On Jun 22, 12:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 164):
>
> ======================================================
>

> DVP INTERVIEW:http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.htmlhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17817&st=0&p=22...http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4750.0.htmlhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> MOTIVE, MEANS, AND OPPORTUNITY:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=30&p=2...
>
> OSWALD AS A PATSY:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4758.msg101406.h...
>
> OSWALD AS A GUNMAN:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=60&p=2...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=60&p=2...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=60&p=2...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=75&p=2...
>
> OSWALD AND THE CIA:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=45&p=2...
>
> CAPTAIN FRITZ:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17839&st=15&p=2...
>
> SBT:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=75&p=2...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=90&p=2...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=135&p=...
>
> SHIRT TALK:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=120&p=...
>
> MORE POSTS:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/246d154fc1556fbbhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=45&p=2...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=45&p=2...
>
> ======================================================

A valuable archive. Some of course, will not appreciate it, but
there's always a few...:)

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 23, 2011, 4:57:25 AM6/23/11

Thank you, Chris.

The whole archive (for this particular "Misc. Posts" series) is here:

http://Misc-JFK-Posts-Of-Interest.blogspot.com

=================

Other archives:

http://Assorted-JFK-Assassination-Arguments.blogspot.com

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html

mainframetech

unread,

Jun 23, 2011, 7:34:10 AM6/23/11

Duly Noted.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 24, 2011, 10:55:40 PM6/24/11

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17869

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Besides being a freeloader in order to boost the variety of offerings at his [DVP's] site and perhaps suck in viewers, this of course boosts his image with the naive since he always has the last word." <<<

DVP RESPONDED TO DELUSIONAL DiEUGENIO WITH:

I always provide a link to the original source for the post that I
transfer to my websites, whether it be this [Education] forum or
elsewhere. And that source link (which is most often provided at the
very top of the page on my sites) provides any readers with the full
and complete forum thread from which it originated, including all of
DiEugenio's follow-up posts.

So, people can, indeed, read ALL of the thread if they merely click on
the links that I always provide.

And I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Jimbo, when you
infer that I only "reply over there" (on my site) to your posts here.
That's totally false. Almost all of the words I copy into my posts on
my sites are verbatim remarks that I have already posted here at this
forum (or another forum). I just copy the words into my blogs.

>>> "And he knows I have no interest in posting there to help his metrics. I mean c'mon, why would I put my name on a site that calls Jean Davison's godawful book Oswald's Game an excellent work." <<<

LOL. Jimbo's ego is growing by leaps and bounds it seems.

He actually seems to think that my sites are set up as a forum or
something. Or maybe he was only talking about a "Comments" section on
my sites, which I rarely allow because of the unbelievable assortment
of nuts and crackpots that always post inane comments. And I have no
desire to stink up my websites with a long list of comments from
people who keep telling me how impossible the SBT is; or about how
idiotic I am for believing the actual evidence in the JFK case; or
about how they are 100% positive that I'm some sort of "paid CIA
shill"; or about how I should have my tongue cut off for even
suggesting that Jim Garrison was anything but a "true American hero".
(If I see the word "hero" being placed next to Garrison's name one
more time in a comment directed at me, I think I'll commit hari-kari
right there in the French Quarter.)

And as for my always getting "the last word" when debating Jimbo
"Oswald Shot Nobody" DiEugenio after I transfer one of our
conversations to my websites -- well, Jimbo, those are MY sites, and
I'll organize the posts any darn way I see fit to organize them. And
if you don't like it--all the better.

Plus, Jimbo gets in plenty of his own arguments via my transferred
articles. I, in fact, want people visiting my sites to see the total
nonsense spouted by JD about the assassination (such as Jimbo's recent
attempt to smear the likes of Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, without
a scrap of REAL evidence to support such allegations against them).

Plus: Does DiEugenio REALLY expect me to arrange my articles/posts so
that HIS silly word is the last thing I arrange for viewers of my
sites to see? That's pretty naive, Jim. Get real. Of course I'm going
to get the "last word" on my own sites. Just like you get the last
word in all of your many articles on your CTKA site (including your
2010 two-part smear piece about me).

aeffects

unread,

Jun 25, 2011, 3:40:38 AM6/25/11

On Jun 24, 7:55 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

and no advertising....

and:

moron.... no one, NO ONE cares about 3 billion meg's of your websites
off-the-wall bullshit. You, YOU need to stop being so full of yourself
-- KEE-rist... you're even embarrassing lone nut Dave Reitzes-
pieces..... what you really need to do is climb in that Leave-it-to-
Beaver time machine of yours and take a 300 year spin.... pack some lo-
cal KFC, do you wonders.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 11:11:21 AM7/13/11

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-15.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7df15fdf3d2b0afa

To John Canal,

Well, John, there are some things relating to the JFK assassination
case that I cannot explain (and I probably never will be able to fully
explain them to even my own full satisfaction)--and by far the biggest
of these problems is this one (which I've wrestled with for years):

How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something
in JFK's head (a huge hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his
head) that we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not
possibly have existed?

That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to it.

But let me add this concerning one of those Parkland witnesses--Robert
McClelland:

John, how in the world do you think Bob McClelland was actually able
to see a great-big hole at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head when he
admits that he was STARING DOWN at John Kennedy's face while he
(McClelland) was standing over the President?

McClelland has stated numerous times that he was looking DOWN into a
large wound that he said was at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's
head....and yet it would have been physically impossible for him to
have done so (given his position and JFK's face-up position on the
stretcher at the time McClelland says he was observing such a wound).

Seems to me as though McClelland would have been staring down into the
wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. Yes, he would have been in an
ideal position (at the head of the stretcher) to have seen, in great
clarity, the wound that both you and I know WAS there in the right-
front-top portion of JFK's cranium. Right?

And Dr. McClelland's explanation about the pulled-up scalp that he
gave to the PBS cameras in 1988 is just as wacky as his other comments
about being about to stare down into a huge wound that Kennedy must
have actually been lying on. The "pulled up" scalp theory of
McClelland's is extremely silly -- because that piece of scalp is
INTACT and undamaged. Therefore, how could any Parkland people have
seen ANY wound through AN INTACT PORTION OF JFK'S SCALP in the first
place. It's physically impossible.

And we all know that Kennedy's scalp had not been "peeled back" or
reflected while he was on the stretcher at Parkland. The autopsy
surgeons are the ones who peeled back the scalp, with loose pieces of
skull then clinging to that scalp. But the Parkland witnesses
certainly cannot utilize that reasoning for seeing a right-rear hole
in Kennedy's head.

More about the really weird 1988 tales of 4 of the Parkland doctors
here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

aeffects

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 1:38:55 PM7/13/11

On Jul 13, 8:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising moron, you've heard this before....

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 3:38:53 PM7/13/11

Von Pein-you lying sack of Bugliosi... the single most obvious fact in
the entire case that negates the official fiction of President Kennedy's
death, even more obvious than the magic bullet never happened, or the
fatal headshot from the front, is over 20 witnesses, medical experts,
every single one of whom's opinion is much better than yours... said the
same thing there was a massive hole in the right rear/Occipial portion
of JFK's head...there's no way to deny it.

John Canal is the only lone nutter I have an ounce of respect for, and
that is mainly due to this issue. ...Laz

bigdog

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 4:17:42 PM7/13/11

Even if we grant you over 20 witnesses, which is quite a stretch (I
don't suppose you care to list them), how many of them closely
examined the wound? How many of them saw nothing but JFK flat on his
back on the guerney with blood and brain oozing out. With JFK on his
back, gravity would cause everything to flow toward the back of his
head, which may have created the impression that the wound was in the
back of the head. Since most of the ER team was concerned with
stabilizing JFK's vital signs, most of them weren't working at the
head of the table. None of them could have seen the right rear
occipital portion of JFK's head so how can you trust them to have
accurately placed the wound?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 6:17:55 PM7/13/11

I want to hear ol' Laz reconcile Dr. McClelland's impossible
observations of LOOKING STRAIGHT DOWN into a huge wound in the BACK of
President Kennedy's head, even though JFK was lying supine on his back
and McClelland was standing over him looking down at his face.

That's one for the magical books there.

