e294de9b-24c5-48cb...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Yes, yes, yes, I'm quite obviously very familiar with those photographs.
You said all this to me last year and then refused to read my articles
where I gave extensive justifications for my views. Read my recent
article, "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy," and get back
to me on this. I give plenty of perfectly plausible reasons why the hole
had been closed by the time that x-ray and the BOH photos were taken, and
none of them have to do with covering up evidence for a frontal shooter.
You are doing nothing here but parroting the standard view that has been
expressed many times before. You'll never understand why I say what I do
until you read more than one percent of what I've written on this subject,
which you clearly haven't, or you would not have dreamt of responding to
me, of all people, in the way you just have.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<e294de9b-24c5-48cb...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> John King,
>
> There was no big hole in the rear of JFK's head. And by far the best
> evidence supporting that fact are the autopsy X-rays and photos, which
> confirm (for all time) that there's no great-big hole in the back of
> President Kennedy's head.

No, those merely confirm that there was no longer such a hole when those
were taken. They do not confirm that there wasn't a hole there when the
body was first unwrapped at the autopsy. You and I went the rounds on
this in August of last year, and you kept ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring 99% of the arguments I made to you about this. You also quite
obviously haven't read my recent "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy (1)" in which my extensive study of all of this has finally
started to approach a culmination.

> It just is not there (regardless of how many
> people at Parkland and Bethesda said otherwise):
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

That was almost certainly taken after the fragmented parts of the rear
of the skull had been shoved back into place. I have given extensive
reasoning for this which you have ignored.

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

That was quite obviously taken much later in the autopsy, after the tear
in the scalp in the back of the head had been repaired. I have also given
extensive reasoning for that which you have also ignored.

And you're omitting the autopsy photographs of the right side of his head
before the scalp was reflected back to reveal the full damage to the
skull. These same witness descriptions match those photographs quite well
as far as how the appearance of the right side of his head was described.

You still haven't even tried to give any remotely plausible explanation
why these same witnesses were so obviously correct about the appearance of
the right side of his head, but suddenly were totally "wrong" about the
appearance of the back of his head. You're another of those silly people
who act as if these witnesses didn't know the difference between the right
side of the head and the rear of the head, even though we all know that
the average child of ten knows the difference without the slightest
possibility of being even slightly mistaken. And these witnesses were all
adults, and many of them were real doctors and nurses.

My explanation is tremendously more plausible than yours: the photos of
the right side of his head were taken at the very beginning of the autopsy
right after the body was unwrapped and placed on the autopsy table.

All x-rays and photos showing any portion of the back of the head were
taken after the appearance of the back of the head had been changed.

And if you would ever read more than one percent of what I write, you
would know that I do not claim that this was done to hide an exit from a
frontal shot. There was no exit in the rear of his head from a frontal
shot. Because there wasn't any frontal shot.

But of course you'll never, ever, ever read my explanation of why the hole
was nevertheless hidden at the autopsy, correct?

You never have before, or if you have, your replies to me have never given
any indication of it.

[David Von Pein]

Sorry, John King, when I wrote my last post, I didn't realize you were the
same person I talked to about this stuff a year or so ago. You've
obviously changed your username. You weren't using John King when I
conversed with you last year.

JOHN KING SAID:

>>> "They [the autopsy photos and X-rays] do not confirm that there wasn't

a hole there when the body was first unwrapped at the autopsy." <<<

DVP SAYS:

Oh, good heavens. That's a very strange thing to say, John.

You really think that (miraculously) there WAS a pretty good-sized HOLE in
the back part of JFK's head at the start of the autopsy....but then, a few
hours later, the huge hole in BOTH THE SCALP AND SKULL of the President
was "repaired" in such a way so that no sign of ANY hole (or scalp damage)
showed up on the X-rays and the photos?

That's really bizarre. And pretty much impossible, to boot.

[John Fiorentino]

David:

Oh, David have you made a mistake starting it with Mr. King.

John F.



"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6a535d00-fe4a-44d8...@t13g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/17/2012 10:36 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article
> <e294de9b-24c5-48cb...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> John King,
>>
>> There was no big hole in the rear of JFK's head. And by far the best
>> evidence supporting that fact are the autopsy X-rays and photos, which
>> confirm (for all time) that there's no great-big hole in the back of
>> President Kennedy's head. It just is not there (regardless of how many
>> people at Parkland and Bethesda said otherwise):
>>
>> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
>> LATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg
>>
>> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
>> LATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg
>
> Yes, yes, yes, I'm quite obviously very familiar with those photographs.
> You said all this to me last year and then refused to read my articles
> where I gave extensive justifications for my views. Read my recent
> article, "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy," and get back
> to me on this. I give plenty of perfectly plausible reasons why the hole
> had been closed by the time that x-ray and the BOH photos were taken, and

But yet you seem to be implying that it was there at Parkland. Since we
can't see it in Dealey Plaza you must think Jackie created it.

> none of them have to do with covering up evidence for a frontal shooter.

Sure, you could dream up a theory where a massive hole in the back of
the head was created by a shot from behind. But then why don't we see it
in Dealey Plaza. Is that some type of CIA Top Secret delay bullet which
only explodes after 5 minutes?

> You are doing nothing here but parroting the standard view that has been
> expressed many times before. You'll never understand why I say what I do
> until you read more than one percent of what I've written on this subject,
> which you clearly haven't, or you would not have dreamt of responding to
> me, of all people, in the way you just have.
>

Why do we need to read the other 99% when we can see from the 1% that
you are incoherent?

[John Canal]

In article <6a535d00-fe4a-44d8...@t13g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

"Impossible"?

Sorry to butt in David, but I just couldn't resist...although, because you
hardly ever address more than one of the points the person you're replying
to makes, I was tempted to ignore you.

But we'll see how you handle this.

IMO, it all boils down to this. If the entry was in fact near the EOP
(which is typically only about 2 - 2.5 inches above one's hairline), then,
because the entry in the scalp (re. the BOH photos) is very roughly six
inches above his hairline, that's scientific proof the scalp was at least
stretched before the BOH photos were taken.

Now, low and behold, the autopsists not only said they stretched the
scalp, they said they "undermined" it...and gosh gee willikers, it turns
out that "undermining" is a process used to greatly increase the
"stretchability" of the scalp.

And by golly, even a 10 year old can see in the BOH photos that the large
area in the top/right/front of his head where the skull and scalp were
blown out, is miraculously covered in scalp...that looks practically
undamaged.

Gee whiz...now where do you think the scalp came from that covers that top
right front area? Was that a wig?

No, David, that scalp was stretched up from the occipital area that had
only been damaged with small entry wound and a tear (which was easily
sutured closed).

BTW, Boswell even testified that the longish defect seen in the BOH
extending forward and to JFK's right from the entry was a
laceration....amazingly, though, in the photos it's closed.

