THE BACK OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of twisting the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below you apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" describe---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole, and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn't your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that they also described a BOH wound?" <<<
To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV
Let me guess, John -- Humes was correct in what he said in the above-
mentioned quotation; but he still thought there was ANOTHER wound in
the BOH too (but he decided not to talk about that "other" one on CBS-
TV with correspondent Dan Rather). Correct?
And when did Dr. Boswell EVER say there was the kind of "Large BOH"
wound that you and the Parkland witnesses advocate? (I think you're
"extending" Boswell's comments a little bit too far into that "BOH" of
yours.)
BTW, John, I doubt very much that you can come up with a single
witness who described the President's head wounds in the exact manner
YOU think is correct -- i.e., come up with one witness who said this:
"I think the entry wound on JFK's head was located low in the
back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the larger
wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was a fairly-
extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while the
second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipital)
area of the head."
Have you got even ONE witness who provided the above description of
the head wounds?
Didn't think so.
>>> "How about a miracle that results in DVP answering, in good faith, my closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to ask for?" <<<
I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closing
Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very moment
(8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already
dropped to Page 2 on the aaj forum, so that didn't help me in seeing
it either.
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18ea57b8f589eb4d
So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er... I mean Mr. Canal).......
>>> "1. Isn’t it true that…you cannot name one single doctor who was either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK’s life at PH, or on the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<<
No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound on
JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yours, as
it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the ENTRY
wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question of yours,
since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we all
know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entry on the
back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and I
have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossman; but
that's another topic).
Anyway, with respect to the largest of the wounds, all three of the
autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head wounds.
One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've already
posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes
The autopsy report (signed by all 3 autopsists) corroborates the
location of the largest head wound (the exit wound), to wit -- "There
is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIGHT
involving CHIEFLY THE PARIETAL BONE but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)
And that "somewhat into the occipital" reference in the autopsy report
certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't think
for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your proposed
nonsense re. JFK's head wounds.
>>> "2. Isn’t it true that…you believe the autopsy report incorrectly states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<
No. (See #1 above.)
>>> "3. Isn’t it true that…you believe Humes was wrong when he said they saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<
Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):
Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:
"The cerebellum was somewhat disrupted, as I recall, as well.
But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."
Maybe you, John, can tell me how the term "somewhat disrupted" can be
turned into "severely lacerated".
It doesn't sound like Dr. Humes was describing a "severely lacerated"
cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other time
in his life?
BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 1964 WC
testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA session
either.
>>> "4. Isn’t it true that…you believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK’s head?" <<<
Yes, they definitely misidentified it (with Humes realizing his error
and correcting it in 1978, before he went cuckoo again in '96 or so
and returned to his crazy "white spot at the hairline is the entry
wound" position).
How anyone could believe, as apparently you do, John, that this piece
of dried brain tissue at the hairline level of JFK's head is a bullet
hole...is beyond the scope of my own brain:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0058b.htm
Not only did the HSCA do extensive research on this "white mass" on
the back of Kennedy's head (and they found it to be, beyond all doubt,
a piece of material that was definitely stuck to the OUTSIDE of his
head, rather than a HOLE for a bullet's entry)....but that "white
spot" doesn't even remotely resemble a bullet hole. It's not even
close to looking anything like a bullet hole.
>>> "5. Isn’t it true that…you believe Humes was mistaken about his recollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came out?" <<<
I thought it was Boswell whom you always prop up to support that part
of your BOH fantasy. Now it's Humes too? Cite that please.
Anyway, as the X-ray shows (beyond all doubt), the back of JFK's head
was totally intact -- i.e., the back of the skull contained no HOLES,
nor enough fragmentation or fracture points to even suggest that
Boswell (or anyone else) could have possibly placed chunks of JFK's
head back into place IN THE VERY BACK OF HIS HEAD at any time during
the Bethesda proceedings on 11/22/63.
And I still wonder why it doesn't bother John that the two major
pieces of photographic evidence (the autopsy photos and that pesky "No
Hole Back Here And Not Enough Fracture Lines" lateral X-ray) are, in
unison, somehow debunking his own theory....and yet he still clings to
his fantasy re. the large BOH hole?
A most curious position to take, IMO, in the face of such overwhelming
PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence that is telling him he is wrong (in TRIPLICATE
yet -- the two pics that show the back of President Kennedy's head and
the X-ray of the right side of his head).