Addendum:

And as recently as April 2011, 81-year-old Dr. Robert N. McClelland is
on record (and on video) saying the same impossible thing about
looking down into a back-of-the-head wound, even though he couldn't
possibly have seen such a BOH wound given McClelland's position.

McClelland also came up with something else during that 2011 interview
that I don't think I had ever heard anyone say before, regarding a
talk he supposedly had with James Leavelle of the Dallas Police
Department (although McClelland erroneously, on numerous occasions,
says that Leavelle was a Dallas Sheriff's Deputy, for some reason):

McClelland claims that Leavelle told him that he (Leavelle) had
kneeled over Lee Harvey Oswald after Oswald had been shot by Jack Ruby
and had asked Oswald if he wanted to say anything. Oswald, according
to McClelland, then raised up, looked straight at Leavelle as if he
was about to say something, but then thought better of it, and then
passed out on the floor. I had never heard that story before
concerning Leavelle.

Here's the 2011 McClelland interview (which is, IMO, not as good as
the one McClelland did for the same Canadian radio host [Brent
Holland] in 2009; the '09 interview is located at the second link
below):

http://vimeo.com/21991892

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

Message has been deleted

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 6:12:14 PM7/13/11

On Jul 13, 4:17 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Even if we grant you over 20 witnesses, which is quite a stretch (I
> don't suppose you care to list them), how many of them closely
> examined the wound? How many of them saw nothing but JFK flat on his
> back on the guerney with blood and brain oozing out. With JFK on his
> back, gravity would cause everything to flow toward the back of his
> head, which may have created the impression that the wound was in the
> back of the head. Since most of the ER team was concerned with
> stabilizing JFK's vital signs, most of them weren't working at the
> head of the table. None of them could have seen the right rear
> occipital portion of JFK's head so how can you trust them to have
> accurately placed the wound?

Someone help me out here. I've seen many photos in Lifton's "Best
Evidence", but not the colored one of the back of a head with
absolutely NO damage to the right rear part. Only that one colored
pictured shows the back of the head as proper without obvious injury.
ALL the other pictures (I can put a list here if anyone needs them)
show a major blast at the right rear of JFK's head. Some with 'meat'
hanging down. Some of those actually show the top and part of the
front of his hrad with absolutely no damage.

The vast majority of the pictures available on the internet agree
with those doctors that said they saw a large wound at the right
rear. Since the pictures don't agree with each other though, I have
to say that some picture was faked, and I would think the color one
with the good looking back of head is it.

I know pictures can be faked in many ways, and so can testimony be
forced to be wrong, but when so many things agree, we have to think
that the one and only good color picture of a clean right rear head is
the fake. It's too isolated an example. I used "jfk assassination
autopsy OR death pictures" in Google to get the pictures I spoke of.

Any ideas here?

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 9:12:01 PM7/13/11

Chris,

You're mistaken. There isn't a single autopsy picture in existence
that shows ANY damage whatsoever to the RIGHT-REAR of President
Kennedy's head. And that includes this very important X-ray, which
shows the right-rear of JFK's skull to be completely intact:

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

More autopsy photos:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 9:19:55 PM7/13/11

In article <6545-4E1...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
says...

Indeed, like it or not, THE AUTOPSY REPORT says the same thing... "chiefly
parietal, but extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal" or something
like that.

The Autopsy report did it's best to move the wound *UP*... but it quite clearly
put at least some portion into the occipital - WHICH IS NOT SEEN IN ANY PHOTO.

So we have an un-explained disconnect between the autopsy photos, and the
eyewitnesses, AND the Autopsy Report.

LNT'ers can't explain this away, so they simply lie about it, and hope no-one
knows the evidence well enough to call 'em on it.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

bigdog

unread,

Jul 13, 2011, 9:44:49 PM7/13/11

On Jul 13, 6:12 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 4:17 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Even if we grant you over 20 witnesses, which is quite a stretch (I
> > don't suppose you care to list them), how many of them closely
> > examined the wound? How many of them saw nothing but JFK flat on his
> > back on the guerney with blood and brain oozing out. With JFK on his
> > back, gravity would cause everything to flow toward the back of his
> > head, which may have created the impression that the wound was in the
> > back of the head. Since most of the ER team was concerned with
> > stabilizing JFK's vital signs, most of them weren't working at the
> > head of the table. None of them could have seen the right rear
> > occipital portion of JFK's head so how can you trust them to have
> > accurately placed the wound?
>
> Someone help me out here. I've seen many photos in Lifton's "Best
> Evidence",

That explains a lot

> ...but not the colored one of the back of a head with

> absolutely NO damage to the right rear part. Only that one colored
> pictured shows the back of the head as proper without obvious injury.
> ALL the other pictures (I can put a list here if anyone needs them)
> show a major blast at the right rear of JFK's head. Some with 'meat'
> hanging down. Some of those actually show the top and part of the
> front of his hrad with absolutely no damage.
>
> The vast majority of the pictures available on the internet agree
> with those doctors that said they saw a large wound at the right
> rear.

There are no photos that show a large wound at the right rear.

> Since the pictures don't agree with each other though, I have
> to say that some picture was faked, and I would think the color one
> with the good looking back of head is it.
>

You are making things up. The photos of the back of the head being
held up by a shank of JFK's hair, show nothing but a small entry wound
in the back of his head. I don't suppose you can post a link to a
photo that shows the back of JFK's head blown out. No, of course not.

> I know pictures can be faked in many ways, and so can testimony be
> forced to be wrong, but when so many things agree, we have to think
> that the one and only good color picture of a clean right rear head is
> the fake. It's too isolated an example. I used "jfk assassination
> autopsy OR death pictures" in Google to get the pictures I spoke of.
>
> Any ideas here?
>

Yes. You have been duped. Apparently willingly.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 3:41:30 AM7/14/11

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/160d726354e90ac1

>>> "That this hole was really there, but was only the most rearward part of the total damage to his skull is also confirmed by other evidence..." <<<

Then where is it in the pictures below?

Answer: It doesn't exist. There is simply NO right-rear hole at
all....either in the scalp or in the underlying skull of President
Kennedy. And no amount of attempting to reconcile the Parkland
observations will ever suddenly make a huge right-rear hole appear in
these two photos:

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

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

Dr. Robert McClelland, btw, did another "hands on his own head"
demonstration for the Skype camera during an interview in April 2011,
and here's where he places the wound:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fqnNwDJTyCI/Th6PXlLDEgI/AAAAAAAAc1s/kYXgsb0Yv10/s1600/McClelland.png

Now, I challenge anyone who doesn't possess X-ray vision or a big 'S'
on his chest to see a big hole in that part of a person's head when
the patient is lying face-up on a stretcher and the observer (sans X-
ray vision) is looking down at the patient's face, as Dr. McClelland
has always maintained he was doing when he observed the huge blasted-
out hole in JFK's head (which, of course, would HAVE to mean that the
SCALP in the right-rear portion of JFK's head was blasted away too--
which we know just ain't so). His scalp is fully intact in that
occipital area of the head. So, McClelland was flat-out wrong. Period.
And so were the other Parkland witnesses.

IOW, the wound being described by McClelland is in a location that
would be impossible to peer DOWN INTO as he was looking straight down
at JFK's face at Parkland. Why this isn't obvious (to even Dr.
McClelland) is a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.

And another mystery is why the many interviewers who have talked at
length with Dr. McClellend over the years have never once (to my
knowledge) confronted McClellend about this obvious incongruity in his
observations. Not even Vincent Bugliosi confronted him on that issue.
And Vince talked to McClelland by telephone on multiple occasions.
Unbelievable.

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 8:21:02 AM7/14/11

On Jul 13, 9:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> You're mistaken. There isn't a single autopsy picture in existence
> that shows ANY damage whatsoever to the RIGHT-REAR of President
> Kennedy's head. And that includes this very important X-ray, which
> shows the right-rear of JFK's skull to be completely intact:
>

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...

>
> More autopsy photos:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

David,
I looked at the autopsy link you supplied and most of the pictures
are the ones I have here in "Best Evidence", and the text says they
are the same ones. The first 3 pictures starting with BE1-HI.jpg
through BE3_HI.jpg (I'll just use the first 3 characters to identify
the pics hereafter) show the left, top and right side of the head and
face, showing that there is no major damage (and possibly no minor
damage) in those areas. In BE2 the hair is hanging back and leaves
the face and forehead open to view, showing no major damage there,
even a bit above the hair line.