How about that! Some laceration, eh?

:-)

And, wouldn't you know it, the morticians even said they sutured the scalp
closed.

Look, neither myself or J. King is trying to say there was a blow-out exit
wound in the BOH...but that there were one or two dislodged pieces of bone
back there and a scalp tear (creating an opening of some sort)....either
that or there were a whole lot of otherwise very credible eyewitnesses who
were smoking that funny stuff.

Heck, Boswell even drew on his face sheet a bunch of loose skull pieces at
the back of JFK's head....and indicated those may have been the ones he
replaced before the X-rays and photos.

Do you think he lied...or misremembered?

Funny isn't it though that the HSCA's drawing, F-66, indicates that there
were no loose bone occipital pieces.

An oversight? How about good old Baden, doing his thing?

And how about when they said pieces of loose skull came out or stuck to
the scalp when they refected the scalp to remove the brain?

Sound consistent with the aforementioned scenario?

Or do you think they were lying or misremembering...again?

Anyway, as soon as JFK was put on the gurney blood was pumped (albeit
briefly) and gravitated to that BOH opening (brain tissue oozed and
gravitated there as well)....all of that surely making the wound look much
worse than it actually was.

At Bethesda, before the X-rays, Boswell pushed the BOH scalp with the
loose pieces of skull attached to that scalp back into place.

David, why on God's green earth would he have done that?....that's against
protocol....but, here we go again...he admitted replacing skull pieces
before the X-rays or photos.

Notice he left the "Devil's Ear" sticking out...makes one wopnder why he'd
leave that alone and push the ones in the BOH bac in, eh?

The ARRB questioner was remiss not to ask Boswell "WHY" he did that, but
the questioner didn't...too bad.

Anyway, you can rid yourself, once again, of me interupting your claims
that the BOH and entry witnesses were nuts (based on the X-rays and photos
which were taken amid unsure circumstances), by doing what you did
before...ignoring my points.

Very telling method of debating, BTW.

:-)

Bye, I presume.

Oh, if you do see the light on this (ya, now I'm dreaming) don't feel bad
about disagreeing with your friend, VB...after all like McAdams, Posner et
al, he was duped by Baden...someone he should have been able to trust.

I can't blame the above. None of them knew that the BOH photos were taken
after midnight and after the rear scalp had been stretched and
repaired......to prepare him for an open-casket funeral.

Heck, it took me two visits to interview Stringer at his home before I
realized the BOH photos (12 total) were taken after midnight.

One last point. It doesn't disturb me one bit that you guys won't be moved
one iota by our arguments....after all, this is small potatoes...it's all
about convincing others who are in a position to re-examine the medical
evidence that we're right.

Maybe that's why Dr. Spitz has asked me to keep him appraised of any
progress that I make towards accomplishing that objective.

Almost like he's worried?

:-)

John C.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Oh, David have you made a mistake starting it with Mr. King." <<<

It would appear that I have already gone a few rounds with Mr. King,
more than a year ago, when he was "Caeruleo":

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a81f073aa3b8d1b8

[David Von Pein]

John Canal,

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not rehashing your goofy stretched scalp
theory yet again. I've already done all of that here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

[John Reagor King]

In article
<6a535d00-fe4a-44d8...@t13g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sorry, John King, when I wrote my last post, I didn't realize you were the
> same person I talked to about this stuff a year or so ago. You've
> obviously changed your username. You weren't using John King when I
> conversed with you last year.
>
> JOHN KING SAID:
>
> >>> "They [the autopsy photos and X-rays] do not confirm that there wasn't
> a hole there when the body was first unwrapped at the autopsy." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Oh, good heavens. That's a very strange thing to say, John.

It is not at all strange. But you'll never understand why I say that
unless you read my article, "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy (1)". Also, I've already brought up to you the fact that the same
witnesses who described the hole in the back of JFK's head also described
the appearance of the right side of his head just about exactly as it is
seen in the autopsy photos of the right side of his head. What is
"strange" is you appearing to claim that they were correct when describing
what the right side of his head looked like at Parkland, but incorrect in
describing what the back of his head looked like, as if these doctors and
nurses didn't know the difference between the right side of the head and
the rear of the head. And it wasn't just the doctors and nurses at
Parkland. People such as Clint Hill also said there was a hole in the
back of his head, but did not say anything about those huge flaps forward
of the right ear plainly seen in the Zapruder film. Neither did anyone at
Parkland. Neither did anyone who saw the body when it first arrived at
the autopsy. Neither do the autopsy photos show those huge flaps. They
were closed by Jackie.

So obviously, even according to you, the autopsy photographs of the right
side of the head match what the witnesses said. How do you justify that
when you turn around and say the same witnesses saw something in the back
of his head which wasn't there?

> You really think that (miraculously) there WAS a pretty good-sized HOLE in
> the back part of JFK's head at the start of the autopsy

Not "miraculously," and this is the same problem you and I had last year.
I kept explaining to you over and over and over what the cause of that
hole was, that it was not exit damage from a frontal shot, and that it did
not involve any bone being missing from the back of the skull, and you
kept refusing to read what I wrote, and you kept inventing strawman
arguments addressing things I never said.

> ....but then, a few
> hours later, the huge hole

I have never once said the hole was "huge." I have said that fractured
bone was displaced, not missing, and combined with a rip in the scalp,
showed a hole into the skull. That is not a major thing to repair.

> in BOTH THE SCALP AND SKULL of the President
> was "repaired" in such a way so that no sign of ANY hole (or scalp damage)
> showed up on the X-rays and the photos?

The lateral x-ray plainly shows the severe fracturing I'm talking about
in the rear of the skull.

> That's really bizarre. And pretty much impossible, to boot.

How, exactly, is that impossible? You have never once explained that to
me.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5058b154$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> David:
>
> Oh, David have you made a mistake starting it with Mr. King.

He already made that "mistake" in August of last year. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article
<641113ea-5750-4351...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

And "caeruleo" is still at the beginning of my email address today,
which is the same email address I used back then.

So let's try it this way, David.

By far the most obvious damage to JFK's head in the Zapruder film are
the huge, nasty flaps of scalp, bone, whatever, that open up in front of
his right ear, correct?

But starting with Clint Hill, the first to see JFK's head up close
besides Jackie, there is a lack of description of such a thing on the
right side of his head, correct?

Almost none of the Parkland doctors and nurses mention any huge open
flaps on the right side of his head, correct?

The autopsy photos of the right side of his head also do not show those
flaps open, certainly not anything like what we see in the Zapruder
film, correct?

So do you agree that most of the witnesses were correct in their
descriptions of what the right side of his head looked like after Jackie
closed up those huge flaps?

[John Reagor King]

In article <5057ee06$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

You've already replied extensively in the thread I started, "The final
photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)," so you already knew long
before today that I don't think Jackie created it.

