POLL -- HOW MANY LNers BELIEVE THERE WAS A BIG HOLE IN THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD?
David Von Pein
Poll.....
Just "for the record", is there a single "LNer" posting here at this
newsgroup who actually thinks there was a large hole in the BACK part
of JFK's head on 11/22/63 (not counting John Canal, who is actually
more of a conspiracy theorist)?
If there's even ONE LNer who answers "Yes" to the above question I'll
be very VERY surprised (and shocked....and completely bewildered).
bigdog
Not me. The back of JFK's head was visible in the Z-film. No gaping
hole there. It is visible in the autopsy pics. Just a small bullet
hole.
Steve
Of course not. The Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, and the Mooreman
all reveal there was no hole in the back of the President's head. And
since there is not one scrap of credible evidence supporting Z-film
alteration that settles the issue for me. In addition, the autopsy
photos and x-rays do not reveal any damage to the left rear of the
president's head and since there is not one speck of credible evidence
to support the theories of x-ray or photograph alteration that settles
the issue for me.
Even the darling of the conspiracy medical team Cyril Wecht admits
there was no damage to the left rear of the President's head. It is
only among the neophyte pseudo-researchers that this belief is
common.
This is typical of conspiracty thinking:
If the evidence doesn't fit your pre-disposed theory, DON'T change
your theory to fit the evidence, claim the evidence has been changed
so that it fits your theory.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Larry Sturdivan doesn't post on any group but says he's open to there being some
kind of BOH wound such as one that might have resulted from one or two of the
rear bone fragments being dislodged.
Chad Zimmerman who also doesn't post any more wrote that some of the loose rear
skull fragments could have come "unlatched" resulting in the type of wound
described by the PH doctors.
Paul Seaton, who doesn't post on this group, as you well know, believes there
was a BOH wound.
All are LNers. Zimmerman and Sturdivan have examined the originals in the
archives. All know the medical evidence extremely well.
aeffects
seeing that no one here can deliver verifiable proof there wasn't (and
the Z-film is under serious scrutiny these days), those that insist
there wasn't need a doctor and probably long term therapy.... Carry
on!
aeffects
> In article <120aaf97-c484-42c9-8165-a0dc7c7ef...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
then throw in a CT-M.D.'s evaluations of JFK's NARA housed 11-22-63 x-
rays (by Dr. David Mantik) and the alleged in-camera original Z-film
begins to have, ah... problems.
John Canal
bigdog says...
So tell me Bigdog, besides believing the 20+ PH witnesses were wrong, not to
mention Clint Hill and several Bethesda witnesses, are you certain that the
autopsy doctors were wrong when they wrote in their report that the large wound
extended into the occipital...and that Humes was lying or hallucinating when he
testified he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated when the
body was first received?
Remember, two things, if you will.
One, none of us LNers who believe there was some kind of BOH wound believes, of
course, such a BOH wound was either massive or caused by a frontal shot.
And two, DVP tries to say that any BOH wound would have had to have been visible
on the films.....but some of us maintain that the wound was worsened during the
transfer from the limo to the gurney and that once prone blood and brain matter
gravitated towards a BOH opening making it appear to be much worse than it
actually was.
John Canal
John Canal
Steve says...
>
>On May 20, 8:32=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <db0a4bb6-aa2c-4469...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog says...
>
>On May 20, 4:56=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Poll.....
>>
>> Just "for the record", is there a single "LNer" posting here at this
>> newsgroup who actually thinks there was a large hole in the BACK part
>> of JFK's head on 11/22/63 (not counting John Canal, who is actually
>> more of a conspiracy theorist)?
>>
>> If there's even ONE LNer who answers "Yes" to the above question I'll
>> be very VERY surprised (and shocked....and completely bewildered).
>
>Not me. The back of JFK's head was visible in the Z-film. No gaping
>hole there. It is visible in the autopsy pics. Just a small bullet
>hole.
So tell me Steve, besides believing the 20+ PH witnesses were wrong, not to
aeffects
nothing is just-for-the-record with you shithead..... AND we're aware
of the shenanigans you *attempt* to pull around here -- ask the
*exact* same question at .johnnies, shithead:
"If there's even ONE LNer who answers "Yes" to the above question I'll
be very VERY surprised (and shocked....and completely bewildered)."
ROTFLMFAO!
John Canal
aeffects says...
His bewilderment is the least of his mental problems, IMHO. Delusional comes to
mind.