Now BE4_HI.jpg is another story, and I see some interesting things
there. That picture shows a flap of skull, probably still attached to
some scalp and hanging on. The flap is 'hinged' forward from the
point just above the ear, meaning that if it were flopped back into
place, it would be behind the ear and in the approximate position that
has been noted by many of the physicians, or the right rear of the
head. The technician in the photo does not seem to be holding that
flap, but he does seem to be holding a flap of skin forward from the
back of the skull, which if true, would cover up a large hole in the
right rear of the skull. Now, with that in mind, look at BE2 and
compare the large amount of material (scalp, hair, other material?)
which does NOT appear in BE4. If that large amount of material in BE2
were pulled forward in BE4, it would make sense, otherwise, BE4 is
really odd, with no damage behind the ear and the back of the scalp
looking mostly normal.

BE6 is similar to BE2 and supports the same contentions. For me,
most of the other pictures are not that useful because the X-rays are
taken through the skull and might be showing damage on either side, or
fore and aft of the skull.

The last picture entitled 'Groden' has an interesting small bit of
something at the right front of the skull that doesn't seem to appear
in BE2 or BE3. Perhaps it's the flap of scalp and skull from BE4, or
perhaps it's a view showing a small entry wound.

All in all, looking at the pictures, I have to go with the bullet
strike on the skull happening on the right and proceeding to the rear
taking out a chunk of skull along the way. Whether there is an entry
wound closer to the forward hairline on the right, I can't say, but
it's certainly not major damage like some of the other pictures.

If you can think of anything that would alter my view, let me know.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 8:49:53 AM7/14/11

On Jul 14, 3:41 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/160d726354e9...

>
> >>> "That this hole was really there, but was only the most rearward part of the total damage to his skull is also confirmed by other evidence..." <<<
>
> Then where is it in the pictures below?
>
> Answer: It doesn't exist. There is simply NO right-rear hole at
> all....either in the scalp or in the underlying skull of President
> Kennedy. And no amount of attempting to reconcile the Parkland
> observations will ever suddenly make a huge right-rear hole appear in
> these two photos:
>

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
I can't seem to get those sites to come up, but I used this other
one you provided:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
They seem to show scalp hanging down over only one place, which is
the right rear of the skull. In one case, the scalp was pulled
forward making it look like there was no hole, but it showed a 3" by
2" piece of skull 'hinged' to the skull at the right ear. See my
other post on that.

> Dr. Robert McClelland, btw, did another "hands on his own head"
> demonstration for the Skype camera during an interview in April 2011,
> and here's where he places the wound:
>

> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fqnNwDJTyCI/Th6PXlLDEgI/AAAAAAAAc1s/kYXgsb0...
>
When I looked at that link I saw the doctor putting his hand on the
rear of his head, slightly to the right. Is that what you intended?

> Now, I challenge anyone who doesn't possess X-ray vision or a big 'S'
> on his chest to see a big hole in that part of a person's head when
> the patient is lying face-up on a stretcher and the observer (sans X-
> ray vision) is looking down at the patient's face, as Dr. McClelland
> has always maintained he was doing when he observed the huge blasted-
> out hole in JFK's head (which, of course, would HAVE to mean that the
> SCALP in the right-rear portion of JFK's head was blasted away too--
> which we know just ain't so). His scalp is fully intact in that
> occipital area of the head. So, McClelland was flat-out wrong. Period.
> And so were the other Parkland witnesses.
>

A doctor isn't going to come up to a patient and make sure that he
approaches in such a way that he will only see their face and front of
the head and not the back or sides as he approaches. And when he gets
there, as many doctors will do, he no doubt looked a bit right and
left of the head to get more information on the patient. Do we know
if he also did what some doctors would do and touch the head, perhaps
on the sides?...feeling how the skin depresses in the right rear under
his fingers, signifying that there may be little left there?

And I think we have to consider that it is NOT axiomatic that a
bullet strike inside the skull will 'blast' out the skull and scalp.
A bullet is not an anti-tank weapon to explode in the skull upon
contact. It may break the skull out and the scalp might stay attached
to the broken skull pieces and hold them there, while allowing some
brain matter to 'blast' out of the hole. The pictures suggest that is
what happened.

Strange to think that in one case the lack of a 'blast' shows no
bullet came through. That suggests that since there is no 'blasted'
out area anywhere in the skull, that means that NO bullet came through
anywhere in the skull. Naah.

> IOW, the wound being described by McClelland is in a location that
> would be impossible to peer DOWN INTO as he was looking straight down
> at JFK's face at Parkland. Why this isn't obvious (to even Dr.
> McClelland) is a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.
>

See above comments.

> And another mystery is why the many interviewers who have talked at
> length with Dr. McClellend over the years have never once (to my
> knowledge) confronted McClellend about this obvious incongruity in his
> observations. Not even Vincent Bugliosi confronted him on that issue.
> And Vince talked to McClelland by telephone on multiple occasions.
> Unbelievable.

What incongruity? It all seems to hang together very nicely.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 9:27:46 AM7/14/11

On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The vast majority of the pictures available on the internet agree
> > with those doctors that said they saw a large wound at the right
> > rear.
>
> There are no photos that show a large wound at the right rear.
>
> > Since the pictures don't agree with each other though, I have
> > to say that some picture was faked, and I would think the color one
> > with the good looking back of head is it.
>
> You are making things up. The photos of the back of the head being
> held up by a shank of JFK's hair, show nothing but a small entry wound
> in the back of his head. I don't suppose you can post a link to a
> photo that shows the back of JFK's head blown out. No, of course not.
>

I didn't make anything up. I tell it like I see it. Now if there's
a small entry wound in the back of the head, are you saying that there
is no exit wound in the front of his face? Slow bullet that got
caught in his skull? The pictures look to me like there's a major
flap of scalp covering the right rear of JFK's head.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Now at the moment that the death bullet hit JFK, based on the
Zapruder film, JFK was holding his throat with both hands and had his
head turned down somewhat, perhaps in pain. If a bullet came from the
6th floor of the TSBD, it would come down at a strong angle and go
through the head and out the face. If you think the bullet came out
the entry wound in the throat, then it had to go through his hands,
but there was no mention of bullet wounds on the hands. I wouldn't
want to be in your position trtying to explain all that stuff. It
doesn't make sense to me.

> > I know pictures can be faked in many ways, and so can testimony be
> > forced to be wrong, but when so many things agree, we have to think
> > that the one and only good color picture of a clean right rear head is
> > the fake. It's too isolated an example. I used "jfk assassination
> > autopsy OR death pictures" in Google to get the pictures I spoke of.
>
> > Any ideas here?
>
> Yes. You have been duped. Apparently willingly.

LOL! Certainly not willingly...:) As to duped, it could happen to
anybody...right?

Chris

bigdog

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 3:53:56 PM7/14/11

On Jul 14, 9:27 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The vast majority of the pictures available on the internet agree
> > > with those doctors that said they saw a large wound at the right
> > > rear.
>
> > There are no photos that show a large wound at the right rear.
>
> > > Since the pictures don't agree with each other though, I have
> > > to say that some picture was faked, and I would think the color one
> > > with the good looking back of head is it.
>
> > You are making things up. The photos of the back of the head being
> > held up by a shank of JFK's hair, show nothing but a small entry wound
> > in the back of his head. I don't suppose you can post a link to a
> > photo that shows the back of JFK's head blown out. No, of course not.
>
> I didn't make anything up. I tell it like I see it.

It would be better if you would tell it like it is.

> Now if there's
> a small entry wound in the back of the head, are you saying that there
> is no exit wound in the front of his face?

There is no exit wound in the front of his face.

> Slow bullet that got
> caught in his skull?

Nobody said it got caught in his skull. The bullet exited from his
temple.