But, everybody's entitled to their own theories and opinions, I guess.
And just because John Canal has latched onto a really strange theory,
I guess he's still "got a right" to it.
>>> "6. Isn’t it true that…you believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-rays on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the NA, 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. If Chad said that, I think he's wrong.
>>> "7. Isn’t it true that…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?" <<<
The EOP isn't "cropped" here:
It looks to me like 100% of the head (on the far-left side of that X-
ray above) is included in that photograph. And if a teeny-weeny sliver
of the head is cut off, how does that do you and your "trail of
opacities from the EOP" theory much good anyway? Any such "trail"
would certainly extend into an area further RIGHT on that X-
ray....thereby making the trail visible.
Anyway, you've admitted yourself you've never once seen the original X-
ray in the Archives. You're merely relying on someone else's opinion
on that particular sub-topic.
>>> "8. Isn’t it true that…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”?" <<<
No. I've never once used the words you placed in quotes there
("surface fractures"). I challenge you to find a previous post of mine
where I used those exact words. You won't find one. (So why would you
want to put those words in quotation marks?)
Anyway, semantics aside, there is no BOH hole in the location where
you--John Canal--desperately NEED one to be located (the FAR-RIGHT-
REAR portion of the occipital of JFK's head).
And, yes, I believe the version(s) of the X-ray we have available on
the Internet are giving me enough information to make an informed
opinion on that "fracture lines" matter.
There's not NEARLY enough visible damage in this X-ray to make your
theory stay afloat. It's not even close:
>>> "9. Isn’t it true that…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. Exactly. That states my position perfectly.
And from the TOTALITY of the photographic evidence (autopsy photos/X-
rays), I think my conclusion regarding that subject is a sound and
logical one.
Footnote -- But even if a few very small pieces of skull near the
entry wound DID fall out of JFK's head upon reflection of the scalp
during the autopsy, it would mean (from my POV re. that wound's REAL
location--i.e., near the cowlick) that any such pieces of bone/skull
fell out HIGH up on Kennedy's head, at the cowlick region, and not LOW
on the head, which is where YOU need the pieces of bone to have fallen
out in order for your particular "BOH/LN" theory to be true.
Plus, of course, since these pieces of bone didn't even "fall out" of
the President's head until THE AUTOPSY (i.e., after 8:00 PM EST on the
night of 11/22/63), John C. has another very big problem with his BOH/
LN theory as well. And that problem is:
HOW COULD THE PARKLAND WITNESSES HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN SOMETHING (A LARGE
HOLE IN THE OCCIPITAL REGION OF JFK'S HEAD) THAT WASN'T EVEN CREATED
UNTIL MANY HOURS LATER AT BETHESDA, MARYLAND, WHEN THE AUTOPSISTS
REFLECTED THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER FOR *ANY* LOOSE PIECES
TO FALL FREE FROM HIS HEAD?
(That last emphasized question should make John Canal scratch his head
in bewilderment. Whether it will or not -- who knows.)
>>> "10. Isn’t it true that…you have said that you don’t care about understanding F8 (or words to that effect)?" <<<
Yes.
That picture is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain
it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense
(from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It
would still be a total freaking "mess".
IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is
attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on
John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official"
opinion on the picture, it seems.
In other words, how can "mud" possibly bring about "clarity"? IMO, it
can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and
clearer-to-interpret evidence.
>>> "11. Isn’t it true that…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 certainly think you've
got another big problem with your unique "BOH/LN" theory when it comes
to the photo in question...this photo (linked below, yet again, for
reference):
Because how could JFK's head look as it does in that photograph and
still have your theory about a badly-torn scalp* be true -- no matter
WHEN the picture was snapped by Mr. Stringer (either early or late in
the autopsy timeline)?
I see no damage of any kind in that area of the head in that photo. No
sign of a wound. No hole. No stitches. No sutures. No nothing (except
hair and an intact scalp).
* = And make no mistake here--John needs a "badly-torn" scalp in that
far-right-rear area of JFK's head. Not just a nickel- or quarter-sized
mini-hole. Because without a pretty-big rip in that scalp, the
witnesses at Parkland (and, yes, some at Bethesda too...and, yes,
Clint Hill too) could not POSSIBLY have seen what they and John Canal
really say they saw -- i.e., a large, gaping hole in the right-rear of
Kennedy's head, which is a hole that would have had to certainly TEAR
THROUGH A LARGE HUNK OF JFK'S SCALP (as well as his underlying skull
too).