He posted once that it always bothered him that there were so many BOH wound
witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH he threw all those (about 30 total)
witnesses, including the autopsists under the bus...certain, I guess, that they
were either lying or hallucinating.
What gets me is that in RH Bugliosi used the HSCA's Baden as his no. one source
and even DVP has admitted that Baden was wrong on at least two issues.
Go figure.
>ROTFLMFAO!
Steve
If your point is that the shattered bone fragments from the rear
entrance wound and the right-frontal exit wound might have come loose
during the handling or movement of the president's head then I need to
clarify my previous answer because that fact is well established. I
believe that it was this sort damage that some of the PH personnel saw
that later gave the false impression that what they saw was an exit
wound from a frontal entry bullet. As we know, the bullet that Oswald
fired in his third shot (the one Howard Brennan witnessed him firing)
caused MASSIVE damage compromising the integrity of the skull of
Kennedy, not just where the entrance wound or the exit wound was
located. However, the number of individuals that stated they saw the
wound to the right side of the head (as opposed to the REAR) is
impressive:
1. Dr Carrico stated that "we couldn't see the rear portion of his
head. Consequently, what we did see appeared to be furrther back than
it was since we were not viewing it in relation to his whole head.
Buty really, none of us were looking closely at where the defect was
and making mental notes. We were just trying to save his life."
2. Dr. Jones admitted that it was his OPINION that the wound was to
the back of Kennedy's head, but he qualified that statement by noting
that Kennedy's bushy hair obstructed his view and it was only his
opinion as to the location of the exit wound.
3. Paul O'Connor stated that the wound he saw was to the top of the
president's head.
4. John Stringer stated that there was no doubt in his mind as to the
location of the exit wound. He said it was above the right ear. NOT
the back of the head.
5. Dr. Charles Baxter testified that the exit wound was in the
"remporal and parietal" area -- which is exactly where all the medical
and scientific evidence later proved.
6. Dr. Robert Gorssman said that the large defect he saw was "in the
parietal area above the right ear."
7. Dr. Marion Jenkins and Dr. Kenneth Salyer told the Warren
Commission that the exit wound was in the "right temporal region."
8. Dr. Donald Seldin said that "the entire frontal, parietal, and
temporal bones were shattered...I believe that the official story is
accurate in all details."
So while there could have been bones dislodged at the back of the
president's head after handling and movement, those bones were NOT
dislodged due to an exiting bullet, as the the photographs and x-rays
and forensic experts all agree.
John Canal
Steve says...
>
>On May 20, 10:12=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <120aaf97-c484-42c9-8165-a0dc7c7ef...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Poll.....
>>
>> >Just "for the record", is there a single "LNer" posting here at this
>> >newsgroup who actually thinks there was a large hole in the BACK part
>> >of JFK's head on 11/22/63 (not counting John Canal, who is actually
>> >more of a conspiracy theorist)?
>>
>> >If there's even ONE LNer who answers "Yes" to the above question I'll
>> >be very VERY surprised (and shocked....and completely bewildered).
>>
>ng some
>> kind of BOH wound such as one that might have resulted from one or two of=
> the
>> rear bone fragments being dislodged.
>>
>e rear
>> skull fragments could have come "unlatched" resulting in the type of woun=
>d
>> described by the PH doctors.
>>
Obviously, Sturdivan, Zimmerman, Seaton, and I, all LNers, don't believe any BOH
wound was caused by an exiting bullet.
What should make DVP suspicious about Baden is that he agreed with Fisher that
the BOH [occipital] skull wasn't fragmented (of course DVP goes along with that
too--how incredibly naive) when the record, including the autopsy report is full
of statements and testmony describing a fragmented rear skull.
I presume you're an LNT. If so, DVP's not going to be happy with your post.
aeffects
> In article <23d54773-efb7-4235-851c-b7c3efaa6...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
they need books-n-spin...(instead of evidence & eyewitness testimony)
first the WCR, then the Poz, now Bugliosi
Gil Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
Wilson: bullet entered right front of skull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXkRO-zypo
Live Interview - Dr. Charles Crenshaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14
Phone Interview - Dr. Crenshaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeBnkdB9mis
The large back of the head wound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
O'Donnell: Small wound in front, large wound in rear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XprQQrILI28
FBI man O'Neill: "large wound in right rear of skull"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
Chief Curry on frontal shot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWtlkyCDRzU
Witnesses: "The back of his head blew off"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
JFK's Head Wounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs
The Kilduff announcement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU
The HSCA's Big Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Interview - Dennis David
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9LTOhTU84
"Back And To The Left"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkQ8Ef7NkqQ
The Head Wounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPOObPve3M
MORE:
John Canal
>> In article <120aaf97-c484-42c9-8165-a0dc7c7ef...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Poll.....