I suspected it wouldn't be long after I took you off killfile that I
would see you, once again, as you have done so many times before, claim
I said something I never said. Lo and behold it only took a few hours.
;-)

> > none of them have to do with covering up evidence for a frontal shooter.
>
> Sure, you could dream up a theory where a massive hole in the back of
> the head was created by a shot from behind.

I don't recall ever saying that the hole was "massive."

> But then why don't we see it
> in Dealey Plaza.

Probably because it wasn't "massive"? And I very much doubt it would be
something that could be made out clearly in all those poor quality films
and photos. But "strangely," Clint Hill was quite adamant that he saw it,
and not only was he the first person to see JFK's head up close after the
head shot besides Jackie, he had a far clearer view than poor-quality
photographs taken from a greater distance. And a fair number of medical
professionals saw it too. The chances of that many different people all
being "wrong" is remote in the extreme.

> > You are doing nothing here but parroting the standard view that has been
> > expressed many times before. You'll never understand why I say what I do
> > until you read more than one percent of what I've written on this subject,
> > which you clearly haven't, or you would not have dreamt of responding to
> > me, of all people, in the way you just have.
> >
>
> Why do we need to read the other 99% when we can see from the 1% that
> you are incoherent?

Lol. Pot/kettle.

Yer funnie.

:P

[John Canal]

In article <580b5e7e-d7aa-4b2a...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>

Actually David, there's been some new evidence that's been found since we
last discussed this.

Anyway, IMO, your "ignore [most of what the person you're replying to
says], and cut & paste and then top post" debating techniques, not to
mention your inability or lack of desire to even try to decipher F8, don't
make you a worthy opponent for me to debate these issues with.

Oh, I'm sorry...I forgot that you did say you saw what was undoubtedly the
entry in F8...you know, the circular defect that Dr. McAdams said was deep
inside the cranial cavity and wasn't the entry? You know, that one.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken (and I've kept hard copies of most of our
exchanges, so I could check), you've already admitted you weren't 100%
certain that there was no BOH wound.

Indeed, getting even that admission from you, in a forum where no one ever
concedes anything significant, was sort of an accomplishment in itself
that I was pleased with.

:-)

John Canal


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Reagor King]

In article
<580b5e7e-d7aa-4b2a...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Ok, I'm taking a look at that. And I'm going to reply to you in the
harshest terms the moderators will allow if you reply to me again
without addressing my points *in* *detail*. Failing to do so will give
me and many others the impression that you are absolutely incapable of
refuting me, whether that is really true or not.

I'm clicking now on 'THE BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND ("BOH") WITNESSES VS.
THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?' I shall now discuss a few things
said on the resulting page.

Here you say:

"But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in
Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine)
position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency
room? It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying
on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his
head. Very strange."

What I'm curious about, Mr. von Pein, is why you say these witnesses
said the hole was in the "very back part of his head" when this text
appears right below photos of fourteen of those witnesses, almost all of
whom are demonstrating the location of the hole as being very decidedly
on the *right* rear of his head, some of them even seeming to show the
hole as being just behind his right ear. Where on earth are you getting
"the very back part of his head" from?

Don't tell me that's not a perfectly legitimate question that you ought
to address. You will not fail to address it, directly and
unequivocally, in your very next reply to me, correct? A refusal to do
that will be interpreted as an obvious refusal on your part to admit
that you made an obvious, and very serious, mistake about what these
witnesses were claiming.

Here's the next part:

"But in order to believe the several back-of-the-head ("BOH") wound
witnesses, we are also (at the very same time) being forced to DISbelieve
and completely disregard an enormous amount of the official, documented
evidence in the JFK murder case (and at the same time assume that a
large number of people, within various organizations, told numerous lies
with respect to the facts surrounding Kennedy's death and also faked
evidence to support a Lone-Assassin conclusion). I ask -- Is that type
of conspiratorial belief any MORE logical than
the LNers who disbelieve the witnesses who support a large wound in the
back of JFK's head?"

But Mr. von Pein, what if the hole on the right rear (not "very back")
of his head was *not* caused by the exiting of a bullet shot from the
front but was *instead* just another aspect of the overall damage from
the bullet fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD? Then it wouldn't
conflict in the slightest with a shot from the TSBD. I have told you
this before, and you have almost always ignored me when I have. You can
at least answer it this time, can't you?

Here's the next part:

"If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at
Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must
totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary
doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President). In such
a conspiracy-favoring scenario, all three of those doctors MUST be
scheming, low-life liars, who didn't hesitate to sign off on the most
important document any of them would ever sign, even though they had to
know the report was nothing but a pack of lies."

I do not agree at all with that paragraph. If the hole in the *right*
rear of his head was not caused by a shot from anywhere else but the 6th
floor, and was furthermore *not* caused by any bone being completely
missing from the skull, but instead had a *different* cause, then we do
not have to do anything even remotely like "totally trash the autopsy
report." The autopsy report is generally quite valid, so far as it
goes. It correctly states that the vast majority of the bone that was
completely blasted out of the skull was in the front half of the skull,
which is one of the main pieces of confirmation of a single shot from
the rear, and no other direction. But when the bullet entered the rear
of the skull, it still caused severe cracks and fissures throughout the
rear of the skull. This is not disputed in the autopsy report. And
read the report very, very, very carefully. While it doesn't
specifically say there was no opening in the rear of the skull when the
body arrived at Bethesda, it also doesn't specifically say there wasn't
one either. So to say that the autopsy report directly disputes all
these witnesses is misleading. It does not. And since the autopsists
could plainly see that the damage to the back of the skull was *not* an
indication of a frontal shot anyway, this is really not as much of a
contradiction as it is all too often made out to be.

There's a lot more on that page that I'd like to address, but I'll wait
and see if you respond *meaningfully* and *plausibly* to what I've
written so far first. I will not take a kind view of your credibility
if you refuse to do so, and I wouldn't think any reasonable person would
either.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "And "caeruleo" is still at the beginning of my email address today,
which is the same email address I used back then." <<<

I know. That's how I confirmed yesterday that Caeruleo and John King
are the same person.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "So do you agree that most of the witnesses were correct in their
descriptions of what the right side of his head looked like after Jackie
closed up those huge flaps?" <<<

Yes.

I'll refer to what I wrote about this topic last summer:

[Quote on:]

"And I think this "pooling" theory is still valid (and on the
table for serious consideration) even when we consider the fact that
Jacqueline Kennedy had most likely "closed up" the flap of skull/scalp
prior to JFK arriving at Parkland. (In fact, the "Jackie Closed Up The
Wound" theory makes the "pooling blood" theory even MORE valid, in my
view. See the end of this post for the reason why I say that.)

Jackie might have "closed" up the flap, but she certainly wasn't
capable of stopping the blood from flowing from the margins of that
wound she had closed up. So a lot of blood is still coming from that
wound on the RIGHT side of his head. And we know that JFK's heart WAS
still beating, and pumping some blood through his veins, for several
minutes after he was wheeled into Trauma Room 1.