Which also then, in turn, brings me back to something I said in
response to John's 9th question, which directly relates to this matter
as well. (See my "Footnote" for #9 above.)
>>> "12. Isn’t it true that…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 tears in the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<<
Yes. Exactly.
>>> "13. Isn’t it true that…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?" <<<
I can't answer this question at all....because I have never seen this
mystery "trail of opacities...near the EOP". (And neither have you, I
might add.)
But you're comfortable enough to make such a bold declaration about
the existence of such a "trail" (and the exact explanation of where
any such bone fragments came from and what it all means with respect
to a definitive "entry" hole at the level of the EOP) even though
you've never laid eyes on that original X-ray.
Well, to each his own.
>>> "14. Isn’t it true that…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?" <<<
Yes. Precisely correct. He (they) did no such thing. At any rate, they
certainly didn't perform any such "bone replacement" chore IN THE
PRECISE AREA OF JFK'S HEAD WHERE YOU NEED THEM TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED
THAT FEAT (i.e., in the far-right-rear of the head).
How can we know they didn't do that in that area of the head?
Answer: The lateral X-ray.
>>> "15. Isn’t it true that…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?" <<<
No. That's not quite what I've ever said. The cowlick (red spot) entry
hole could be "off" a little bit one direction or another during that
photo session. It doesn't have to line up perfectly for the benefit of
that picture.
I doubt that Humes, Finck, and Boswell (in circa 1963-1964) could have
imagined (in their wildest dreams) that meaningless chaff-like
subjects like these we're discussing would ever come up in
conversation in a million years. And yet they do come up...over and
over again.
The bottom line, of course, is this: JFK was struck in the head with
ONE single bullet and no more than one....and that one bullet entered
in the BACK of his head (somewhere), and exited the right-front part
of his head. And Lee Harvey Oswald and his 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle were responsible for this damage.
>>> "16. Isn’t it true that…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?" <<<
Yes. Generally-speaking, that's true. Mainly due to the fact that it's
so much easier to view the UNDENIABLE entry-hole location (the red
spot near the cowlick) by way of viewing the color photo showing the
back of JFK's head, rather than trying to decipher the X-rays with
respect to what "spot" on the X-rays represents the precise location
of the entry wound. I think even some of the experts who deal with X-
rays a lot have some difficulty with that one. Not all of them, true,
but some do.
So, even if the slightly-loosened scalp was "skewing" the exact, to-
the-millimeter location of the entry wound in the color photo of the
back of the head, that photo is telling any reasonable person the
GENERAL location of the entry hole (which was certainly ABOVE the EOP,
and not below it).
>>> "17. Isn’t it true that…you believe FBI Agents O’Neill and Siebert [sic], as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken about seeing a BOH wound?" <<<
Yes. The latter....they were mistaken. Without doubt. They didn't lie
though. And no Parkland or Bethesda witness did either. And I've never
once accused any of those people of "lying". Never once.
Also refer back to my response in #11 above for more on this topic.
Re: "Liars".....
The only PROVABLE "liars" in the JFK case, IMO, are Roger Craig and
Jean Hill. Those witnesses don't play any part in our discussion re.
the head wounds, however. But both of them were proven liars without a
shred of a doubt.
>>> "18. Isn’t it true that…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. That's correct.
He could not possibly have seen a "right rear gaping wound" in the
head of the dead Chief Executive.
Why?
<drumroll>
Here's why:
Thank you, John.
I enjoyed it.
Regards,
David R. Von Pein
awthr...@gmail.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>
> >>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of twisting the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below you apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" describe---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole, and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn't your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that they also described a BOH wound?" <<<
>
> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV
If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
doctors saw you get spaghetti.
There is a huge conflict between what the experts saw at Parkland vs.
what was seen at Bethesda.
As a result, we should look at the hard evidence such as the x-rays
and photos of the body. That is the best evidence (although there is
evidence that in this case the best evidence was tampered with. But
that possibility doesn't help your position, does it?)
The death stare photo indicates a normal face and forehead. Another
photo of the back of the head looks normal, too, in terms of major
destruction. But then another photo shows tremendous damage to the
side and back of the skull.