>>
>> >Just "for the record", is there a single "LNer" posting here at this
>> >newsgroup who actually thinks there was a large hole in the BACK part
>> >of JFK's head on 11/22/63 (not counting John Canal, who is actually
>> >more of a conspiracy theorist)?
>>
>> >If there's even ONE LNer who answers "Yes" to the above question I'll
>> >be very VERY surprised (and shocked....and completely bewildered).
>>
>ng some
>> kind of BOH wound such as one that might have resulted from one or two of=
> the
>> rear bone fragments being dislodged.
>>
>e rear
>> skull fragments could have come "unlatched" resulting in the type of woun=
>d
>> described by the PH doctors.
>>
>here
>> was a BOH wound.
>>
>> All are LNers. Zimmerman and Sturdivan have examined the originals in the
>> archives. All know the medical evidence extremely well.
>
>If your point is that the shattered bone fragments from the rear
>entrance wound and the right-frontal exit wound might have come loose
>during the handling or movement of the president's head then I need to
>clarify my previous answer because that fact is well established.
Well that's not quite what I believe. First, a large portion of the
top/right/front skull was blown out into DP and/or the limo. Then some other
pieces of skull came loose and fell out when the scalp was reflected to the
front and to the rear. The largest piece was actually on the left front--10 cm
across.
Yes, the record is full of evidence the rear skull was severely fragmented but
all the pieces were there and still adhered to the scalp. It is my belief that
one or two of those pieces just above the EOP were dislodged and allowed blood
and brain matter to be exposed and exude through the gaps between those
dislodged pieces.
And yes, I believe whoever held his head up probably hurriedly gripped the
occipital portion of his head and made the loose rear skull pieces become even
more dislodged.
>I believe that it was this sort damage that some of the PH personnel saw
>that later gave the false impression that what they saw was an exit
>wound from a frontal entry bullet.
Yes, I agree.
Of course.
Steve
> In article <40cc0651-4c8c-4ba7-9b6f-86393b3e8...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So wait a minute...are we on the same side of the fence or opposite
sides. Maybe I misunderstood your original post. I must have
mistakenly assumed you were championing the cause of a right front
entrance wound and left rear exit wound. So you are of the opinion
that ALL head shots entered from above and to the left rear and exited
to the right front as clearly shown in the Zapruder film?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry in my previous post, I meant RIGHT rear not left rear.
Correction.
John Canal
Steve says...
>
>On May 20, 3:28=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <40cc0651-4c8c-4ba7-9b6f-86393b3e8...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Steve says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 20, 10:12=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <120aaf97-c484-42c9-8165-a0dc7c7ef...@o20g2000vbh.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> David Von Pein says...
>>
>> >> >Poll.....
>>
>> >> >Just "for the record", is there a single "LNer" posting here at this
>> >> >newsgroup who actually thinks there was a large hole in the BACK part
>> >> >of JFK's head on 11/22/63 (not counting John Canal, who is actually
>> >> >more of a conspiracy theorist)?
>>
>> >> >If there's even ONE LNer who answers "Yes" to the above question I'll
>> >> >be very VERY surprised (and shocked....and completely bewildered).
>>
>bei=3D
>> >ng some
>> >> kind of BOH wound such as one that might have resulted from one or two=
> of=3D
>> > the
>> >> rear bone fragments being dislodged.
>>
>oos=3D
>> >e rear
>> >> skull fragments could have come "unlatched" resulting in the type of w=
>oun=3D
>> >d
>> >> described by the PH doctors.
>>
>s t=3D
>> >here
>> >> was a BOH wound.
>>
>the
>> >> archives. All know the medical evidence extremely well.
>>
>> >If your point is that the shattered bone fragments from the rear
>> >entrance wound and the right-frontal exit wound might have come loose
>> >during the handling or movement of the president's head then I need to
>> >clarify my previous answer because that fact is well established.
>>
>> Well that's not quite what I believe. First, a large portion of the
>her
>> pieces of skull came loose and fell out when the scalp was reflected to t=
>he
>> front and to the rear. The largest piece was actually on the left front--=
>10 cm
>> across.