> The pictures look to me like there's a major
> flap of scalp covering the right rear of JFK's head.
>

I don't know which of these photos you are looking at. Every photo of
the back of his head shows it to be intact.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
>
> Now at the moment that the death bullet hit JFK, based on the
> Zapruder film, JFK was holding his throat with both hands and had his
> head turned down somewhat, perhaps in pain. If a bullet came from the
> 6th floor of the TSBD, it would come down at a strong angle and go
> through the head and out the face. If you think the bullet came out
> the entry wound in the throat, then it had to go through his hands,
> but there was no mention of bullet wounds on the hands. I wouldn't
> want to be in your position trtying to explain all that stuff. It
> doesn't make sense to me.
>

In addition to having his head down, it was rotated to his left. When
the head is rotated to the left, the entry wound in the back of the
and the exit wound in the temple line up perfectly with the sniper's
nest.

> > > I know pictures can be faked in many ways, and so can testimony be
> > > forced to be wrong, but when so many things agree, we have to think
> > > that the one and only good color picture of a clean right rear head is
> > > the fake. It's too isolated an example. I used "jfk assassination
> > > autopsy OR death pictures" in Google to get the pictures I spoke of.
>
> > > Any ideas here?
>
> > Yes. You have been duped. Apparently willingly.
>
> LOL! Certainly not willingly...:) As to duped, it could happen to
> anybody...right?
>

Didn't happen to me. Not in this case.

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 5:43:41 PM7/14/11

On Jul 14, 3:53 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:27 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The vast majority of the pictures available on the internet agree
> > > > with those doctors that said they saw a large wound at the right
> > > > rear.
>
> > > There are no photos that show a large wound at the right rear.
>

Well now, that's where we need to find common ground. Most of the
pictures I saw look like they have no tiny wound in the back of the
head, and they seem to have a MAJOR wound at the right rear like so
many doctors said. They are more able to say that since they were
there and had the medical diplomas. You and I are just guessing by
comparison.

> > > > Since the pictures don't agree with each other though, I have
> > > > to say that some picture was faked, and I would think the color one
> > > > with the good looking back of head is it.
>
> > > You are making things up. The photos of the back of the head being
> > > held up by a shank of JFK's hair, show nothing but a small entry wound
> > > in the back of his head. I don't suppose you can post a link to a
> > > photo that shows the back of JFK's head blown out. No, of course not.

Here's a link to JFK's pictures that DVP supplied.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

In that link look at BE2 and BE6, both showing the top of the head
with the back 'blown out', and tell me you see no material other than
hair there. And then tell me where you see the little entry wound, so
I can tell what you're speaking about.

>
>
> Nobody said it got caught in his skull. The bullet exited from his
> temple.
>
> > The pictures look to me like there's a major
> > flap of scalp covering the right rear of JFK's head.
>
> I don't know which of these photos you are looking at. Every photo of
> the back of his head shows it to be intact.
>
> >http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
>

Check all these pictures that David linked to. Many seem to show the
back of the head as not complete and normal. And the one that looks
normal is because the technician is holding the flap of scalp forward
in it's place. Still, the flap of skull shows to the right in the
picture.

> In addition to having his head down, it was rotated to his left. When
> the head is rotated to the left, the entry wound in the back of the
> and the exit wound in the temple line up perfectly with the sniper's
> nest.
>

Yes, looking again, I see JFK is looking slightly left. If I knew
where you see the 2 holes in the back and temple of the skull, I might
be able to see what you see. As it is, the angle from the TSBD looks
too high to me to allow a bulet to go into the back of the head and
out the temple.

I used "jfk assassination autopsy OR death pictures" in Google to
get the pictures I spoke of.
>

> > > Yes. You have been duped. Apparently willingly.
>
> > LOL! Certainly not willingly...:) As to duped, it could happen to
> > anybody...right?
>
> Didn't happen to me. Not in this case.

A matter of opinion. Check the link to the pictures.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 5:59:36 PM7/14/11

>>> "All in all, looking at the pictures, I have to go with the bullet strike on the skull happening on the right and proceeding to the rear taking out a chunk of skull along the way." <<<

You're just making stuff up out of thin air and you know it. And
you're ignoring the Clark Panel's report, and the Rockefeller panel,
and the HSCA -- all of which/whom examined those same autopsy pictures
(the first-generation originals) and agreed that JFK was shot only
once in the head--from behind.

And you're also totally ignoring the official autopsy report? Why are
you ignoring ALL of these things?

Here's what Dr. Baden of the HSCA said in his 1978 testimony:

"It is the firm conclusion of the [Forensic Pathology] panel
members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no
bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the
single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel
that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain
tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support
anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the
President's head." -- DR. MICHAEL BADEN

And you might also like this TV interview with Dr. Humes. Is he lying
his ass off here?.....

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 6:13:30 PM7/14/11

I give you every break in the book-you can believe the fatal headshot
came from the rear for crying out loud, but don't even for one
millisecond be a devious, unethical, cement headed low grade moron ok?
How long did Mortician Tom Robinson work on the body? What did he say?
All the people who saw the body, it was their job, they saw the body for
an extended period of time, they were pro's, they corroborate each
other, you can't just sweep it under the rug and ignore it...Laz

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 5:56:55 PM7/14/11

>>> "Most of the pictures I saw look like they have no tiny wound in the back of the head, and they seem to have a MAJOR wound at the right rear like so many doctors said." <<<

You're in dream land. Because no pictures exist showing JFK with a
large rear head wound (and even CTers admit that fact, such as
Benjamin Holmes).

Please link to the specific photos that you think show a "major wound"
at the rear of JFK's head.

And you can't see the obvious entry wound in this picture below? Hint:
It's the red spot in the cowlick. And that was confirmed by the Clark
Panel and the HSCA:

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 6:27:19 PM7/14/11

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

OK, ol' Laz. Tell us: Where's the great-big hole (in the SCALP) in the
above picture?

And make no mistake--if the Parkland witnesses are correct, they would
have HAD to see a big blow-out in the right-rear of JFK's outer SCALP
too, not just the underlying skull bone.

So, where's the right-rear hole, Laz-man? You're up.

Plus:

I'd also like to know where the great-big right-rear hole is located
in this frame of the Zapruder Film too? Funny, isn't it, how the Z-
Film perfectly aligns with and corroborates that autopsy picture
above, isn't it?.....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 6:35:34 PM7/14/11

How stupid can Von Pein be? Does anybody really think that if the back
of the head looked like it does in the 2 photos that show it most
clearly there would still be all of this controversy today? I bet you
could take the first 3 people off the street and if they had the body
and the back of the head in front of them like in the pictures it would
take no more than 10-15 minutes to come to the proper conclusion.

Nobody but nobody from the FBI Agents, to the 3 Pathologists to the
X-Ray Techs, to the Autopsy Assistants saw what the photos show during
the Autopsy.

When the final chapter is written everyone from Lifton to Bugliosi is
gonna be wrong on some big things...maybe it's just all as simple as
Lipsey and Robinson said-3 wounds-Back didn't penetrate-EOP-out thru
throat-headshot from rear landed- in between cowlick and EOP in a bloody
mess in the back...Laz

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 14, 2011, 6:41:09 PM7/14/11

David-the answer to your question is that according to Robert Groden
there were some 150 Autopsy Photos originally, now there are some
15-16...we have the descriptions from Dr. Finck and others that would
show this hole...Laz

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 15, 2011, 11:29:55 AM7/15/11

On Jul 14, 6:41 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:

I think my original comments were lost early in the thread and I'll
repeat them here to be clear about the pictures and the obvious head
wounds.
===================================
Here are the pictures David linked to and waht I'm commenting on.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

taken through the skull and might be showing damage on either side,
or

fore and aft of the skull.

All in all, looking at the pictures, I have to go with the bullet

strike on the skull happening on the right and proceeding to the rear

taking out a chunk of skull along the way. Whether there is an entry
wound closer to the forward hairline on the right, I can't say, but
it's certainly not major damage like some of the other pictures.

==================================================

The colored picture that has the tiny little red spot (doesn't have
a look of a hole like the upper back wound does), has some other
interesting elements. I find it difficult to ignore the flap of skull
hinged out to the right side in that picture. As well, if you look
carefully at the technician's hand, you can see that he is holding a
flap of scalp and pulling it toward himself to flatten out the scalp
in what would be its usual place on the head. Some fingers have
actually gone under the flap of scalp to grip it better, and the
picture seems to show some tension in the pulling of the flap. This
needs to be resolved.