And with JFK lying flat on his back (face up) on the stretcher, the
blood coming from his right-frontal head wound would have had nowhere
else to go but toward the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL portion of his head
(since we know that gravity was still in effect on 11/22/63 at
Parkland Memorial Hospital).

[...]

Since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best evidence
in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the autopsy
report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the major
wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the
"occipital" (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I can
legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID
see a wound in the occipital area of his head.

And, yes, I realize that Humes' autopsy report does say that the large
wound in JFK's head extended "somewhat" into the "occipital" region of
his head. But that "somewhat" is a far cry from placing the major
portion of that wound in a place where virtually everyone at Parkland
placed it.

Via your "hinged flap" theory, I would think that more people at
Parkland would have placed the wound nearer the TOP of JFK's head, vs.
the BACK of the head. .... This leaves the REAL wound of exit in Mr.
Kennedy's head for the Parkland witnesses to ACTUALLY see, quite
obviously.

But, since I've already stated that it's my belief that it is highly
likely that the REAL wound of exit (or at least the major portion of
that wound) in the right-front of the head was "closed up" by Jackie
Kennedy during the high-speed drive to Parkland Hospital, I'm going to
actually have to suggest to you a theory that is probably going to
cause you to lose all respect for me entirely and, hence, you will
never take me seriously again (as you just said):

I'm going to suggest to you, via the previously discussed "pooling"
theory, that the Parkland witnesses actually saw NO PART of the major
exit wound that existed in John F. Kennedy's head on 11/22/63.

I had never really thought about this issue from this particular point-
of-view prior to today [7/17/11], but that theory I just laid on the
table is also almost CERTAINLY the exact theory that people like Dr.
Michael Baden and Vincent Bugliosi must believe as well.

Otherwise, we would have Baden and Bugliosi "pulling a Jim Moore" on
us and suggesting that the Parkland witnesses actually DID see the one
and only large right-frontal wound in John Kennedy's head, but
(somehow) they all became disoriented as to the real location of that
wound, due to Kennedy's supine posture while in the emergency room.

But Baden and Bugliosi are NOT suggesting such a ludicrous thing at
all. Instead, they are saying what I have said in the past as well --
that the Parkland people DID know JFK's "front" from his "back", but
they interpreted a lot of blood and brain tissue adhering to the right-
rear of Kennedy's head as being an actual/physical WOUND residing in
the location of all that blood and tissue.

But since we know that a large wound was NOT located in that right-
rear-occipital area (and Baden and Bugliosi don't think ANY sort of
wound resided in that location either), this must, therefore, indicate
that both Baden and Bugliosi must legitimately believe that most of
the Parkland witnesses saw NO REAL WOUND in President Kennedy's head.

And, stopping to think about this scenario a tad longer, that theory
of the Parkland people seeing no large wound at all DOES make some
sense indeed, due to the fact that Jackie Kennedy, in effect,
CONCEALED that large exit wound from the view of the Parkland
witnesses before JFK's limousine reached the hospital. So, what "real"
wound WOULD there have been to see at Parkland under these conditions
(and via the "pooling blood" theory I've spoken of)?" -- DVP; July 17,
2011

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html

[David Von Pein]

>>> "There's a lot more on that page that I'd like to address, but I'll
wait and see if you respond *meaningfully* and *plausibly* to what I've
written so far first. I will not take a kind view of your credibility if
you refuse to do so, and I wouldn't think any reasonable person would
either." <<<

I'm not rehashing all of this stuff yet again--either with you or with
Mr. Canal. My previous posts took many hours to put together and they
speak for themselves. If you or John C. disagree, so be it.

Here's the complete "BOH" series:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

[John Reagor King]

In article
<3c3f20f5-0fc7-4490...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "There's a lot more on that page that I'd like to address, but I'll
> wait and see if you respond *meaningfully* and *plausibly* to what I've
> written so far first. I will not take a kind view of your credibility if
> you refuse to do so, and I wouldn't think any reasonable person would
> either." <<<
>
> I'm not rehashing all of this stuff yet again--either with you or with
> Mr. Canal. My previous posts took many hours to put together and they
> speak for themselves.

How dare you.

*My* previous posts to you in some cases also took hours to put together,
and they also speak for themselves.

And you quite obviously ignored at least 90% of what I wrote. Obviously,
because you kept working up strawman arguments against claims I had never
made.

And how dare you suggest that you would have to "rehash" all this stuff
with me? When did you ever "hash" in the first place with me your very
obvious mistake in claiming the witnesses said the hole was in the "very
back" of JFK's head, when actually they said it was in the right rear of
his head? Please produce the Google Groups URL and/or Message ID of any
article you ever posted in reply to me in which you admitted this obvious
mistake on your part, so that I can admit my error and apologize for it,
or else please admit that you do not actually know for certain if you have
ever discussed this matter in the first place.

I do not recall you even once "hashing" this matter with me, much less
"rehashing" it with me. You have yet to do it with me for the first time
ever.

Isn't that correct, Mr. von Pein?

> If you or John C. disagree, so be it.

You say you disagree with me, while making it obvious that you don't
have any idea what you're disagreeing with. You continue to disagree
with arguments I've never made.

> Here's the complete "BOH" series:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Yes, yes, yes, I've seen that many, many, many times. And all that does
is address the Parkland people being wrong because there wasn't evidence
of a frontal shot, only of a shot from the rear.

It is absolutely astonishing to me that you clearly do not yet
understand, thirteen months after I first told you, that I DO NOT
BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE FRONT EITHER.

And you have, even once, given a plausible reason why all these medical
professionals were wrong about what they saw in the RIGHT REAR of JFK's
head? When did you "hash" that with me, for the first time ever, much
less "rehashed" it with me again?

I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for you to discuss it with
me for the first time ever.

And when did you discuss with me, for the first time ever, why these
witnesses were so obviously right about the appearance of the right side
of JFK's head, but suddenly so very "wrong" about what his head looked
like a few inches behind his right ear?

Yesterday.

Sadly, you once again made the blithering mistake, with me of all
people, to still post your rebuttal to a frontal shot, which was never,
ever, ever what I was talking about.

When on earth will you ever tire of arguing with something I never said?
You're as bad as Anthony Marsh in that regard.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<3475cc0b-f42c-4afc...@t4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "So do you agree that most of the witnesses were correct in their
> descriptions of what the right side of his head looked like after Jackie
> closed up those huge flaps?" <<<
>
> Yes.

And there you agree. Sadly, not one paragraph, phrase, or sentence in
the entire text you produced below addresses what I have said about why
these same witnesses ought to have been just as correct about what they
saw a few inches behind JFK's right ear.