>>
>> Yes, the record is full of evidence the rear skull was severely fragmente=
>d but
>> all the pieces were there and still adhered to the scalp. It is my belief=
> that
>> one or two of those pieces just above the EOP were dislodged and allowed =
>blood
>> and brain matter to be exposed and exude through the gaps between those
>> dislodged pieces.
>>
>e
>> occipital portion of his head and made the loose rear skull pieces become=
> even
>> more dislodged.
>>
>> >I believe that it was this sort damage that some of the PH personnel saw
>> >that later gave the false impression that what they saw was an exit
>> >wound from a frontal entry bullet.
>>
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >As we know, the bullet that Oswald
>> >fired in his third shot (the one Howard Brennan witnessed him firing)
>> >caused MASSIVE damage compromising the integrity of the skull of
>> >Kennedy, not just where the entrance wound or the exit wound was
>> >wound to the right side of the head (as opposed to the REAR) is
>> >impressive:
>>
>> >head. =A0Consequently, what we did see appeared to be furrther back than
>> >it was since we were not viewing it in relation to his whole head.
>> >Buty really, none of us were looking closely at where the defect was
>>
>> >2. =A0Dr. Jones admitted that it was his OPINION that the wound was to
>> >the back of Kennedy's head, but he qualified that statement by noting
>> >that Kennedy's bushy hair obstructed his view and it was only his
>> >opinion as to the location of the exit wound.
>>
>> >president's head.
>>
>> >4. =A0John Stringer stated that there was no doubt in his mind as to the
>> >location of the exit wound. =A0He said it was above the right ear. =A0NO=
>T
>> >the back of the head.
>>
>> >"remporal and parietal" area -- which is exactly where all the medical
>> >and scientific evidence later proved.
>>
>> >parietal area above the right ear."
>>
>> >Commission that the exit wound was in the "right temporal region."
>>
>> >temporal bones were shattered...I believe that the official story is
>> >accurate in all details."
>>
>> >So while there could have been bones dislodged at the back of the
>> >president's head after handling and movement, those bones were NOT
>> >dislodged due to an exiting bullet, as the the photographs and x-rays
>> >and forensic experts all agree.
>>
>> Of course.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>So wait a minute...are we on the same side of the fence or opposite
>sides. Maybe I misunderstood your original post. I must have
>mistakenly assumed you were championing the cause of a right front
>entrance wound and left rear exit wound. So you are of the opinion
>that ALL head shots entered from above and to the left rear and exited
>to the right front as clearly shown in the Zapruder film?
Well, I started researching for my book, "Silencing the Lone Assassin" back
around 1993---that's when I first came to believe all 3 shots were fired by LHO
from the SN....and I have never changed my beliefs.
Steve
> In article <ccf8f51c-8148-405e-970f-098fde778...@c7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well that clears things quickly. I guess we ARE on the same side of
the fence. Thanks for the clarification.
David Von Pein
>>> "He [DVP] posted once that it always bothered him that there were so many BOH wound witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH ["Reclaiming History"] he threw all those (about 30 total) witnesses, including the autopsists under the bus...certain, I guess, that they were either lying or hallucinating." <<<
And those "BOH" witnesses do still bother me to a large degree. It's
still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case.
I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it
totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a
reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed,
incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John
F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his
head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's
head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the
Zapruder Film.
In fact, author Vincent Bugliosi places quite a bit of confidence in
the Zapruder Film when it comes to specifically locating the large
(exit) wound in JFK's head. Such as when Vince says this in his book:
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large
exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly
provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively,
and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's
emphasis.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PARKLAND WITNESSES:
I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital
witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of
JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there
when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)?
Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the "flap" of scalp on the right side
of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would
still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to
see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT
exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount
of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is
what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those
Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of
the wound).
But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation,
mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO
wounds on the right side of the President's head:
1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the
right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's
head).
and:
2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area
of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in
several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos,
the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit
wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and
unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes; June 1967
BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood-Pooling" theory before I ever read
this passage in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book (so it wasn't Mr.
Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best
explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations; in fact,
before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a
bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly,
BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses; but, alas, Vince doesn't
have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr.
Baden in the book excerpt shown below):
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 407-408 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:
"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many
different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing re. JFK's
head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive
amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right
side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was
resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the
incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where
the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae3d600e8e571fa6
>>> "What gets me is that in RH, Bugliosi used the HSCA's Baden as his number-one source and even DVP has admitted that Baden was wrong on at least two issues. Go figure." <<<
Well, for heaven's sake, John C., not everybody is 100% right ALL of
the time. Take yourself, for example. I think you are right when you
say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy.