I'm interested in how anyone reconciles BE2 with the colored
picture. They are of the same general area of the head, but the B&W
pic doesn't have anyone holding up the flap of scalp, so it's hanging
down with various attachments left over. Want to prove to me that
what is hanging down is only hair? Naah.

I'm with James Lifton in looking at real evidence. Humes had a
number of things pressing him to answer as certain people would like
rather than by what he saw. Remember, he's also a guy that admitted
to burning his original notes, not throwing them in the waste basket.
Humes as well was a military person and was able to be ordered by a
superior. He also saw the body hours after it had been at Parkland
where the first doctors had looked at it and commented, and he wasn't
a pathologist with experience with autopsies.

It's easy for any of us to make statements and insult the others,
but looking at the pivtures and trying to undderstand the what someone
else sees might help a bit here.

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 16, 2011, 12:24:19 AM7/16/11

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7df15fdf3d2b0afa

Hi again Caeruleo,

Sorry for being so abrupt and short on previous occasions in this
forum thread.

You did, indeed, write up multiple lengthy posts about JFK's head
wounds, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing them specifically
to me. My responses to you were probably too short and too abrupt. My
apologies.

Upon re-reading (slowly) your first post in this thread (dated July
13, 2011), I see that you have made some good points indeed,
particularly regarding the "hinged" piece of skull that is quite clear
on one of JFK's autopsy X-rays. In fact, I've discussed that
particular piece of "loose bone" with Robert Harris on a few occasions
in the past.

And I, like you, totally disagree with Mr. Harris' theory about a
second shot to JFK's head being the thing that caused that "hinged"
piece of skull at the very top of the President's head.

Regardless of how much damage was done to JFK's head on 11/22/63, we
can know with 100% certainty (at least I am certain of this fact) that
ALL of that damage was caused by one single bullet that came from
ABOVE and BEHIND President Kennedy. The evidence of only one bullet
hitting JFK in the head is too overwhelming to toss aside in favor of
ANY theory that a person might be willing to cling to. There's the
autopsy report, the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons, and the
autopsy photographs and X-rays. And all of those things corroborate
each other with respect to the number of shots that struck JFK in the
head. And that answer is "one".

>>> "Look again at that lateral x-ray. The lowermost part of the piece of skull is not quite halfway down the back of the head, and the uppermost part of [it] includes a little of the top of the head. Now imagine him lying on his back and that piece falling open, still hanging onto the scalp, but otherwise not attached. And this business of it being in the upper right rear also is corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland, although they used various terminology." <<<

Yes, I suppose you could be right about this. But I'm still having a
difficult time envisioning the top-of-the-head skull flap (if it was
"open" when JFK was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital) causing
virtually all of the witnesses to think that the large head wound was
in the BACK part of JFK's head. The orientation of WHERE that loose
skull flap would have fallen, given those circumstances, just doesn't
seem to add up to me.

Here's the best autopsy photo we have to illustrate the exact posture
that JFK was in when the Parkland witnesses saw him in Dallas:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Now, it's possible that the President's head wounds didn't look
EXACTLY like the picture above when JFK was at Parkland. And I agree
with you 100% that it's quite likely that Jackie "closed up" the flap
on the upper-right portion of his head, thereby possibly concealing
that wound to a large extent from the Parkland observers.

I've speculated about that very thing in the past as well, theorizing
that Jackie's handling of JFK's head might very well be the reason why
virtually nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing the large right-front
exit wound.

But if JFK's head looked anything like the above autopsy photo while
he was lying in that exact same position (flat on his back) at
Parkland Hospital, I'm then back to my original stance of scratching
my head and wondering: How could the Parkland people say that
Kennedy's large wound was in the VERY BACK of his head--or UPPER-REAR
or LOWER-REAR of his head.

It seems to me that if the top "hinged" part of JFK's head had opened
up, then this would have caused the Parkland witnesses to see a huge
hole at the VERY TOP of his head--not the REAR of the head (or the
right-rear, which is where many witnesses, Dr. McClelland for one,
said it was).

So, even if the theory is correct about the top part of JFK's head
"opening up" at Parkland, it appears to me that we have a very similar
situation regarding the Parkland witnesses that I have brought up
before -- i.e., it would seem as though those Parkland witnesses STILL
would be wrong about where the actual wound really was.

Because I want to know how a big opening at the VERY TOP of Kennedy's
head would equate to the Parkland people seeing a huge hole in the far-
right-rear or even HIGH-right-rear portion of his head?

And if the hinged skull flap ITSELF is supposed to be the thing that
is confusing the Parkland personnel (instead of the big HOLE that has
now been exposed IN THE SKULL of Kennedy via this "hinged flap"
theory), I'd have to ask: How did that hinged piece of skull/scalp
manage to tuck itself UNDER the head of the President, in order to
appear to be at the very BACK (or occipital) part of his head?

I would think that such a loose chunk of skull/scalp from the very top
of his head would have fallen on the stretcher, and would not have
given the appearance of being a HOLE in the BACK of his head. It would
have just been lying there, somewhat flat on the stretcher (it seems
to me). But maybe you have other thoughts on what exactly such a piece
of loose skull or scalp would have looked like to an observer at
Parkland.

But, anyway, via the autopsy photo linked above, I still find it hard
to envision a scenario which would have virtually all of the Parkland
witnesses somehow seeing what they think is a great-big hole in ANY
portion of the VERY BACK of President Kennedy's head. Because, as I've
stressed previously (and it's still true today), the autopsy photos
and X-rays indicate that there was no hole in the BACK of JFK's head.
It is not there. Period. And a hole in the VERY BACK of Kennedy's head
IS what the vast majority of Parkland witnesses said they saw. And, I
admit, that incongruity is still #1 on my list of things that just do
not add up about this murder case (particularly the Bethesda "BOH"
witnesses).

>>> "There's no way that many medically trained adults could all be "wrong" when they say there was a hole in the back of his head." <<<

Well, I disagree with you here. Because from the hard (and best)
evidence that is available, it's fairly obvious to me that all of
those Parkland witnesses did, indeed, get it wrong. Because there
simply is no great-big hole in JFK's head in the location where those
witnesses said there was a big hole.

Now, let me clarify:

I'm not saying that the Parkland witnesses were all a bunch of dumb
stumps and I'm not saying that they couldn't tell the front of a
person's head from the back of the head.

Although, incredibly, some researchers do seem to want to believe that
all of the Parkland witnesses did, somehow, get confused and weren't
able to tell the difference between the "back" and "front" and "side",
merely due to the fact that JFK was lying flat on his back. Jim Moore
seems to be one of those researchers:

http://Conspiracy--Of--One.blogspot.com

But I don't agree at all with some of the things Jim Moore said in his
1990 book, "Conspiracy Of One". I think a much more reasonable answer
is that the Parkland witnesses* did not mis-identify the portion of
JFK's head that they thought (incorrectly) contained the massive hole,
but instead they saw the large amount of blood and brain and gore
"pooling" in that exact area of his head (the right-rear-occipital
area), and that gore gave the false impression to those witnesses that
a big HOLE was located there. When, in fact, it wasn't a deficit or
hole at all. It was merely a great-big mess of blood/brain/tissue.

* = But I cannot totally reconcile the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses via
the above argument, so I have to put them in a different "unsolved"
category. I haven't the foggiest idea why people like Custer, Riebe,
etc., said they saw a big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
That's a huge head-scatcher for me, that I doubt can ever be fully
resolve. But there's no doubt in my mind that Custer, et al, were
wrong too, because there simply is no HOLE in the head where those
people claimed to have seen one.

>>> "There was a hole in the back of his head." <<<

I'll have to (strongly) disagree with you again. There is no "hole" in
the BACK (i.e., "occipital") part of JFK's head, which is where those
Parkland/Bethesda witnesses said they saw a "hole".