> I'll refer to what I wrote about this topic last summer:

Last summer? My arguments have evolved considerably since then. Sadly,
yours, apparently, have remained in frozen stasis. And I remember all
too well what you said to me last summer, Mr. von Pein, how in quite a
few articles you argued with arguments I've never once made. I, of all
people, have no need whatsoever for those same old irrelevant arguments
to simply be re-quoted to me at this late date. It will thus be
necessary for me to only address a couple of passages in what follows.

> Since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best evidence
> in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the autopsy
> report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the major
> wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the
> "occipital" (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I can
> legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID
> see a wound in the occipital area of his head.

And there it is. Proof that you still today think I believe the hole in
the right rear of his head was due to the exiting of a bullet, even
though I've told you many, many, many times that I don't believe any
such hogwash. Otherwise, why would you still be telling me, of all
people, that the major wound of exit was not in the occipital, when I've
told you many, many, many times that I ***AGREE*** with that?

When will you ever, ever, ever finally stop acting as if I've claimed
something I've never once claimed?

And you still refuse to give an even remotely plausible reason why the
"Parkland witnesses," as you call them, were so very "wrong" about what
they said they saw behind JFK's right ear, while you have already freely
admitted that they were correct about what they saw in front of his
right ear. You must think they were all blithering idiots, including
the neurosurgeons, who "didn't know" the difference between those two
parts of a human head.

> And, yes, I realize that Humes' autopsy report does say that the large
> wound in JFK's head extended "somewhat" into the "occipital" region of
> his head. But that "somewhat" is a far cry from placing the major
> portion of that wound in a place where virtually everyone at Parkland
> placed it.

So why did they place it there anyway? These were medical
professionals. You have never once given a remotely plausible reason
for that.

> Via your "hinged flap" theory, I would think that more people at
> Parkland would have placed the wound nearer the TOP of JFK's head, vs.
> the BACK of the head.

You are woefully behind the times. I abandoned the "hinged flap theory"
more than a year ago. And I asked you to read my article, "The final
photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1)," to see something that comes
closer to representing my *present* views, and you plainly have not done
so.

You're absolutely refusing to even TRY to understand what my viewpoint
is, isn't that correct, Mr. von Pein? I don't have a bit of a problem
with you disagreeing with me. But when you claim to disagree with me in
the obvious context of having no idea what you're disagreeing with, that
is inexcusable, and suggests to me that you are not seriously interested
in the JFK assassination.

> .... This leaves the REAL wound of exit in Mr.
> Kennedy's head for the Parkland witnesses to ACTUALLY see, quite
> obviously.

Sigh...

How many more times must I explain to you, and explain to you, and
explain to you that what the Parkland witnesses saw in the right rear of
JFK's head WAS ***NOT*** A WOUND OF EXIT?

How dare you say to me in your other reply that you didn't wish to
rehash all this with me? I have rehashed all of this with you a much
greater number of times. You haven't even "hashed" it with me once,
much less "rehashed."

I was right.

You are indeed totally incapable of refuting me.

If that was not true, you would have already done it many, many, many
articles ago.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<88168c92-c594-432f...@ft6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

Wow, good catch.

Too bad you never show such expertise in sleuthing when you are
incapable of admitting your blatant error on your own blog of claiming
that the witnesses said that the hole was in the "very back" of JFK's
head, right below fourteen photographs of fourteen witnesses placing
their hands decidedly to the right of the "very back" of their heads.
Most of them are indicating a location only a few inches behind the
right ear. I caught that the very first time I read what you wrote.
How come you still haven't? And on your blog you only say they were
wrong because there was no exit wound back there.

Nowhere on your blog, nowhere, do you explain why they were wrong about
what they saw, since it ***WASN'T*** an exit wound. You only say they
were wrong in the context of it ***BEING*** an exit wound, which it
obviously wasn't.

And nowhere on your entire blog, nowhere, do you explain the obvious
internal inconsistency in your own arguments, that these very same
witnesses were so obviously right (even according to you) about what
JFK's head looked like in front of his right ear (after Jackie closed up
the gigantic flaps seen in the Zapruder film; even you agree she
obviously did that) but then make an absolute 180 degree about face and
claim that these witnesses were as wrong about what they saw behind his
right ear, as they were right about what they saw in front of his right
ear.

Don't you *want* a larger percentage of the public to believe there was
only one shooter than has ever believed it before? I do. But you don't
seem to care about that at all. If that weren't true, why do you post
such abysmally weak arguments to support the idea that the Parkland
people were wrong, but only about what his head looked like behind the
right ear, but not wrong about what his head looked like in front of the
right ear? I assure you the vast majority of the public knows perfectly
well that the average child of ten, without a day of medical training,
knows the difference between the front half of a human head and the rear
half, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.
In front of the right ear is the front half of the head. Behind the
right ear is the rear half of the head. And you're claiming that
adults, who did indeed have at least one day of medical training, didn't
know the difference. Who on earth are you trying to convince with this
hogwash?

Quite obviously not the public.

It is patently obvious that I care much more about the public learning
the real truth about the JFK assassination than you do. My explanation
doesn't include the ridiculous assertion that approximately forty adults
didn't know the difference between the part of the head that is in front
of the right ear and the part of the head that is behind the right ear.
My explanation tells the public that, even though it really is true that
there was a hole behind JFK's right ear, it is not evidence of a shot
from the front. It was caused by something totally different from that.
My explanation tells the public precisely why that hole seems not to be
there in the lateral x-ray and BOH photos, without having to claim that
someone, anyone, was trying to cover up a shot from the front. My
explanation tells the public that the autopsy did indeed prove that only
one shot hit the President's head, and that it was fired from the rear
only, and that this very real hole in the right rear of his head being
evidence of a shot from any other direction is a myth.

"Somehow," I'm able to admit, freely, that the hole in the right rear of
his head was really there, and that the c.40 adult witnesses who said it
was there were correct, and yet give a plausible explanation to the
public that even with all of that, the only shot which hit JFK's head
struck that same head in the rear, and that the true exit damage was
primarily in the front half of his head.

But of course you don't have the slightest idea why none of this causes
me any moral crisis whatsoever.

Because you absolutely refuse to read more than 10% of what I've
written, ever.

That is quite obviously why you still continue to argue with arguments
I've never made.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN KING SAID:

It is absolutely astonishing to me that you clearly do not yet
understand, thirteen months after I first told you, that I DO NOT
BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE FRONT EITHER.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

I know full well that you DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE
FRONT. I've known that fact about you since July 2011. [Tongue Twister
Alert! ---->] What makes you think that I think that you think there
was a shot from the front? I don't think I have ever suggested you
did.

JOHN KING SAID:

And you have, even once, given a plausible reason why all these
medical professionals were wrong about what they saw in the RIGHT REAR
of JFK's head?