In other words, one BOH photo completely contradicts the other BOH
photo. To wit, you can't have both a normal BOH and a major trauma
photo that shows the same area.
So once you come to grips with the fraudulent nature of the evidence,
then you must look at the nature of Humes' comments in that light.
He clearly recognized that the President was taken out in a coup.
Being a bright guy who had graduated from medical school and all that,
he realized that if the President could be killed and his body
tampered with, his life was in jeopardy if he didn't behave properly.
When you read Humes comments in that light, it's clear that his often
inscrutable remarks make perfect sense.
The bottom line is this: the body didn't look the same in Parkland as
it did in Bethesda. So JFK's skull had a different set of injuries in
Bethesda compared to what he had in Parkland.
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18ea5...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>
> It looks to me like 100% of the head (on the far-left side of that X-
> ray above) is included in that photograph. And if a teeny-weeny sliver
> of the head is cut off, how does that do you and your "trail of
> opacities from the EOP" theory much good anyway? Any such "trail"
> would certainly extend into an area further RIGHT on that X-
> ray....thereby making the trail visible.
>
> Anyway, you've admitted yourself you've never once seen the original X-
> ray in the Archives. You're merely relying on someone else's opinion
> on that particular sub-topic.
>
> >>> "8. Isn’t it true that…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”?" <<<
>
> No. I've never once used the words you placed in quotes there
> ("surface fractures"). I challenge you to find a previous post of mine
> where I used those exact words. You won't find one. (So why would you
> want to put those words in quotation marks?)
>
> Anyway, semantics aside, there is no BOH hole in the location where
> you--John Canal--desperately NEED one to be located (the FAR-RIGHT-
> REAR portion of the occipital of JFK's head).
>
> And, yes, I believe the version(s) of the X-ray we have available on
> the Internet are giving me enough information to make an informed
> opinion on that "fracture lines" matter.
>
> There's not NEARLY enough visible damage in this X-ray to make your
> theory stay afloat. It's not even close:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>
> >>> "9. Isn’t it true that…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. Exactly. That states my position perfectly.
>
> And from the TOTALITY of the photographic evidence (autopsy photos/X-
> rays), I think my conclusion regarding that subject is a sound and
> logical one.
>
> Footnote -- But even if a few very small pieces of skull near the
> entry wound DID fall out of JFK's head upon reflection of the scalp
> during the autopsy, it would mean (from my POV re. that wound's REAL
> location--i.e., near the cowlick) that any such pieces of bone/skull
> fell out HIGH up on Kennedy's head, at the cowlick region, and not LOW
> on the head, which is where YOU need the pieces of bone to have fallen
> out in order for your particular "BOH/LN" theory to be true.
>
> Plus, of course, since these pieces of bone didn't even "fall out" of
> the President's head until THE AUTOPSY (i.e., after 8:00 PM EST on the
> night of 11/22/63), John C. has another very big problem with his BOH/
> LN theory as well. And that problem is:
>
> HOW COULD THE PARKLAND WITNESSES HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN SOMETHING (A LARGE
> HOLE IN THE OCCIPITAL REGION OF JFK'S HEAD) THAT WASN'T EVEN CREATED
> UNTIL MANY HOURS LATER AT BETHESDA, MARYLAND, WHEN THE AUTOPSISTS
> REFLECTED THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER FOR *ANY* LOOSES PIECES
> TO FALL FREE FROM HIS HEAD?
>
> (That last emphasized question should make John Canal scratch his head
> in bewilderment. Whether it will or not -- who knows.)
>
> >>> "10. Isn’t it true that…you have said that you don’t care about understanding F8 (or words to that effect)?" <<<
>
> Yes.
>
> That picture is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain
> it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense
> (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It
> would still be a total freaking "mess".
>
> IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is
> attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on
> John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official"
> opinion on the picture, it seems.
>
> In other words, how can "mud" possibly bring about "clarity"? IMO, it
> can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and
> clearer-to-interpret evidence.
>
> >>> "11. Isn’t it true that…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 certainly think you've
> got another big problem with your unique "BOH/LN" theory when it comes
> to the photo in question...this photo (linked below, yet again, for
> reference):
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
David Von Pein
Oh, goodie, a Lifton-supporting theorist is in our bosom! I thought
those kooks had died out with the dinosaurs. Guess I was wrong.