But I sure as heck think you're 100% wrong about some of the other
things that you believe regarding this case -- such as your unique
"BOH" beliefs and your belief that the 6.5 mm. "object" was planted on
an X-ray, and your belief that Dr. Burkley "ordered" the autopsy
doctors to "understate" the true condition of JFK's head wounds.
Another "Not Always Right" example would be Vincent Bugliosi. I've
discovered multiple errors in Vince's JFK book (factual errors too,
not just minor typos):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
But, oddly enough, when those factual errors that I've noticed in
Bugliosi's book are corrected, it actually bolsters VB's lone-assassin
conclusions, instead of weakening his LN case.
I found that to be quite interesting. This is especially true
regarding a portion of VB's book when he's discussing the amount of
metal (bullet) fragments that were left inside Governor John
Connally's body after he was operated on.
Mr. Bugliosi, in what could be considered a fairly-large mistake,
leaves the readers of his book with the incorrect impression that
Governor Connally went to his grave in 1993 with up to "seven or
eight" bullet fragments from Bullet CE399 inside his right wrist.
But, in fact, the "seven or eight" fragments that Vince thinks are
BULLET fragments in Connally's wrist were not BULLET fragments at all
-- they were BONE fragments. And this fact can easily be discovered by
reading Dr. Charles Gregory's testimony in the Warren Commission
volumes.
Gregory was positively talking about BONE fragments when he said that
as many as "seven or eight" fragments (or possibly more) were seen
inside Connally's wrist via X-ray. Vince Bugliosi, however, thinks
that Gregory was talking about METAL fragments in that testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
So, when VB's "fragments" mistake is corrected, a strong argument can
really be made for as few as just ONE tiny bullet fragment (per the
totality of Dr. Gregory's testimony) being left in John Connally's
right wrist (plus the one very small bullet fragment that was left in
JBC's thigh wound) after he was operated on at Parkland Hospital in
November of 1963.
The official record, however, as Mr. Bugliosi rightly points out in
his book, is somewhat muddled and unclear as to the exact number of
small metallic (bullet) fragments that Connally took with him to his
grave.
But from the sources I can find (and by looking at Connally's post-
operative X-rays), it becomes pretty clear that only a very, very
small amount of metal was left inside Governor Connally's entire body
after he was operated on at Parkland. And it certainly was not an
amount of metal that would come even close to exceeding the
approximately 2.2 to 2.4 grains of lead that are missing from Bullet
CE399.
Sorry, I digressed to another topic entirely here. Forgive me. But I
wanted to put that on the newsgroup record anyway. And this seemed
like as good a time as any to do it. :)
BTW, thanks for the responses to my "poll" in this thread.
David Von Pein
May 21, 2009
lazu...@webtv.net
says that the BOH was intact at the start of, or during the Autopsy,
they are certifiably insane.
David Von Pein
>>> "If anyone says that the BOH was intact at the start of, or during the Autopsy, they are certifiably insane." <<<
Dr. Michael Baden -- stamped "CERTIFIABLY INSANE" by Ol' Laz:
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." --
Michael Baden; January 8, 2000
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
Gee, is that ## "THE" ## same Michael Baden who:
1. said his straight-line cowlick entry trajectory was fairly accurate, even
though Dale Myers' computer analysis proved Baden's stright-line trajectory
pointed back 124' above the roofline of the Dal-Tex Building and........
2. said the 6.5 mm opacity on the AP X-ray represented a roundish slice of a FMJ
bullet that "sheered off" that round as it penetrated the rear skull of JFK,
even though ballistics expert L. Sturdivan reported that that opacity could not
have been a bullet fragment and........
3. said there was no lower brain damage when it said in black and white in the
Supplementry Autopsy Report that there was a channel-like laceration that began
at the tip of the occipital lobe and ......
4. said that there was "NO" evidence on the x-rays of a low entering bullet when
a highly credentialed member of Baden's own Forensic Pathology Panel told him,
on the record, that there was evidence of a bullet entering near the EOP
and......
5. said that "ALL" the consulting radiologists agreed that there was conclusive
evidence on the x-rays of a bullet entering in the cowlick even though one of
those consulting radiologist reported quite clearly that there was "NO"
conclusive evidence for an entry at either the high or low site?
Is that the Michael Baden you're talking about?