DVP SAYS:

Oh, yes, I certainly have given a plausible explanation for that
occurrence, Mr. King. And it's the same explanation given by both
Vince Bugliosi and Michael Baden. You might not think it's "plausible"
at all, but given the circumstances and the truth that exists in the
autopsy photos and X-rays, I think the "pooling blood/brain" theory
makes the most sense. And I even presented this explanation (many
times) in our discussions last summer, including my last paragraph in
Part 16 of my "BOH" series at my site, which reads as follows:

"[The] Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head,
and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was
the only physical "hole" in his head." -- DVP; July 2011

In addition, I made my position regarding the "pooling blood" theory
very plain in one of my very first posts to you in July of
2011....this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2aa1a5fd8093cb04

And you obviously haven't read everything that I've written on this
subject (at least not very thoroughly), because you've accused me of
constantly claiming that I have said that the Parkland witnesses said
they saw a big hole at the "very back" of JFK's head (vs. using the
words "right rear"). And I'm sure it's true that on occasion I've
utilized those exact words ("very back")--which IS true, however, with
respect to some of the Parkland witnesses' claims, such as Dr. Dulany--
but FAR more often I use the words "right-rear" or "far-right-rear" to
describe where the Parkland witnesses placed the large wound.

In fact, just look at how many times I've used those precise words --
"right-rear" -- in the discussion I had with YOU in 2011 (below). I
used those words at least TEN times (count 'em for yourself), while I
utilized the words "very back" a total of ZERO times in this
discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html

JOHN KING SAID:

My explanation doesn't include the ridiculous assertion that
approximately forty adults didn't know the difference between the part
of the head that is in front of the right ear and the part of the head
that is behind the right ear.

DVP:

~sigh~

Now I know you haven't paid any attention at all to what I wrote in
our discussion last year. For Pete sake, John, in my "BOH Part 16"
article above (which was our lengthiest session from last year if I'm
not mistaken, hence the reason why I archived that particular long
post at my site)--in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH--I talk about how I do
NOT believe in the "ridiculous" theory you just outlined above. Here's
exactly what I said on that matter:

"My theory about the Parkland witnesses has NEVER been that any
of them somehow mislabelled the area of JFK's head where they said
they saw the wound. I have a feeling that you still think I'm in the
"Jim Moore camp" with respect to this issue. But I'm certainly not.
But have you read Jim Moore's theory on this? He thinks all the
Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify the part of JFK's head that
contained the large exit wound, simply because Kennedy was lying on
his back in the emergency room." -- DVP; July 2011

JOHN KING SAID:

Sadly, you once again made the blithering mistake, with me of all
people, to still post your rebuttal to a frontal shot, which was
never, ever, ever what I was talking about.

DVP:

Are you of the opinion, John K., that ALL of the many parts in my
"BOH" series on my site are being directed solely at you and nobody
else? Why would you think such a thing?

And please point out to me where I have ever claimed that YOU,
specfically, were a conspiracy theorist or where I have stated that
you believe that any of JFK's wounds were caused by a frontal shot?
AFAIK, I have never made any such claim when addressing you.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<ccb020e4-750d-4ce2...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> JOHN KING SAID:
>
> It is absolutely astonishing to me that you clearly do not yet
> understand, thirteen months after I first told you, that I DO NOT
> BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE FRONT EITHER.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> I know full well that you DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE
> FRONT. I've known that fact about you since July 2011. [Tongue Twister
> Alert! ---->] What makes you think that I think that you think there
> was a shot from the front? I don't think I have ever suggested you
> did.

Then why on earth do you keep posting links from your blog, in reply to
me of all people, which only discuss the witnesses being wrong in the
context of them being wrong about the right rear hole being an exit hole
from a frontal shot?

> JOHN KING SAID:
>
> And you have, even once, given a plausible reason why all these
> medical professionals were wrong about what they saw in the RIGHT REAR
> of JFK's head?
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Oh, yes, I certainly have given a plausible explanation for that
> occurrence, Mr. King. And it's the same explanation given by both
> Vince Bugliosi and Michael Baden. You might not think it's "plausible"
> at all, but given the circumstances and the truth that exists in the
> autopsy photos and X-rays, I think the "pooling blood/brain" theory
> makes the most sense. And I even presented this explanation (many
> times) in our discussions last summer, including my last paragraph in
> Part 16 of my "BOH" series at my site, which reads as follows:
>
> "[The] Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head,
> and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was
> the only physical "hole" in his head." -- DVP; July 2011

And that explains how such a thing could possibly have fooled more than
one neurosurgeon at Parkland? Your explanation is way too overly
simplistic, and does not take into account the vast majority of the
evidence. Speaking of that, there were parts of the cerebellum pooling
out of his head? Who said that? You weren't there, and neither was I;
the neurosurgeons were there.

And how does this possibly account for witnesses at Bethesda saying the
hole in the right rear of his head was *still* there when the body was
unwrapped, including at least a few witnesses who saw his head both in
Dallas and at Bethesda?

And how does this come anywhere close to accounting for the fact that
the same witnesses were so obviously correct about the appearance of the
right side of his head in front of his right ear (which even you have
admitted)? You are fudging, using one of the least plausible
possibilities. You also falsely claimed that you have discussed this
possibility with me before, re the "pooling." You did NOT discuss this
with me before yesterday. Prove me wrong. Please. Produce even one
Message-ID and/or Google Groups URL which shows you talked about this
pooling in directly reply to anyone using "caeruleo" at the beginning of
their email address. I honestly remember no such thing from before
yesterday, but I will be happy to admit I'm wrong if it is proven, not
merely alleged, that I am wrong.

> In addition, I made my position regarding the "pooling blood" theory
> very plain in one of my very first posts to you in July of
> 2011....this one:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2aa1a5fd8093cb04

Nowhere in that article does the word "pooling" appear. And you support
your argument by saying this:

"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."

That is in the context of the hole in the right rear BEING an exit
wound, NOT in the context of it NOT being an exit wound.

So I was right all along. You did not last year discuss this with me in
the context of it NOT being an exit.

Did you think I wouldn't easily catch this, David?

> And you obviously haven't read everything that I've written on this
> subject (at least not very thoroughly), because you've accused me of
> constantly claiming that I have said that the Parkland witnesses said
> they saw a big hole at the "very back" of JFK's head (vs. using the
> words "right rear").

Quoted verbatim from your blog, again:

"It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying

on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his
head."

That text appears right below photos of fourteen people, not one of
which is indicating the "very back" of their heads:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html

Ok David, so maybe *elsewhere* on your blog you use the words "right
rear" instead of "very back". So? Why have you still not *corrected*
the *obvious* mistake on *that* page of your blog? I'm looking at it
right now, and your text still falsely claims them to have indicated the
"very back" of their heads. You have the photos right above that text.
What on earth is taking you so long to correct this obvious mistake?
Didn't your text say the same thing more than a year ago?