I'll admit that the fractured (or "hinged", as we've been calling it)
part of the skull at the TOP of the head does extend into what we
could call the BACK (or upper-back) of the head. But as I pointed out
to Robert Harris in past posts, that TOP-OF-THE-HEAD wound does not
corroborate or substantiate the observations of the Parkland/Bethesda
witnesses, even it is was hanging down and hinged-open when JFK was at
Parkland Hospital. Because that top-of-the-head piece of skull is
certainly not anywhere near the "occipital" area of President's
Kennedy's head:

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

So, in the final analysis, I'd say I'm pretty much back to where I was
prior to reading your lengthy post of July 13th -- i.e., I'm still of
the opinion that the Parkland witnesses were incorrect when they said
that President Kennedy had a large-sized hole in the back of his
head.

And I still hold that opinion even if your theory is correct about the
top-of-the-head skull piece being "hinged open" at Parkland. Either
way, the Parkland witnesses did not correctly identify the TRUE
LOCATION of the large wound they said they saw in President Kennedy's
head on November 22, 1963.

Thank you for your posts, Caeruleo. You've given me additional food
for "BOH" thought. But even with that additional food in my stomach, I
still think the Parkland people got it wrong.

David Von Pein
July 15, 2011

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 16, 2011, 11:01:39 AM7/16/11

On Jul 16, 12:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>
> Hi again Caeruleo,
>
> Sorry for being so abrupt and short on previous occasions in this
> forum thread.
>
> You did, indeed, write up multiple lengthy posts about JFK's head
> wounds, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing them specifically
> to me. My responses to you were probably too short and too abrupt. My
> apologies.
>

David,
I don't know the name 'Ceruleo' and I hope I'm not stepping on his
toes, but your post seemed to address my posts, so I'll take it that
way. Consider that you attempted to kill 2 birds with 1 stone...:)

> Upon re-reading (slowly) your first post in this thread (dated July
> 13, 2011), I see that you have made some good points indeed,
> particularly regarding the "hinged" piece of skull that is quite clear
> on one of JFK's autopsy X-rays. In fact, I've discussed that
> particular piece of "loose bone" with Robert Harris on a few occasions
> in the past.
>
> And I, like you, totally disagree with Mr. Harris' theory about a
> second shot to JFK's head being the thing that caused that "hinged"
> piece of skull at the very top of the President's head.
>

I've heard of a 'second shot' from a few places, but those places were
saying that the 2 shots both came from the front, so for my purposes
it doesn't really matter if there were 1 or 2, if they occurred close
to the same time.

> Regardless of how much damage was done to JFK's head on 11/22/63, we
> can know with 100% certainty (at least I am certain of this fact) that
> ALL of that damage was caused by one single bullet that came from
> ABOVE and BEHIND President Kennedy. The evidence of only one bullet
> hitting JFK in the head is too overwhelming to toss aside in favor of
> ANY theory that a person might be willing to cling to. There's the
> autopsy report, the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons, and the
> autopsy photographs and X-rays. And all of those things corroborate
> each other with respect to the number of shots that struck JFK in the
> head. And that answer is "one".

I'm willing to put aside the 2 bullet theory for now, but I don't
believe there is anywhere near enough physical evidence to come
anywhere near to saying with such certainty that the bullet came from
above and behind. Especially with the pictures you linked to here.
Again, I'm more interested in the physical evidence that the pictures
represent, although the verbal evidence from the Parkland personnel
would carrry more weight with me than the autopsy surgeons, who came
into the scene many hours later when more opportunities had been
available to mess with the physical evidence.

>
> >>> "Look again at that lateral x-ray. The lowermost part of the piece of skull is not quite halfway down the back of the head, and the uppermost part of [it] includes a little of the top of the head. Now imagine him lying on his back and that piece falling open, still hanging onto the scalp, but otherwise not attached. And this business of it being in the upper right rear also is corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland, although they used various terminology." <<<
>
> Yes, I suppose you could be right about this. But I'm still having a
> difficult time envisioning the top-of-the-head skull flap (if it was
> "open" when JFK was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital) causing
> virtually all of the witnesses to think that the large head wound was
> in the BACK part of JFK's head. The orientation of WHERE that loose
> skull flap would have fallen, given those circumstances, just doesn't
> seem to add up to me.
>

Let's look at the picture you linked to:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

The scalp flap hangs down to the table. That's fairly long. The
content of that flap is definitely not hair only. JFK's hair was
fairly short. We have to call that mess hanging down something. We
can't say they attached it as a party hat. What could be in that area
that would be hanging down so far along the back of his head? I
suggest scalp, possibly skull fragments, and brain matter. What else
could be there?

An interesting point, although I don't hold great stock in it, is
the right front forehead just behind the hairline in that picture.
There is a lighter patch with a small black circle in it. Entry
wound? Who knows. Now what would be the result if someone were to
grab the end of that huge flap in the back of the head and pull it up
and over the head and smooth it out? It might look like there wasn't
a huge hole in the head where all that scalp, skull and brain matter
came from. Sadfly, they forgot to leave out the flap of skull
obviously flopped forward from the right side of his skull.

It will help if we consider the other set of pictures at this
point. The link is below. Looking at BE2 we see the mess again
running down the back of the head to the table. Then we look at BE4
and suddenly all the mess is gone completely!! Where did it go? But
looking closely, at BE4 we see the flap of skull hinged forward
meaning that under all that 'normalcy' there is a large wound. The
skull flap is shaped in such a way that it is obvious that it would
flop backward to be in its proper place. That means that a chunk of
hairy scalp has been pulled forward where the flap would normally be.
We can see in BE4 also that the technician is holding the flap of
scalp and pulling it to himself. His fingers have gone under the flap
to get a good grip.

The other set of pictures you fortunately supplied are here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

> Here's the best autopsy photo we have to illustrate the exact posture
> that JFK was in when the Parkland witnesses saw him in Dallas:
>

> Now, it's possible that the President's head wounds didn't look
> EXACTLY like the picture above when JFK was at Parkland. And I agree
> with you 100% that it's quite likely that Jackie "closed up" the flap
> on the upper-right portion of his head, thereby possibly concealing
> that wound to a large extent from the Parkland observers.
>
> I've speculated about that very thing in the past as well, theorizing
> that Jackie's handling of JFK's head might very well be the reason why
> virtually nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing the large right-front
> exit wound.
>

I doubt that the wound was 'concealed' at Parkland because too many of
the doctors stated where the wound was and the size. That some later
had a different opinion suggests to me that either some didn't see
enough close up, or they've been subverted to say other than what they
saw. I remember watching interviews with many of them and how they
put their hands behind and to the right of their heads in placing the
large wound. As well, doctors whose job it is to render aid to a
patient wouldn't simply stand there and not handle the wound and look
around for information. If the ugly flap of scalp we saw back in BE2
was hanging down, they would have handled it and probably looked under
it to seee the huge loss of material under the flap, and if Jackie had
pulled the flap closed, given it's location from the pictures we've
seen here, that flap would have flopped open again on its own. That's
why the technician is holding it closed in BE4. Looking at BE1-BE4
makes it clear that there was no major wound in the top or front of
the head, including the forward part of either side.

> But if JFK's head looked anything like the above autopsy photo while
> he was lying in that exact same position (flat on his back) at
> Parkland Hospital, I'm then back to my original stance of scratching
> my head and wondering: How could the Parkland people say that
> Kennedy's large wound was in the VERY BACK of his head--or UPPER-REAR
> or LOWER-REAR of his head.
>

It's not easy to accept the pictures and the implications with this
different viewpoint because it would mean a complete shift in all
beliefs related to the killing. Not an easy thing to do.

> It seems to me that if the top "hinged" part of JFK's head had opened
> up, then this would have caused the Parkland witnesses to see a huge
> hole at the VERY TOP of his head--not the REAR of the head (or the
> right-rear, which is where many witnesses, Dr. McClelland for one,
> said it was).
>

If skull and other fragments stuck to the scalp, then when the flap of
scalp was at rest with JFK on his back, the huge hole wouldn't appear
near the top of his head because the flap would look like BE2.