REGARDING DAVID LIFTON'S "BODY-STEALING" THEORY PUT FORTH IN HIS 1980
BOOK "BEST EVIDENCE":
David S. Lifton's lengthy 1980 pro-conspiracy JFK book ("Best
Evidence:
Disguise And Deception In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy")
spells
out a fantastically-absurd theory of casket-switching, body-snatching,
and head-altering surgery that was supposedly performed on the
badly-damaged cranium of President Kennedy by a group of unnamed
conspiratorial surgeons prior to JFK's official autopsy at Bethesda
Naval Medical Center.
A portion of this theory rests on a witness' supposed observation of a
second (pink-colored) casket being carried aboard Air Force One at
Dallas' Love Field on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, prior to the
plane travelling back to Washington.
Apparently, per this crazy theory, JFK's body was stolen from the
bronze casket that was put on board AF1 and was put into a pink
casket.
This pink casket and the President's body were then taken someplace
(who knows where) so that "body-altering surgery" could be performed
on
JFK (to hide the fact that the fatal shot to his head had actually
come
from in front of JFK that day in Dealey Plaza).
Evidently these slick and amazing surgeons were able to totally
reconstruct JFK's head, to hide the obvious wounds of a frontal
gunshot
blast, and this quick repair job was able to (incredibly) totally fool
all of the doctors who performed the official autopsy on the President
later that night at Bethesda.
This surgery (I assume) would include the ADDING IN of the small, neat
bullet wound of entrance near JFK's cowlick on the back of his head.
(Did these plotters actually fire a 6.5mm rifle bullet into the back
of
Kennedy's head during this covert head-altering session? If not, how
did that small entry wound get there at the official autopsy?)
Of course, this nutty scenario is not even remotely possible -- unless
Jackie Kennedy herself was one of the main conspirators. Jackie never
left her husband's casket (except for the very brief LBJ swearing-in
ceremony). And other JFK aides were right there with the casket during
that short period when Jackie was away from it.
Just try to picture this scenario in your mind (if you can do so while
laughing hysterically at the same time):
Holding a constant vigil from Dallas to Washington, Mrs. Jacqueline
Bouvier Kennedy -- evidently totally oblivious to everything that is
occurring around her -- sits by her husband's casket while watching
and
completely ignoring the fact that a second casket has been loaded
aboard aircraft #26000 as the Boeing 707 jetliner waits at Love Field
to transport the dead President and his widow back to the nation's
Capital.
A "small number of men" (per some conspiracy theorists' account of the
event) have hoisted a pinkish shipping casket onto the main passenger
level of the 707 aircraft. Shoving the grieving widow aside to get to
the ornamental casket housing John Kennedy's body, the conspirators
get
down to business. As the heartless plotters open the sealed bronze
casket and remove JFK's body (in full view of Mrs. Kennedy and God
knows how many others aboard the aircraft), John F. Kennedy's journey
into conspiracy history begins.
JFK is now transferred to the pink casket so that he can be whisked
away by the plotters to an unknown location for conspiratorial
surgical
purposes.
The band of conspirators now must load something that weighs 170
pounds
into the now-empty bronze casket, to simulate the weight of JFK. This
activity, too, goes completely unnoticed by the dozens of people
aboard
(and guarding!) the Boeing 707.
I can only hope that the conspirators were at the very least somewhat
courteous toward the grieving widow as they removed her husband's body
from his casket right before her eyes. An "excuse me ma'am, we have to
steal your husband" would have been appropriate I think.
And evidently Mrs. Kennedy couldn't have cared less about all of this
mysterious activity taking place right before her (and gobs of
others).
And nobody on board the aircraft says a SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT! Not one
person on board the plane saw ANY of this activity take place; and yet
it's actually accepted as being FACT by a number of conspiracy buffs.
Literally beyond belief!
There is ample proof (via the people in JFK's party who were on Air
Force One at Love Field) that Mr. Lifton's body-stealing theory never
could have possibly happened.
Here's a quote from JFK aide David Powers:
"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack
of
malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of
it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up
to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell went
with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go
of
it. In fact several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the
way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that
fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." -- Dave
Powers;
June 1987
But some conspiracy theorists don't seem to like (or don't want to
believe) the above words that were spoken by Mr. Powers. So, certain
CTers will simply ignore the obvious flaws in their theories and
continue to put forth mindless conspiracy scenarios that never could
have occurred in a million years.