> And I'm sure it's true that on occasion I've
> utilized those exact words ("very back")--which IS true, however, with
> respect to some of the Parkland witnesses' claims, such as Dr. Dulany--
> but FAR more often I use the words "right-rear" or "far-right-rear" to
> describe where the Parkland witnesses placed the large wound.

Strange then that you have not yet, in DIRECT REPLY TO ME given *me*
even one link, not even one time, for any page on your blog where you
used the words "right rear" instead of the words "very back," unless I
am very much mistaken, which I suppose I could be. But I honestly do
not remember you ever doing that.

And oh please, but when have you ever, ever, ever in direct reply to me,
produced a link to anything on your blog which discusses the possibility
of an actual *hole* (not pooling of brains/blood/whatever) in the right
rear of his head which *isn't* a hole produced by the exiting of a
frontal shot? I've been looking at your blog for years, David, and I do
not recall ever seeing such an article there, whether the link was
posted in direct rely to me or not.

> In fact, just look at how many times I've used those precise words --
> "right-rear" -- in the discussion I had with YOU in 2011 (below). I
> used those words at least TEN times (count 'em for yourself), while I
> utilized the words "very back" a total of ZERO times in this
> discussion:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html
>
> JOHN KING SAID:
>
> My explanation doesn't include the ridiculous assertion that
> approximately forty adults didn't know the difference between the part
> of the head that is in front of the right ear and the part of the head
> that is behind the right ear.
>
> DVP:
>
> ~sigh~
>
> Now I know you haven't paid any attention at all to what I wrote in
> our discussion last year. For Pete sake, John, in my "BOH Part 16"
> article above (which was our lengthiest session from last year if I'm
> not mistaken, hence the reason why I archived that particular long

> post at my site) --in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH--I talk about how I do

> NOT believe in the "ridiculous" theory you just outlined above. Here's
> exactly what I said on that matter:
>
> "My theory about the Parkland witnesses has NEVER been that any
> of them somehow mislabelled the area of JFK's head where they said
> they saw the wound. I have a feeling that you still think I'm in the
> "Jim Moore camp" with respect to this issue. But I'm certainly not.
> But have you read Jim Moore's theory on this? He thinks all the
> Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify the part of JFK's head that
> contained the large exit wound, simply because Kennedy was lying on
> his back in the emergency room." -- DVP; July 2011

That text above *still* talks about this *only* in the context of it
being an exit: "He thinks all the Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify

the part of JFK's head that contained the large exit wound, simply
because Kennedy was lying on his back in the emergency room."

This not only addresses nothing that I have ever said to you, it
addresses nothing I've ever said in this newsgroup since October, 2002.

Yep, you have just confirmed what I have said. Last year you only
addressed arguments I've never made, to you or any other poster, since
October, 2002.

> JOHN KING SAID:
>
> Sadly, you once again made the blithering mistake, with me of all
> people, to still post your rebuttal to a frontal shot, which was
> never, ever, ever what I was talking about.
>
> DVP:
>
> Are you of the opinion, John K., that ALL of the many parts in my
> "BOH" series on my site are being directed solely at you and nobody
> else? Why would you think such a thing?

Lol, when did I ever say that all of that on your blog was directed only
at me? Yet again, you are arguing with something I've never said. In
the sentence you quoted above, I was quite obviously referring to your
replies to me IN THIS NEWSGROUP ONLY.

Sheesh.

> And please point out to me where I have ever claimed that YOU,
> specfically, were a conspiracy theorist or where I have stated that
> you believe that any of JFK's wounds were caused by a frontal shot?
> AFAIK, I have never made any such claim when addressing you.

Then why do you keep posting, and keep posting, and keep posting, in
direct reply to me, links which dispute the hole in the right rear of
his head in the context of disputing the idea of it being an exit? You
even, in this very reply to me, posted this text:

"He thinks all the Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify the part of JFK's
head that contained the large exit wound, simply because Kennedy was
lying on his back in the emergency room."

If you're so clear that I don't think it was an exit, why do you even
now still keep replying to me with anything that suggests that anyone
thought it was an exit?

Whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, you are
still arguing with an argument I've never made.

I will ask you yet again, could you PLEASE discuss this in a context
with me that makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of ANYONE even MISTAKENLY
believing the hole in the right rear was an EXIT? I don't want to
discuss this with you in the context of an EXIT.

Are you ***FINALLY*** clear on this? You obviously were not in your
most recent reply directly to me. If that's not true, why did you still
post a rebuttal to me from last year that addresses an argument I've
never once made?

[David Von Pein]

Does anybody here have any idea what John King is rambling about?
Because I'm totally lost when he starts one of his rants. And his last
one aimed at me was particularly bizarre.

Looks like you were right, John Fiorentino. Starting up a conversation
with Mr. King was a bad idea.

[John Canal]

In article <b737a784-5ff8-4d8f...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

My question first. With all the work you've done sorting out and adding to
your blog the news broadcasts, etc. on the day of the assassination, can I
correctly assume you knew about Dan Rathers' televised announcement
(paraphrasing) that the fatal bullet entered at the base of the throat and
came out at the base of the neck on the backside?

Oh, and if you did, IYO, was that a live feed microwaved from Dallas' CBS
affiliate (KRLD) to CBS' New York HQ or was a "tape" of Rather making that
announcement microwaved with some delay to NY?

Ok, now to your question.

>Does anybody here have any idea what John King is rambling about?
>Because I'm totally lost when he starts one of his rants. And his last
>one aimed at me was particularly bizarre.

Yes, I have a perfect understanding of his points.

What I don't understand is why he bothers to continuously address these
points to you....because you obviously are locked in for life with your
"there was no BOH wound (besides the small entry)" conclusion....even
though there is evidence that your "best evidence" (the photos and the
X-rays) for your conclusions....well...reveal that your "best evidence" is
actually not all that convincing after all.

What I mean is that, and these circumstances were not addressed by VB
either, for instance, 1) there's strong evidence that your photos were
taken after the BOH scalp was repaired, 2) Boswell testified he replaced
some bone before the X-rays or photos were taken, and 3)Humes testified
they saw part of the cerebellum exposed when the body first arrived.

There are many other points supporting the existence of a BOH wound, and
JK has mentioned some, but why beat a dead horse?

Perhaps though he wants to make his points for the benefit of lurkers?...I
don't know. If he's trying to change your mind on these matters, however,
he'd have better luck convincing Marsh there was no frontal shot.

What he needs to keep in mind is that you did once admit that you're not
100% certain there was no BOH wound (and to your credit that's at least
being more open minded than McAdams, Todd, or Fiorentino has been).

Again, he needs to know Hell will freeze over before you concede more than
that.

You asked...anyone. So that's just my opinion

John Canal

>Looks like you were right, John Fiorentino. Starting up a conversation
>with Mr. King was a bad idea.
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Fiorentino]

Well, I do like to be right but in this case I'm sorry I was.

