David VP, question for you, if you don't mind.
John Canal
1. BOH wound.
2. Entry location (near-EOP vs. cowlick).
3. 6.5 mm opacity.
I'm asking you this, because, from reading some of your posts, I consider you to
be well-read on this case and a logical thinker.
Thanks...in advance...I think.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> Actually three, sorry. What is your position on the following issues?
>
> 1. BOH wound.
>
> 2. Entry location (near-EOP vs. cowlick).
>
> 3. 6.5 mm opacity.
>
> I'm asking you this, because, from reading some of your posts, I consider you to
> be well-read on this case and a logical thinker.
>
Wrong on all four.
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>>"David VP, question for you, if you don't mind. .... Actually three, sorry. What
>>>>is your position on the following issues? .... I'm asking you this, because,
>>>>from reading some of your posts, I consider you to be well-read on this case and
>>>>a logical thinker." <<<
>
Thanks for getting back and the thoroness with which you answered....the
first two. :-)
I'll hold off, though, replying until you've had an opportunity to answer
the third part. I was asking for your take on the 6.5 mm opacity seen on
the copies of the AP X-ray.
Thanks.
John Canal
David Von Pein
sorry. What is your position on the following issues? .... I'm asking you
well-read on this case and a logical thinker." <<<
====================================================
>>> "(#1.) BOH wound." <<<
I've talked about this previously (as recently as Jan 24th; full link
below, w/other issues included there too)....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eb2ef466d5583fc3
Below, I've copied my "BOH" stuff from that post (and, yes, it's always
been the #1 item on my list of "THINGS I MOST LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING VINCE
B. TACKLE IN HIS BOOK"; maybe he'll say something similar to this below; I
have no idea; but we'll see in May).....
~~~~~~~
"As I said before, I cannot fully explain the strange "BOH" tale that has
been told by so many Parkland (and Bethesda) people since 1963. But I'm
certainly not willing to insult the basic intelligence of multiple
professional medical technicians, doctors, and nurses by speculating (as
author Jim Moore does in his book "Conspiracy Of One") that NONE of these
people could tell the SIDE of a patient's head from the BACK of his
cranium. That's just crazy, IMO.
[Full review of Jim Moore's book here:]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000HMSIBE&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=ROEPV7B8GNG96&displayType=ReviewDetail
If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different
observers could all see the same (wrong) thing re. JFK's head wound, I'd
say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming
from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling
toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the
hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers
that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen.
I think it's also possible (and, I admit, this is just a guess as well)
that when Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy was "trying to hold his head on" (as
Mrs. Kennedy later said) during the high-speed ride to the hospital, it's
quite possible that the loose piece of "hinged" scalp (which is a "flap"
of skull/scalp that can be seen in the autopsy photos taken at Bethesda
after the body was returned to Washington) was at least partially hiding
the large hole at the right side of JFK's head when he was in the
emergency room at Parkland.
This "flap" of loose scalp could then have dislodged itself from INSIDE
the cratered wound on the right side of the head before the autopsy photos
were taken on the night of November 22. The "flap", as seen in the photos,
is not covering any portion of the right-side head wound, but instead is
hinged "outward" from the wound.
Whether that "flap" was configured in that exact "outward" position at
Parkland we can never know. But I think it's certainly a possibility that
the "flap" could have been covering the large exit wound, especially in
light of the fact that Jackie Kennedy, we know, was physically handling
the President's head during the drive to Parkland, and also was "trying to
hold his head on"." -- DVP; January 2007
===================
>>> "(#2.) Entry location (near EOP vs. cowlick)." <<<
I truly don't think it matters. I know that's probably a crappy answer
from any "definitive" POV....but that's the way I feel. I truly believe
there was JUST ONE ENTRY HOLE in the back of JFK's head, and it's the red
dot (hole) here.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
The labelling of its precise location on JFK's head has varied, no doubt.
But couldn't it possibly be due to a "loose scalp" that's kind of
"sliding" around on JFK's badly-damaged head?*
* = I'll admit, that explanation, too, fails to please me
entirely...because if it were the case -- WHY DIDN'T THE DOCTORS NOTE THE
"SLIDE" EFFECT OF ANY LOOSE SCALP (which might affect measurements)?