After all, why bother believing the above words of somebody who was
actually right THERE on the airplane on 11/22/63....when conspiracists
could just as easily believe David S. Lifton's sensational theory
instead?
It would seem that even author David Lifton has had second thoughts
about his initial theory re. the snatching of Kennedy's body. He has
apparently re-arranged his theory quite a bit since his large tome
"Best Evidence" was published in 1980.
Here's a direct quote from Lifton on that subject:
"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact
realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting
the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the
coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was
down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event
actually
occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another matter." --
David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997
So, in essence, if one theory is proven wrong -- then just move on to
the next best one and see if another cat will lick this one up. It's
nothing but baloney. Utter bunk.
In short -- Anybody who would accept as true the nonsensical theory of
JFK's body being stolen off of Air Force One by evil plotters should
check themselves into the nearest insane asylum and seek immediate
treatment for "Conspiracy Theory Overdose".
David Von Pein
March 2006
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Aug 17, 9:34=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>>
> the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below y=
>ou apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" describe=
>---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole,=
> and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn=
>'t your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that they also=
> described a BOH wound?" <<<
>>
>> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>>
>> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV
>
>If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
>doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>
>There is a huge conflict between what the experts saw at Parkland vs.
>what was seen at Bethesda.
>
>As a result, we should look at the hard evidence such as the x-rays
>and photos of the body.
This is precisely what CANNOT be done. The "hard evidence" contradicts the
eyewitnesses, and contradicts itself.
It can *only* be to the eyewitnesses that one can run to for the evidence in
this case, and then only if it's corroborated by others not in a position to be
intimidated.
The earliest of all statements is to be preferred in almost all cases over later
statements.
LNT'ers would prefer to use only the "hard evidence", and would prefer to use
later, rather than the earliest statements made by eyewitnesses.
>That is the best evidence (although there is
>evidence that in this case the best evidence was tampered with.
Rather persuasive and overwhelming evidence, I'd say...
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "I think the entry wound on JFK's head was located low in the
>> back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the larger
>> wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was a fairly-
>> extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while the
>> second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipital)
>> area of the head."
>>
>> Have you got even ONE witness who provided the above description of
>> the head wounds?
>>
>> Didn't think so.
>>
>> >>> "How about a miracle that results in DVP answering, in good faith, my=
> closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to ask for?" <=
><<
>>
>> I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closing
>> Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very moment
>> (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already
>> dropped to Page 2 on the aaj forum, so that didn't help me in seeing
>> it either.
>>
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18ea5...
>>
>> So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er... I mean Mr. Canal).......
>>
>> >>> "1. Isn=92t it true that=85you cannot name one single doctor who was =
>either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK=92s life at PH, or o=
>n the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?" <<=
><
>>
>> No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound on
>> JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yours, as
>> it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the ENTRY
>> wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question of yours,
>> since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we all
>> know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entry on the
>> back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and I
>> have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossman; but
>> that's another topic).
>>
>> Anyway, with respect to the largest of the wounds, all three of the
>> autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head wounds.
>> One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've already
>> posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
>> right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes
>>
>> The autopsy report (signed by all 3 autopsists) corroborates the
>> location of the largest head wound (the exit wound), to wit -- "There
>> is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIGHT
>> involving CHIEFLY THE PARIETAL BONE but extending somewhat into the
>> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)
>>
>> And that "somewhat into the occipital" reference in the autopsy report
>> certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't think
>> for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your proposed
>> nonsense re. JFK's head wounds.
>>
>> >>> "2. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe the autopsy report incorrectly=
> states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<
>>
>> No. (See #1 above.)
>>
>> >>> "3. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe Humes was wrong when he said t=
>hey saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<
>>
>> Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):
>>
>> Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The cerebellum was somewhat disrupted, as I recall, as well.
>> But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."
>>
>> Maybe you, John, can tell me how the term "somewhat disrupted" can be
>> turned into "severely lacerated".
>>
>> It doesn't sound like Dr. Humes was describing a "severely lacerated"
>> cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other time
>> in his life?
>>
>> BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 1964 WC
>> testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA session
>> either.