I will say, however, that your Michael Baden should be given an award for
excellence---indeed, perhaps in history there has been no one person who ever
fooled as many otherwise highly regarded investigative authors such as Posner
and Bigliosi, as he was able to do....ya got to give him credit for
that....extremely convincing would be the understatement of the year.
Anyone who depends on his conclusions is niave and gullible.
John Canal
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
<TOP POST>
Has any expert on the reliability of witness testimony ever weighed in on the
mathematical probability that roughly 30 credible eyewitnesses were collectively
wrong about seeing a wound in the back of JFK's head?
Thanks.
>>>> "He [DVP] posted once that it always bothered him that there were so ma=
>ny BOH wound witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH ["Reclaiming Hist=
>ory"] he threw all those (about 30 total) witnesses, including the autopsis=
>ts under the bus...certain, I guess, that they were either lying or halluci=
>>>> "What gets me is that in RH, Bugliosi used the HSCA's Baden as his numb=
>er-one source and even DVP has admitted that Baden was wrong on at least tw=
David Von Pein
>>> "Has any expert on the reliability of witness testimony ever weighed in on the mathematical probability that roughly 30 credible eyewitnesses were collectively wrong about seeing a wound in the back of JFK's head?" <<<
Who cares? We've got these items below to prove that the BOH witnesses
were, indeed, incorrect (whether there were 2, 22, or 422 of those BOH
witnesses):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE4_HI.jpg
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"Has any expert on the reliability of witness testimony ever weighed in on the
>>>>mathematical probability that roughly 30 credible eyewitnesses were collectively
>>>>wrong about seeing a wound in the back of JFK's head?" <<<
>
>
>
>Who cares?
But what if such an expert said it was virtually imposible for 30 wutnesses to
be collectively wrong about something like that? But that would phase you one
bit, would it?...because VB said it's true.
>We've got these items below to prove that the BOH witnesses
>were, indeed, incorrect (whether there were 2, 22, or 422 of those BOH
>witnesses):
They are circumstantial evidence evidence at best, because no one, including you
Baden or VB, knows the exact circumstances surrounding the taking of that x-ray
and that photo...DO THEY????????? Can you for a change answer a direct question?
WELL DO THEY, "YES" OT "NO" PLEASE, THAT'S IF YOU CAN DISPENSE WITH THE USUAL
RHETORIC??????????
Thanks in advance.
John Canal
David Von Pein
How in the world one man (John A. Canal) can talk himself into
believing that ALL of the items in the complete photographic record
surrounding JFK's head wounds (e.g., the autopsy photos AND X-rays AND
the Z-Film) are, incredibly, displaying a FALSE AND MISLEADING RECORD
regarding the true nature of Kennedy's head wounds is something that I
will never be able to understand at all.
Part of John Canal's theory is this (in a nutshell):
Those photographic items are depicting NO LARGE WOUND IN THE BACK OF
KENNEDY'S HEAD *AND* A COWLICK ENTRY WOUND....
But those photographic items (ALL of them....IN PERFECT UNISON!) are
really lying to the people who view them....because (per John Canal)
there WAS a large-ish wound in the back of JFK's head AND the entry
wound was much lower than the cowlick.
Now, let's talk about "odds" here, John.....
What do you think the odds are of having ALL of those
"unaltered" (i.e., not faked) photographic items depicting a totally-
INCORRECT series of things (in perfect stereoscopic tandem!) with
respect to President Kennedy's head wounds?
Any idea what the chances of that would be?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>How in the world one man (John A. Canal)
I'm not the only "one" who doubts that evidence supports both the no-BOH-wound
and cowlick entry conclusions, right DVP? There's actually quite a list of
highly regarded individuals who either support the low entry or the BOH wound
conclusion. Does spinning the truth come naturally to you or do you have to
practice that?
Now, in the other thread, I asked you a simple yes or no question that you
avoided like Dracula would avoid a crucifix--I'll repeat it until you do answer
it.
Yes or no, do you know the "exact" circumstances surrounding the taking of the
x-ray and photograph you posted?
IOW, you do not know for sure whether or not Boswell shoved some dislodged rear
skull pieces that were still adhered to the scalp back into place before that
x-ray was taken, do you?
Similarly, you do not know for sure whether any repair and/or stretching of the
scalp in that photo was done prior to it being taken, do you?
Yes or no.....answer the questions, please. If you don't I'll just keep asking
them on both groups until you do.
John Canal