|
 |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 04:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Apr 1 2009 7:47 am
Subject: Re: ARGUING ABOUT THE HEAD WOUNDS (YET AGAIN)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1ac6a029de80c10e >>> "David, I'm going to let Vince [Bugliosi] know that you're announcing to the JFK research community that you're able to predict with virtual certainty whether or not he will reverse his position ("gobs of stuff") regarding the nature of the head wounds after having another look at the applicable evidence...if he has an opportunity to do so. This is what you wrote: "There isn't a chance in a billion that Vincent Bugliosi will do a complete about-face regarding the head wounds of President Kennedy, thus totally negating gobs of stuff he has already written in his impeccably-researched "book for the ages" ("Reclaiming History"). Not a chance." " <<< Good, John. Please do send that quote of mine to Mr. Bugliosi. It's a very good quote too, IMO. And I was, indeed, very careful about the way I worded that message before I posted it yesterday on both the aaj and acj forums. Hence, the words "impeccably-researched book for the ages" were www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cc5f6aabfdfda3d6 >>> "Frankly, I believe that Vince has a passion for the truth and, when he can manage the time, will re-investigate the controversies surrounding the head wounds. That said, I'm confident that, if he determines what I have told him about those wounds is correct, and that Baden fed him and the nation a crock of B/S, he will not hesitate to correct himself." <<< John Canal must think that, incredibly (and magically, it would seem), the bullet ENTRY HOLE ITSELF on the back of President Kennedy's head (i.e., the red spot in the autopsy photograph linked below) was somehow able to FALSELY APPEAR to be high on JFK's head, i.e., in the area of the COWLICK, even though that HOLE ITSELF is really (per John Canal) located much lower on JFK's unstretched scalp. Amazingly, John C. must actually think that in some crazy and magical David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably couldn't http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... >>> "I thought I'd also send him your answers to the 29 questions listed below....that is if you have the marbles to answer them. Note that you had answered questions that are similar to some of these before--most, though, have been updated and several new ones have been added. .... Here are the questions. Note that I'm prefacing each question with, 'Isn't it true that...?' " <<< Okay, shoot. This should be fun. (I guess Mr. Canal doesn't care how many times his silly theory ~shrug~ But, anyway...here we go (yet again).... >>> "1. You cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK's life at PH [Parkland Hospital], or on the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<< All three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) definitely described the location of JFK's head wounds fairly accurately--in the AUTOPSY REPORT, that is. The later testimony of the autopsy doctors regarding the entry wound So, as far as the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT is concerned (the autopsy The autopsy report should have measured the head entry wound from the But even that non-exacting description is good enough to prove that Plus: It seems to me that I, myself, could have asked you (John Canal) your None of the Parkland people got it right. Not one. Because there's not Yes, a few doctors later changed their minds and said the wound was But on 11/22/63, I doubt that we could find a single witness who Anyway, you're off to a very poor start with your "Let's Make DVP Look >>> "2. You cannot name ONE SINGLE PERSON who saw JFK's wounds while he was still clinging to life or after he died who said early on that there was no open "back of the head" (BOH) wound?" <<< Sure, I can name three such persons -- Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck. Those three men performed the post-mortem exam on President Kennedy's And you're going to be hard-pressed (again) to prove me wrong here, That "somewhat" ambiguous language certainly does not mean that all Now, let's just have a look at the exact "somewhat" verbiage that "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html Now, does any reasonable person actually believe that the above http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif >>> "3. You believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<< The skull FRACTURES (i.e., radiating cracks) certainly extended into the "occipital", yes. No doubt about that. The X-rays prove that fact. But the X-rays also prove that there was not (and could not have been) any kind of a large ABSENCE OF SKULL BONE in the occipital region of JFK's head. I think this might be merely a matter of semantics (similar to the With respect to the head-wound terminology utilized by Dr. Humes in But this autopsy X-ray should cause a reasonable person looking at it http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g... Also see my answer to #2 above. >>> "4. You believe Humes was wrong when he testified under oath to the Warren Commission they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<< Funny, though, isn't it, that the actual word "CEREBELLUM" doesn't appear ONCE in Dr. James J. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony? Not once: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm Could it be that perhaps John Canal is mixed up about what Humes ~shrug~ >>> "5. You believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK's head because they were rushed and/or inexperienced and/or for other reasons?" <<< Those three doctors certainly did NOT "grossly misidentify" the location of Kennedy's head entry wound in the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT. The language used to describe the location of the entry wound in JFK's But I don't think the wound location is "grossly" inaccurate in the Now, yes, the three doctors (all of them, incredibly) decided to give Is the white piece of brain tissue near JFK's hairline supposed to be That's just crazy. But, for some reason, all three autopsists decided http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... >>> "6. You believe Humes was mistaken, probably due to his inexperience and/or the suggestion that they were rushed, about his recollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out in the occipital area?" <<< If Humes ever said those exact things about "bone falling out of the occipital area", then yes, he was positively mistaken/wrong. >>> "7. You believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA [National Archives], was wrong when he said that it was possible that some of the pieces of rear skull could have come "unlatched", resulting in the type of wound the PH doctors described?" <<< Yes. In my opinion, Dr. Chad Zimmerman was wrong if he said that. But you, John, still have a huge hurdle to jump (besides the "skull" http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... The scalp was stitched up before that picture was taken, eh? And yet there's not a HINT of any damage to that scalp in the above Miraculously, John Canal thinks his strange "BOH/LN" theory can still But, I guess, the IN-TANDEM agreement among those photographic items Curious indeed. But what SHOULD be even more curious to John Canal is the fact that he Shouldn't John be asking himself -- How can this be (if I'm right)? >>> "8. You futilely tried to find the trail of opacities (that I told you was seen on the "original" lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area cropped and do not show the detail that the original shows?" <<< This is a bunch of gobbledygook, as far as I'm concerned. John's "trail of opacities" could easily be something OTHER than proof Quite obviously, any such "opacities" (whether they be merely make- Why? Because we know that the ONE AND ONLY entry hole in JFK's head was That's why. (But I just love that word "opacities", John. And I know you love it >>> "9. You find the suggestion of Dr. Joseph Davis, who was a former member of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, that the bullet initially impacted JFK's skull near the EOP ridiculous, even though he had been the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida[,] for decades and had performed hundreds of autopsies on GSW [gunshot wound] victims?" <<< Yes. Certainly I find such a suggestion by Dr. Davis (or anyone else) to be "ridiculous". You bet I do. Here's why (again): http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... >>> "10. You have told us that you can tell from what you see on the published copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractures are only "surface fractures"?" <<< Those BOH fractures quite obviously do NOT meet your theory's requirements at all, John. That's for sure. You need a whole bunch more of those fracture lines in order for your http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g... http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g... Once again, shouldn't John be saying these things to himself -- Why >>> "11. Regarding the statement in the autopsy report that reads -- "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput...these vary greatly in length and direction...these result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size" -- you think that they didn't intend on giving the impression that numerous fragments were produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the wound in the occiput evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?" <<< Yes, that's correct. And it's quite obvious (via that pesky X-ray once again) that there And the verbiage you cited there from the autopsy report is not >>> "12. You have said that you don't care about understanding [the autopsy photograph known as] F8...or words to that effect?" <<< That statement might not be 100% right, but it's pretty much correct, John. As stated before, it's my opinion that the F8 autopsy photo is a >>> "13. The fact that the edge of the intact skull near the level of the EOP, as seen in F8, is severely jagged doesn't even slightly suggest to you that the pieces of bone above that edge "fell out" (just as Humes said) when they reflected the scalp (as opposed to being cut out with a saw which would not have left such a jagged edge)?" <<< Well, since you're talking about your wholly-subjective opinion about what can be seen in "F8", I'll refer you to my answer to #12 again. IOW -- Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8....because In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more >>> "14. The odd shaped piece of skull drawn on Boswell's face sheet that he testified included the top portion of the entry