John F.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b737a784-5ff8-4d8f...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[John Reagor King]

In article
<b737a784-5ff8-4d8f...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> Does anybody here have any idea what John King is rambling about?
> Because I'm totally lost when he starts one of his rants. And his last
> one aimed at me was particularly bizarre.

What I'm "rambling" about is that you are still reposting your old
arguments to me from more than a year ago, without mentioning that I
already addressed them more than a year ago. For example, you reposted
just the other day one of your articles from more than a year ago in
which you gave the explanation that all these witnesses were fooled into
believing that there was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head by the
"pooling" of blood and tissue there. But you ignored that I did indeed
address that directly last year, yet another example of you absolutely
refusing to read most of what I've written. On July 16 of last year I
said this to you:

"I do not see how even I, who am not medically trained, could make a
mistake like that. �Too many of them described being able to see his
brain down in there, and blood pooling isn't going to look at all like a
hole because it won't have any depth."

On July 18 of last year I addressed this again:

"Blood pooling? �You can't be serious. �You think that's going to look
at all like a HOLE in the head? �And way, way, way too many of these
witnesses described specific details about that HOLE, including being
able to SEE DOWN INTO IT for that to be remotely plausible."

See how I can repost texts from my previous articles too, David?

You have never since that day addressed that particular criticism I
made, have you David? How would they be fooled into thinking that was a
hole by blood and tissue "pooling" in JFK's hair? Several of them,
including more than one neurosurgeon, said that they could see down into
the hole. There was plenty of blood and goo on the right side of his
head in front of his ear too, but hardly any of them said they saw a
hole there. Why would they be fooled by the blood and goo in the right
rear of his head, but not be fooled by something almost identical
looking in the right front of his head.

You have claimed that you've already addressed all my arguments more
than a year ago. No you have not. I'm looking right now at the threads
from which my above texts come, and not one of your replies makes any
mention whatsoever of me having made this argument in the first place,
much less addressing it directly.

https://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=caeruleo+david+von+pein+pool
ing&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&scoring=d&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as
_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=7&as_miny=2011&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2011
&as_ugroup=alt.assassination.jfk&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&safe=off

> Looks like you were right, John Fiorentino. Starting up a conversation
> with Mr. King was a bad idea.

Looks like I was right: starting up a conversation with Mr. von Pein was
a bad idea. All he ever does is repeat his old arguments over and over
and over again, and ignores every criticism made of his arguments, no
matter how obviously valid they are. Mr. von Pein will commit the
further sin of claiming he addressed arguments last year that he never
once addressed, and still hasn't addressed to the present day.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5060577d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

> Well, I do like to be right but in this case I'm sorry I was.

Whereas I'm not sorry to yet again point out to all the readers of this
newsgroup, whether they post here or not, that you are perhaps even worse
about ducking reasonable questions than Mr. von Pein is. You absolutely
refused to answer my perfectly reasonable question, over and over and
over, what material you were using in your experiment to prove that JFK's
scalp would have torn if stretched. You then falsely claimed that I would
find the answer to that question in the archives. But when I looked in
the archives for the articles you had posted in previous years about this
experiment, I found that you had not named the material in those articles
either. I also found that in your earlier articles, as in your more
recent ones, you said that you had talked to two forensics experts and two
morticians about stretching the scalp, and that they had laughed at the
idea that it could be stretched more than a tiny amount. But nowhere in
any of those articles did you say that you had then asked them if the
scalp could be stretched any farther if it was undermined first prior to
stretching.

And that had been another of my questions to you.

You said all my questions would be answered in the archives.

They weren't. Not one of them was.

You led me on a wild goose chase, and I want to make sure everyone who
reads this newsgroup knows it.

[John Reagor King]

In article <k3non...@drn.newsguy.com>,

John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <b737a784-5ff8-4d8f...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>

> >Does anybody here have any idea what John King is rambling about?
> >Because I'm totally lost when he starts one of his rants. And his last
> >one aimed at me was particularly bizarre.
>
> Yes, I have a perfect understanding of his points.
>
> What I don't understand is why he bothers to continuously address these
> points to you....because you obviously are locked in for life with your
> "there was no BOH wound (besides the small entry)" conclusion....even
> though there is evidence that your "best evidence" (the photos and the
> X-rays) for your conclusions....well...reveal that your "best evidence" is
> actually not all that convincing after all.
>
> What I mean is that, and these circumstances were not addressed by VB
> either, for instance, 1) there's strong evidence that your photos were
> taken after the BOH scalp was repaired, 2) Boswell testified he replaced
> some bone before the X-rays or photos were taken, and 3)Humes testified
> they saw part of the cerebellum exposed when the body first arrived.
>
> There are many other points supporting the existence of a BOH wound, and
> JK has mentioned some, but why beat a dead horse?
>
> Perhaps though he wants to make his points for the benefit of lurkers?

Indeed, and not just for the lurkers, but for everyone who reads this
newsgroup, even the ones who do post here.

I also want everyone who reads this newsgroup to notice that Mr. von Pein
has falsely claimed that he addressed all of my arguments last year. No
he did not, nor has he done so this year. I told him last July that all
these witnesses would be very unlikely to be fooled into believing that
there was a hole in the right rear of his head by the "pooling" of blood
and tissue in the right rear of his head since that would be on the
*outside* of his head, and that furthermore they weren't fooled by the
very similar "pooling" of blood and tissue forward of his right ear into
believing there was an open hole there, which there wasn't, because Jackie
had closed the flaps. Over the past few days David has falsely claimed
that he addressed *all* my arguments last year. No, this one he has still
to the present day not even mentioned me making, much less addressed it
directly. He continues to act as if I never said this at all to him last
year. I also asked him last year how on earth this "pooling" could
possibly fool more than one neurosurgeon into believing that they were
looking at JFK's brain through a hole in his head, and to the present day
David has never even mentioned that I said this to him last year, much
less addressed it directly.

> ...I
> don't know. If he's trying to change your mind on these matters, however,
> he'd have better luck convincing Marsh there was no frontal shot.

Looks like I'd have better luck convincing the tide not to come in by
convincing the moon to stop having gravity. But since I know that many
other people read this group besides him, I'll keep going, and his refusal
to even notice that I've made certain arguments will be to my advantage,
since plenty of people will have the common sense to see the obvious: that
he's refusing to even attempt to plausibly refute me, especially when he
makes identical arguments more than a year later, and doesn't even
acknowledge that I made plausible arguments against them last year, and
still today acts as if I never posted the texts that I actually did post.

> What he needs to keep in mind is that you did once admit that you're not
> 100% certain there was no BOH wound (and to your credit that's at least
> being more open minded than McAdams, Todd, or Fiorentino has been).
>
> Again, he needs to know Hell will freeze over before you concede more than
> that.

Or the tide will stop coming in because the moon has suddenly become the
first object of significant mass in the entire history of the universe to
stop producing gravity.