But the bottom line for me is -- ONE hole in the back of the head (without
a shred of a doubt via Humes' testimony, et al, and the autopsy report
itself, which verifies JUST ONE ENTRY HOLE. The precise anatomical
location doesn't seem overly important.
It could equate with the ever-present argument re. JFK's clothing holes,
and their discrepancy vs. the "skin" wound location. A "loosened" scalp
could equate to the "loose jacket" on Kennedy's back...therefore,
differing hole locations depending on how these things are viewed and/or
photographed.**
** = CTers will probably jump on that last sentence as a bunch of WC-
shilling double-speak...and I'll admit, I'm just guessing about these two
items John has brought up. But CTers are forced to guess all the time...so
what are ya gonna do? ;)
Re. #1 again, it comes down pretty much to a tough choice of WHO and WHAT
to believe. We have multiple witnesses saying one thing...but we also have
verified autopsy reports and photos (and the Z-Film too for everybody to
gaze upon till doomsday) saying another. The BOH matter is my #1 snafu in
the whole case, I'll admit (again).
But the CTers who favor the "BOH wound witnesses" MUST, at the same time,
disregard (as invalid, fake, or whatever) a wealth of hard, verified stuff
that is JUST AS CONVINCING AS THOSE WITNESSES -- photos, the doctors, the
Z-Film, and the AR.
But I think my "possible hidden parietal hole" explanation that I talked
about above might have some merit. (In fact, John, didn't you also agree
with that scenario--at least in part--a few months back when this came up
before? Seems to me you did. But maybe I'm thinking of someone else.)
====================
>>> "(#3.) 6.5 mm opacity." <<<
That is the wholly-UNKNOWN 6.5mm. "virtually-round object" on the AP X-
ray...right? (To term it like the CTers do anyway.)
As mentioned, it's an "unknown" that we don't have enough data about to
make ANY kind of a definitive, firm decision on.
Is it a "bullet fragment"? Beats me. But if it IS, I'd ask CTers how that
fact would help EXONERATE Lee Oswald and his 6.5-mm. weapon?? It MATCHES.
Wrong side of the head, the CTers will say? Okay...but the mm. size
MATCHES Oswald's gun. I can't see how it's something that aids the overall
"CT" case there.
And didn't Ebersole say it was an "artifact"? Hence, not a bullet fragment
at all.
It's a subject that isn't definitive at all in any direction....so I can't
see how it harms the LN scenario....and given the supposed "6.5 mm." size
of this "THING" (whatever it is/was), it does not harm the LN scenario
featuring Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
Kennedy's head was blasted wide open; fragments flying everywhere; and a
C2766-consistent fragment (per Dr. Vincent Guinn) is found in Kennedy's
head; and ONLY ONE BULLET HIT JFK IN HIS HEAD!
I'll leave the math from the above laundry list to somebody else. (But if
you ask me to add those up -- I'd say: LN/LHO/C2766.)
~MARK VII~ ;)
DVP
David Von Pein
Another grand and informative post from Tony "VB's Book Will Never See
The Light Of Day" Marsh.
Nice.
eca...@tx.rr.com
A++ on a highly subjective subject
David, that may not have the B&W
explanation that both sides would
prefer..
Ed
On Mar 19, 9:36 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David VP, question for you, if you don't mind. .... Actually three,
>
> sorry. What is your position on the following issues? .... I'm asking you
> this, because, from reading some of your posts, I consider you to be
> well-read on this case and a logical thinker." <<<
>
> ====================================================
>
> >>> "(#1.) BOH wound." <<<
>
> I've talked about this previously (as recently as Jan 24th; full link
> below, w/other issues included there too)....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eb2ef466d558...
>
> Below, I've copied my "BOH" stuff from that post (and, yes, it's always
> been the #1 item on my list of "THINGS I MOST LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING VINCE
> B. TACKLE IN HIS BOOK"; maybe he'll say something similar to this below; I
> have no idea; but we'll see in May).....
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> "As I said before, I cannot fully explain the strange "BOH" tale that has
> been told by so many Parkland (and Bethesda) people since 1963. But I'm
> certainly not willing to insult the basic intelligence of multiple
> professional medical technicians, doctors, and nurses by speculating (as
> author Jim Moore does in his book "Conspiracy Of One") that NONE of these
> people could tell the SIDE of a patient's head from the BACK of his
> cranium. That's just crazy, IMO.
>
> [Full review of Jim Moore's book here:]http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...