>>
>> >>> "4. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe that Humes, Boswell, and Finck=
> grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JFK=
>=92s head?" <<<
>>
>> Yes, they definitely misidentified it (with Humes realizing his error
>> and correcting it in 1978, before he went cuckoo again in '96 or so
>> and returned to his crazy "white spot at the hairline is the entry
>> wound" position).
>>
>> How anyone could believe, as apparently you do, John, that this piece
>> of dried brain tissue at the hairline level of JFK's head is a bullet
>> hole...is beyond the scope of my own brain:
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>>
>> Not only did the HSCA do extensive research on this "white mass" on
>> the back of Kennedy's head (and they found it to be, beyond all doubt,
>> a piece of material that was definitely stuck to the OUTSIDE of his
>> head, rather than a HOLE for a bullet's entry)....but that "white
>> spot" doesn't even remotely resemble a bullet hole. It's not even
>> close to looking anything like a bullet hole.
>>
>> >>> "5. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe Humes was mistaken about his r=
>ecollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came ou=
>t?" <<<
>>
>> I thought it was Boswell whom you always prop up to support that part
>> of your BOH fantasy. Now it's Humes too? Cite that please.
>>
>> Anyway, as the X-ray shows (beyond all doubt), the back of JFK's head
>> was totally intact -- i.e., the back of the skull contained no HOLES,
>> nor enough fragmentation or fracture points to even suggest that
>> Boswell (or anyone else) could have possibly placed chunks of JFK's
>> head back into place IN THE VERY BACK OF HIS HEAD at any time during
>> the Bethesda proceedings on 11/22/63.
>>
>> And I still wonder why it doesn't bother John that the two major
>> pieces of photographic evidence (the autopsy photos and that pesky "No
>> Hole Back Here And Not Enough Fracture Lines" lateral X-ray) are, in
>> unison, somehow debunking his own theory....and yet he still clings to
>> his fantasy re. the large BOH hole?
>>
>> A most curious position to take, IMO, in the face of such overwhelming
>> PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence that is telling him he is wrong (in TRIPLICATE
>> yet -- the two pics that show the back of President Kennedy's head and
>> the X-ray of the right side of his head).
>>
>> But, everybody's entitled to their own theories and opinions, I guess.
>> And just because John Canal has latched onto a really strange theory,
>> I guess he's still "got a right" to it.
>>
>> >>> "6. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe Dr. Zimmerman, who reads X-ray=
>s on a daily basis and has examined the original photos and X-rays in the N=
>A, was wrong when he said that it was possible that some of the pieces of r=
>ear skull could have come =93unlatched=94, resulting in the type of wound t=
>he PH doctors described?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. If Chad said that, I think he's wrong.
>>
>> >>> "7. Isn=92t it true that=85you futilely tried to find the trail of op=
>acities (that I told you was seen on the original lateral X-ray extending a=
>nteriorly from near the EOP) on the published copies that have the EOP area=
> cropped?" <<<
>>
>> The EOP isn't "cropped" here:
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>>
>> It looks to me like 100% of the head (on the far-left side of that X-
>> ray above) is included in that photograph. And if a teeny-weeny sliver
>> of the head is cut off, how does that do you and your "trail of
>> opacities from the EOP" theory much good anyway? Any such "trail"
>> would certainly extend into an area further RIGHT on that X-
>> ray....thereby making the trail visible.
>>
>> Anyway, you've admitted yourself you've never once seen the original X-
>> ray in the Archives. You're merely relying on someone else's opinion
>> on that particular sub-topic.
>>
>> >>> "8. Isn=92t it true that=85you have told us that you can tell from wh=
>at you see on the published copies of the lateral X-ray that the BOH fractu=
>res are only =93surface fractures=94?" <<<
>>
>> No. I've never once used the words you placed in quotes there
>> ("surface fractures"). I challenge you to find a previous post of mine
>> where I used those exact words. You won't find one. (So why would you
>> want to put those words in quotation marks?)
>>
>> Anyway, semantics aside, there is no BOH hole in the location where
>> you--John Canal--desperately NEED one to be located (the FAR-RIGHT-
>> REAR portion of the occipital of JFK's head).
>>
>> And, yes, I believe the version(s) of the X-ray we have available on
>> the Internet are giving me enough information to make an informed
>> opinion on that "fracture lines" matter.