and originally fit on the intact skull near the level of the EOP with the bottom portion of the entry, does not even slightly suggest to you that it was one of the pieces of rear skull that fell out when they reflected the scalp?" <<< Correct. No "rear skull" could have fallen out. Period. >>> "15. You are positively certain that the autopsy photos showing a virtually undamaged BOH were taken before any repair could have been done to the BOH scalp in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<< No, I'm not "positively certain" of that. But I really don't think it matters a whole lot...because the scalp of JFK looks to be COMPLETELY UNDAMAGED in any way in the area (right-rear) where you, John, need there to be a considerable amount of damage. That must have been one heck of a suturing/clean-up job on JFK's BOH, >>> "16. You think that you'd be able to tell from the copies of the photos that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or not any repairs to the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<< Yes. Definitely. Especially considering the massive amount of damage that you need to have "repaired" in the BOH of JFK's head, in order for your theory to be correct. There's no way in Hades that we'd find the back of the President's http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... And, once again, why hasn't John C. asked himself how on Earth the It's food for BOH thought anyway....isn't it John? >>> "17. You have no reasonable explanation whatsoever for why the scalp in the BOH photos is all but undamaged in the area where the bone was blown out (roughly from the cowlick forward into the frontal bone on the right side) into DP [Dealey Plaza] and/or the limo--the area where the autopsists said the scalp and skull were missing?" <<< My best shot at this one would be -- It's the angle of the photograph, which is skewing your perception of the scalp/head. Quite obviously, if bone and scalp had been "blown out" into Dealey Therefore, SOME LOGICAL EXPLANATION (probably the angle of the photo But I wonder if John thinks he can explain away the total lack of I doubt very much if he can do that. >>> "18. (This is a long question, so take a deep breath) You are positively certain that, even though I have told you that morticians have stated that, in their opinion, JFK's rear scalp could have been stretched three inches and possibly even a bit more (as evidenced by the portion of his scalp where the hair is much less dense, as seen in the BOH photos)....AND that Humes testified they "undermined" the scalp, which means to seperate [sic] the scalp from the underlying muscles (primarily the Occipitalis muscle) and is a procedure that is done to enable the scalp to be stretched much more than it could otherwise be stretched....the stretching of the scalp could not be a possible explanation for why, in the BOH photos, there appears to be too much scalp between the hairline and the red spot and the scalp in the area where the bone had been blown out into DP and/or the limo and where Humes said the skull AND SCALP were MISSING, appears to be virtually undamaged?" <<< I talked about this very early in this book-length post. But it's worth an instant replay here. Here's what I said (and it applies here as well): "Amazingly, John Canal must actually think that in some crazy >>> "19. You don't think that it's important that high entry theorists reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone chips from the skull's beveled out inner table around the entry) seen on the original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?" <<< See my answer to #8. >>> "20. You are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken (even though Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken)?" <<< Correct. I'm 100% certain of that. Why? Well, you know. I'm sure you can guess (sans any links this time), >>> "21. You find it preposterous that the metal stirrup upon which the back of JFK's head rested BEFORE the head x-rays were taken helped push any dislodged BOH bone pieces back into place prior to the x-rays being taken and that you find the conclusion that dozens of witnesses, including the autopsists, were wrong about seeing a BOH wound much more feasible?" <<< The autopsists never once said they saw any large-sized BOH wound. Why you keep insisting that Humes, Boswell, and Finck are in the "I SAW A LARGE BOH WOUND" camp is a real mystery to me. ~shrug~ In fact, John, you are completely defeating the underlying MOTIVE for But isn't it your theory that the whole reason we really don't know But are you now insisting that those same three autopsy physicians Which is it? -- Were the doctors truth-tellers or cover-up artists? But to answer your #21 question more directly -- Yes, it's >>> "22. You are sure that the entry hole in the scalp in the BOH photos is directly over the entry hole in the skull...even though prior to the BOH photos being taken, the scalp had been reflected, pieces of bone came/fell out, the brain was removed, and the scalp held back up? And even though the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) and it has not been disputed by any of the experts that the entry wound was 2.5 cm right of midline?" <<< The red spot might not be TO-THE-MILLIMETER over the area of the skull that contains the entry hole. Yes, it's possible (or even probable) that the scalp was in a somewhat-"loose" state/condition