> So, even if the theory is correct about the top part of JFK's head
> "opening up" at Parkland, it appears to me that we have a very similar
> situation regarding the Parkland witnesses that I have brought up
> before -- i.e., it would seem as though those Parkland witnesses STILL
> would be wrong about where the actual wound really was.
>
> Because I want to know how a big opening at the VERY TOP of Kennedy's
> head would equate to the Parkland people seeing a huge hole in the far-
> right-rear or even HIGH-right-rear portion of his head?
>

The hole wasn't at the VERY TOP of his head. Look at BE2 and it
shows the flap of scalp hanging from the middle of the top of his
head. The damage was mostly behind and down from the hanging scalp
segment. To help visualize this, let's look at BE7 which we haven't
addressed so far. It is a picture of the complete hole in the head
with all the flaps pulled out and the hole shown in it's entirety. We
are looking into the area where the brain should be. There in no way
anyone can find that hole anywhere in the other photos excdept under
the flap of scalp we've been talking about. No other picture has a
place for a hole like that!

> And if the hinged skull flap ITSELF is supposed to be the thing that
> is confusing the Parkland personnel (instead of the big HOLE that has
> now been exposed IN THE SKULL of Kennedy via this "hinged flap"
> theory), I'd have to ask: How did that hinged piece of skull/scalp
> manage to tuck itself UNDER the head of the President, in order to
> appear to be at the very BACK (or occipital) part of his head?
>

Actually, the flap didn't get stuck under the head on the table if the
pictures are to be believed. It flopped down like BE2 almost to the
table top. It could be easily lifted to see under to find BE7.

> I would think that such a loose chunk of skull/scalp from the very top
> of his head would have fallen on the stretcher, and would not have
> given the appearance of being a HOLE in the BACK of his head. It would
> have just been lying there, somewhat flat on the stretcher (it seems
> to me). But maybe you have other thoughts on what exactly such a piece
> of loose skull or scalp would have looked like to an observer at
> Parkland.
>

This is the hard part of these pictrures. I doubt that doctors in
the ER that have had to deal with bullet wounds and similar trauma
would be confused at what they were seeing. They had seen bullet
damage before. They saw what the pictures show, which is a big hole
in the back right part of the skull. They handled the patient. They
didn't stand around and just look. Though the scalp flap was hanging
down, they would have manipulated it and found the hole underneath.
The flap of skull that stuck out to the right might have been sticking
out at the beginning, or came out later before the pictures were
taken.

> But, anyway, via the autopsy photo linked above, I still find it hard
> to envision a scenario which would have virtually all of the Parkland
> witnesses somehow seeing what they think is a great-big hole in ANY
> portion of the VERY BACK of President Kennedy's head. Because, as I've
> stressed previously (and it's still true today), the autopsy photos
> and X-rays indicate that there was no hole in the BACK of JFK's head.
> It is not there. Period. And a hole in the VERY BACK of Kennedy's head
> IS what the vast majority of Parkland witnesses said they saw. And, I
> admit, that incongruity is still #1 on my list of things that just do
> not add up about this murder case (particularly the Bethesda "BOH"
> witnesses).
>

Incongruity is a good word here. Many of us look at the pictures and
see some hole in the front of the head (don't ask me where), and many
see it in the back under the scalp flap. My view is that there is no
large hole showing anywhere in the pictures except BE7, and the only
place it could be located in BE1-BE6 is under the large flap hanging
down over the back rear of the head.

The pictures show the only possibility of where the hole was located,
and it supports the BOH people at Parkland. The thing that makes it
almost impossible to accept that is all the other things that would
have to change if we accept that as truth, so we find other ways to
shift the evidence around to fit our previous conclusions.

> >>> "There was a hole in the back of his head." <<<
>
> I'll have to (strongly) disagree with you again. There is no "hole" in
> the BACK (i.e., "occipital") part of JFK's head, which is where those
> Parkland/Bethesda witnesses said they saw a "hole".
>

We did that already.

> I'll admit that the fractured (or "hinged", as we've been calling it)
> part of the skull at the TOP of the head does extend into what we
> could call the BACK (or upper-back) of the head. But as I pointed out
> to Robert Harris in past posts, that TOP-OF-THE-HEAD wound does not
> corroborate or substantiate the observations of the Parkland/Bethesda
> witnesses, even it is was hanging down and hinged-open when JFK was at
> Parkland Hospital. Because that top-of-the-head piece of skull is
> certainly not anywhere near the "occipital" area of President's
> Kennedy's head:
>

It hangs down to the table top and past in BE2.

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...

>
> So, in the final analysis, I'd say I'm pretty much back to where I was
> prior to reading your lengthy post of July 13th -- i.e., I'm still of
> the opinion that the Parkland witnesses were incorrect when they said
> that President Kennedy had a large-sized hole in the back of his
> head.
>
> And I still hold that opinion even if your theory is correct about the
> top-of-the-head skull piece being "hinged open" at Parkland. Either
> way, the Parkland witnesses did not correctly identify the TRUE
> LOCATION of the large wound they said they saw in President Kennedy's
> head on November 22, 1963.
>
> Thank you for your posts, Caeruleo. You've given me additional food
> for "BOH" thought. But even with that additional food in my stomach, I
> still think the Parkland people got it wrong.
>
> David Von Pein
> July 15, 2011

I hope I've helped to visualize the situation, or put a different
view on the table. The pictures were very useful, and I hope I
haven't besmirched the reputation of the famous 'Caeruleo'...:)

Chris

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 16, 2011, 2:29:45 PM7/16/11

In several of the extant autopsy photos, one can't see the back of the
head to determine the damage-Doug Horne brings out a ton of interesting,
suppressed info. that contradicts the official mythology &makes a lotta
good points in his volumes, a few I don't agree with, but he says that
when they took the Autopsy Photos for examination to Rochester for the
ARRB with state of the art equipment that both the cowlick and the EOP
wounds could both be entrances, he says that the EOP wound looks much
more like an entrance with the original photos enhanced and Henry Lee
seemed to agree, but he didn't want to commit himself without seeing the
body.So, we are left with 3 possible entrance wounds-right temple
witnesses-J.Jenkins, Custer, Robinson, Crenshaw, David-EOP-has quite a
few witnesses-Humes, Boswell, Finck, Lipsey, Robinson, maybe a couple
more, and the cowlick which has none, except there may have been an
entrance near there, but it certainly was in a bloody avulsive brain
matter mess, not an intact back of the head...Laz

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 16, 2011, 5:40:00 PM7/16/11

Laz,
I'm not convinced that any part of the back of the head was intact,
except a bit on the left side. The Parkland doctors that said the
'right rear' matched with the photos that we have available to us (at
least to me). It's irritating that I saw a statement that the true
autopsy photos were locked up and these are not the ones. Who knows
what those show by now, or if they were lost like other things.

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 17, 2011, 10:16:23 AM7/17/11

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4336dbc1de6fb43c

"CAERULEO" SAID:

>>> "That this many witnesses were merely "mistaken" all in the same way is most definitely not plausible. I will once again make the most potent statement of all regarding why rejecting these witnesses cannot be considered in any reasonable assessment of this issue, and I would like you to comment on this statement very specifically, please, if you post any reply at all to this article, that this statement be given high priority: The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, will know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. David, is this statement true or false? You do realize that if you were to say "false" that most people would find that to be quite an astonishing answer, correct? Now let's try it in a slightly different form: The average person, without a day of medical training, will know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. True or false? Rather obviously, an answer of "false" given in seriousness by an adult would naturally elicit a reaction of amazement among most other adults present, and from many older children as well. Correct?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

True. True. And correct.

And 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.

Here's what Moore said in his book:

"The explanation for this [head wound] discrepancy is so simple
few will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President
Kennedy in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his
forehead might have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a
wound on the right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at
the rear of the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of
"Conspiracy Of One"

And, incredibly, even Vincent Bugliosi (in "Reclaiming History") gives
partial credence to Moore's absurd theory that I just quoted above.

But I hope that you don't think that **I** myself subscribe to Jim
Moore's theory about the Parkland witnesses, because I do not. And I
blasted Moore's theory quite vigorously in my review of his book,
here:

http://Conspiracy--Of--One.blogspot.com

But the explanation of the blood, brain, and gore "pooling" to the
right-rear part of JFK's head at Parkland DOES make a good deal of
sense to me -- particularly since we know (via the Zapruder Film
footage alone) that the large exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's
bullet WAS, indeed, on the RIGHT side of the President's head. It is
therefore quite logical, in my opinion, to believe that the Parkland
personnel would have seen a large amount of blood and tissue
collecting (or "pooling") at the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL area of
President Kennedy's head in Trauma Room 1.