at the time when Stringer took the "red spot" picture of the President's head. But this is really largely immaterial and a moot point for the most Bottom Line -- The "red spot" (the bullet hole itself) is going Nothing you could say or theorize can change the above immutable fact 1.) The physical bullet (entry) hole in JFK's head. and 2.) The cowlick in JFK's head. >>> "23. You prefer to use the photos showing the entry in the BOH SCALP instead of the photo showing the entry in the SKULL to determine where the entry in the SKULL was?" <<< It's much more difficult to even FIND the exact point of entry on the X-rays. (And if you're talking about F8 here, I'll pass.) This seems like a good time to interject a quote from Vincent "Not only do the autopsy photos AND X-RAYS [DVP's added "The autopsy photographs and X-rays DO locate the [entrance] >>> "24. Even though you have been invited to explain why Dale Myers' computer analysis showed that any bullet that hit JFK in the cowlick and exited where the HSCA said the "principal" exit was would have had to have been fired from approximately 124 feet above, not the book depository, but the Dal-Tex Building, you have not attempted to do so....but continue, nonetheless, to insist the bullet hit him in the cowlick?" <<< You should have quoted the remainder of what Dale Myers concluded with respect to the trajectory of the shot that struck JFK in the head: "Since the position of JFK's head used in the computer "In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm I'll also add the following observation here -- Dale Myers fully So Dale is saying, in essence, that the House Select Committee GOT IT But based on Myers' website and his sample computer images, he >>> "25. You believe FBI Agents O'Neill and Siebert, as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?" <<< Yes. Absolutely. >>> "26. You believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken when he recollected seeing a right rear gaping wound...even though he said he held the President's head in his hands?" <<< Yes. Absolutely. No such "right rear gaping wound" existed. Nor COULD it have existed, given the existing photographic evidence. >>> "27. You find at best preposterous the theory that Ramsey Clark, who openly criticized Jim Garrison's investigation, tasked Dr. Fisher to examine the autopsy x-rays and photographs (that were unavailable to Garrison) and report that the nature of the head wounds entirely disproved Garrison's Grassy Knoll Shooter theory as well as any suggestions there had been a shot from the rear at near ground level...resulting in Fisher refuting the autopsists' findings that the entry was low and there had been damage to the BOH that, while chiefly parietal on the right side, extended into the temporal and occipital?" <<< Some of this question seems to be speculation on your part. ("Tasked Dr. Fisher"?) Anyway....since there was no large BOH wound (ever), Dr. Fisher and And the entry wound IS where it IS -- in the cowlick. Nothing's going >>> "28. You find ridiculous, if not laughable, the notion that "experts" from the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA endorsed Fisher's cowlick entry and "No-BOH-Wound" conclusions, even though they knew the autopsists were correct about those wounds, either in order not to embarrass one of the most credentialed and prominent forensic pathologists in the country [Fisher] or to prevent the rather awkward situation where government panels (Rockefeller Commission and HSCA) would refute the conclusions of an earlier government investigation (Clark Panel) which had already refuted the findings published by an even earlier government investigation (Warren Commission)?" <<< So, you think that the pathologists who served on the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA "knew" that the cowlick entry conclusion was full of shit -- but they decided to endorse it in their respective reports anyway....right, John? In a word -- Nonsense. Also -- See my answer to #27. >>> "29. Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi understandably and rightfully accepted much of the information that Dr. Michael Baden provided them or testified to probably because they trusted him and the members of his panel?" <<< Yes. Absolutely. Is there any particular reason (or reasons) why Posner and Bugliosi http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO... ===================== [End Quiz. Finally.] [John Canal will give me his usual "F" grade sometime soon, I'm quite ===================== Closing DVP Comments: I'm still perplexed by a few things relating to the assassination of I still am completely stumped by why none of the Parkland witnesses And as far as I am aware, there wasn't a single witness who said they Very strange indeed. But, faced with this predicament, I do think that both Michael Baden The Bethesda "BOH" witnesses, however, are a different "head- Quoting from Bugliosi's JFK book: "Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html ------------------- John Canal should now get busy inventing his explanation for how a That "Mobile EOP" essay of John's ought to be a doozy. I'm also always interested in hearing more of John Canal's cockeyed Incredibly, per Mr. Canal, the autopsy doctors (who knew beyond all Now just exactly WHY the three autopsists would have wanted to play David Von Pein You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||