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).

I assume you think that both Michael Baden of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel AND author Vincent Bugliosi of "Reclaiming History"
fame are BOTH totally out of their minds for believing in the
"pooling" theory I just outlined, correct? Because here is what Mr.
Bugliosi and Dr. Baden had to say on this issue:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I [Vince Bugliosi] 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. "That's why we have autopsies,
photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. 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. But clearly, from the autopsy
X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons,
the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no
defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance
wound in the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." --
Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

As I stated in an earlier post, you could possibly be correct about
your theory concerning the "hinged" skull at the (mostly) top of JFK's
head springing "open" while he was lying on his back at Parkland
Hospital. I fully admit it: You could be correct. But I certainly
think that the "pooling" theory could very well be the correct answer
to this 48-year-old mystery about the Parkland doctors too (but not
necessarily the answer to why some of the BETHESDA witnesses said they
saw the same "occipital" wound in Kennedy's head at the autopsy).

But your theory needs the hinged skull flap to MASQUERADE AS AN
OCCIPITAL WOUND for several minutes at Parkland Hospital on November
22, 1963.

Can the top-of-the-head "hinged flap" actually make its way to the
OCCIPITAL part of President Kennedy's head, in order to fool many
witnesses into thinking that a large HOLE was really residing in the
right-rear-occipital part of Kennedy's head? I'm not so sure it can.
(But, maybe you are correct, and maybe that flap COULD have seemed to
be a large hole in the occipital to several witnesses. But I'm still a
bit dubious about that.)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Also:

Is there any verification in the existing literature or doctors'
testimony that would indicate for certain that the fractured top
portion of JFK's head was, in fact, in such a condition that it could
conceivably have "sprung open" like a hinge on a door?

There might very well be testimony of that nature in Humes', Finck's,
or Boswell's various testimony sessions over the years, but right now
I cannot specifically recall such testimony.

In other words, are we just GUESSING about whether it's even POSSIBLE
for the top part of JFK's damaged skull to have behaved in the
"swinging door"-like method which your theory certainly requires?

Also: Even if the "door hinge" theory is correct, how can we be
certain WHICH DIRECTION the skull flap would have "swung"? I can't
really tell from the X-ray below where any such "hinge" would be
attached. Can you?....

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

What I mean is: If there is anything at all that still attached the
FRONTAL MOST (nearest Kennedy's face) portion of that top-of-the-head
skull/scalp piece to JFK's head, then such an attachment, of course,
would negate your "hinged door" theory altogether, because there's no
way (via those conditions) that the top skull flap could have been
flopping around on his head to begin with.

Plus: Your theory most definitely requires the top skull flap to
somehow seem to be a major deficit (a hole) in a specific part of
JFK's head to many of the Parkland witnesses -- i.e., the OCCIPITAL
area of the head (although, yes, some of the witnesses place the wound
a little higher and more "central" on the back of the head).

So, it seems to me that your theory requires the top-of-the-head
"flap" or "hinge" to somehow ADHERE itself to the right-rear
(occipital) part of JFK's cranium. And I just don't see how that flap
can do that.

But in the "pooling blood" theory, the right-rear-occipital part of
Mr. Kennedy's head would most CERTAINLY be the portion of his head
where the blood/brain/tissue/whatever would definitely have been
heading straight toward (or "pooling" at).

And I would think that such streaming blood would have a tendency to
STICK or ADHERE to the occipital area of the head too, as it followed
the natural curved contour and shape of JFK's head.

Whereas, via your theory, you've got a hanging piece of skull bone
flapping around that wouldn't have ADHERED itself to any particular
one spot on the President's head.

So, while I do think you've raised some good points about the "hinged
flap" theory, I think your theory is still a bit weak in some areas.

And here's another weak area (that I don't think you addressed in your
previous posts):

What about the "cerebellum" comments made by some of the Parkland
witnesses?

You surely aren't suggesting that there really WAS a large-sized (or
even small) "hole" in the "occipital" area of JFK's head--are you?

Your "hinged flap" is located at the top of the head (and, yes, it
certainly extends toward the BACK of the head too--I admit that fact).
But it certainly is a long way from the "occipital" bone.

So I'm wondering how the doctors at Parkland could be correct when
some of them said they saw "cerebellum" oozing from the wound in the
back of Mr. Kennedy's head? Dr. Paul Peters and Dr. Pepper Jenkins
have, of course, totally reversed themselves on this "cerebellum"
topic. In 1988 on PBS-TV, they each said that it wasn't cerebellum
they saw, and that they must have been mistaken about that issue.

Of course, I must also say, that I really don't put very much faith in
what ANY of those doctors had to say during that NOVA PBS special in
1988. Because their comments about the wounds in that program are
totally crazy and contradictory to their 1963 observations, IMO.
Here's why:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

>>> "You still seem to be misunderstanding exactly where this piece of bone is in the skull, and thus where the Parkland "hole" in the upper right posterior of the head was." <<<

So, right there, you're admitting that several Parkland people did get
it wrong. You're claiming that the "hole" that was seen at Parkland
was in the "upper right posterior" portion of JFK's head. But "upper
right" does not match the "occipital". Occipital is very low on the
head:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4EaHx7zR23A/TiLWgRyxS9I/AAAAAAAAc74/iIqBPocSQSc/s1600/Skull.jpg

So, some (or even many) witnesses must certainly have been wrong, even
via your theory. Or have I totally misunderstood you (again)?

>>> "Ok, once again, I ask you one of the most important questions of all. Please do not reply to my article without answering this very specifically. It is crucial that you answer this, because without this answer you cannot present a plausible argument: IF THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WASN'T WHERE THEY SAID IT WAS, THEN WHERE ON HIS HEAD WAS THE HOLE THEY SAW? Unless you're going to dismiss these witnesses even further and claim that not only were they mistaken about where the hole was, they were mistaken about there being ANY hole (in which case I'll never take you seriously again), you realize that you or anyone else doubting what they said absolutely MUST answer this question plausibly to produce an even remotely plausible argument." <<<

Well, 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.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/198BOHWoundWitnessesMontage.jpg

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. (But maybe I'm "misunderstanding" things
again.) :-)

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, 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)?

But we must also realize that the Parkland people were not there to
perform an autopsy on President Kennedy's body. They were there to try
and save his life if they could. They did not closely inspect or
examine ANY of the President's wounds. Nor was it their job to do any
such extensive examination. Once the President was pronounced dead,
Trauma Room 1 cleared out quickly, and very few people even saw the
President's body after that point at Parkland.

So, while it might be hard to believe that the massive wound in JFK's
head could go completely unnoticed by many, many trained doctors and
nurses at a major U.S. hospital, given the circumstances and
conditions outlined above concerning Mrs. Kennedy's probable handling
of her husband's head before the car got to Parkland (and even you,
yourself, say that you believe it's true that Jackie most certainly
DID close up the open flaps on JFK's head), such a theory about the
Parkland personnel not being able to see any of the actual wounds in
the President's head seems quite possible and palatable, in my
opinion.

>>> "Where do you think on JFK's head the hole was that they saw? Do you see any hole in his head in that...autopsy photo with him laying on his back? I sure don't. And in that photo the area where they said there WAS a hole is completely covered by his hair." <<<

You have just confirmed the point I made above.

I.E.,

You just admitted (inadvertently) that a situation could, indeed,
exist whereby the head of President Kennedy (after he had been shot)
could appear to a witness to have NO HOLES IN IT WHATSOEVER (via the
autopsy picture you mentioned).

So, via the "pooling blood" theory that I still maintain is likely the
correct theory (even though I cannot reconcile that theory with ALL of
the Parkland/Bethesda witnesses, and probably will never be able to do
that), why would it be considered so outlandish to postulate that the
Parkland witnesses saw the President's body in approximately the same
condition in which it appears in this autopsy photo?:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Hence, those 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 wound in his head.

David Von Pein
July 17, 2011

aeffects

unread,

Jul 17, 2011, 5:05:53 PM7/17/11

On Jul 17, 7:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>
no advertising pukster and NO keying off of Caerulo's softballs
either, ya wimp...

0 new messages