>>
>> There's not NEARLY enough visible damage in this X-ray to make your
>> theory stay afloat. It's not even close:
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>>
>> >>> "9. Isn=92t it true that=85regarding the statement in the autopsy rep=
>ort that reads, =93Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lin=
>es are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the sma=
>ller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction=85.Th=
>ese result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size=85=94=
>, you think that they didn=92t intend on giving the impression that numerou=
>s fragments were produced by the complete fracture lines radiating from the=
> wound in the occiput=85evidently, just from the wound at the vertex?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. Exactly. That states my position perfectly.
>>
>> And from the TOTALITY of the photographic evidence (autopsy photos/X-
>> rays), I think my conclusion regarding that subject is a sound and
>> logical one.
>>
>> Footnote -- But even if a few very small pieces of skull near the
>> entry wound DID fall out of JFK's head upon reflection of the scalp
>> during the autopsy, it would mean (from my POV re. that wound's REAL
>> location--i.e., near the cowlick) that any such pieces of bone/skull
>> fell out HIGH up on Kennedy's head, at the cowlick region, and not LOW
>> on the head, which is where YOU need the pieces of bone to have fallen
>> out in order for your particular "BOH/LN" theory to be true.
>>
>> Plus, of course, since these pieces of bone didn't even "fall out" of
>> the President's head until THE AUTOPSY (i.e., after 8:00 PM EST on the
>> night of 11/22/63), John C. has another very big problem with his BOH/
>> LN theory as well. And that problem is:
>>
>> HOW COULD THE PARKLAND WITNESSES HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN SOMETHING (A LARGE
>> HOLE IN THE OCCIPITAL REGION OF JFK'S HEAD) THAT WASN'T EVEN CREATED
>> UNTIL MANY HOURS LATER AT BETHESDA, MARYLAND, WHEN THE AUTOPSISTS
>> REFLECTED THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER FOR *ANY* LOOSES PIECES
>> TO FALL FREE FROM HIS HEAD?
>>
>> (That last emphasized question should make John Canal scratch his head
>> in bewilderment. Whether it will or not -- who knows.)
>>
>> >>> "10. Isn=92t it true that=85you have said that you don=92t care about=
> understanding F8 (or words to that effect)?" <<<
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> That picture is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain
>> it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense
>> (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It
>> would still be a total freaking "mess".
>>
>> IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is
>> attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on
>> John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official"
>> opinion on the picture, it seems.
>>
>> In other words, how can "mud" possibly bring about "clarity"? IMO, it
>> can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and
>> clearer-to-interpret evidence.
>>
>> >>> "11. Isn=92t it true that=85you are positively certain that the autop=
>sy photos showing a virtually undamaged BOH were taken before any repair co=
>uld have been done to the BOH scalp in preparation for an open-casket funer=
>al?" <<<
>>
>> No. I'm not "positively certain" of that. But I certainly think you've
>> got another big problem with your unique "BOH/LN" theory when it comes
>> to the photo in question...this photo (linked below, yet again, for
>> reference):
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>>
>> Because how could JFK's head look as it does in that photograph and
>> still have your theory about a badly-torn scalp* be true -- no matter
>> WHEN the picture was snapped by Mr. Stringer (either early or late in
>> the autopsy timeline)?
>>
>> I see no damage of any kind in that area of the head in that photo. No
>> sign of a wound. No hole. No stitches. No sutures. No nothing (except
>> hair and an intact scalp).
>>
>> * =3D And make no mistake here--John needs a "badly-torn" scalp in that
>> far-right-rear area of JFK's head. Not just a nickel- or quarter-sized
>> mini-hole. Because without a pretty-big rip in that scalp, the
>> witnesses at Parkland (and, yes, some at Bethesda too...and, yes,
>> Clint Hill too) could not POSSIBLY have seen what they and John Canal
>> really say they saw -- i.e., a large, gaping hole in the right-rear of
>> Kennedy's head, which is a hole that would have had to certainly TEAR
>> THROUGH A LARGE HUNK OF JFK'S SCALP (as well as his underlying skull
>> too).
>>
>> Which also then, in turn, brings me back to something I said in
>> response to John's 9th question, which directly relates to this matter
>> as well. (See my "Footnote" for #9 above.)
>>
>> >>> "12. Isn=92t it true that=85you think that you=92d be able to tell fr=
>om the copies of the photos that show a virtually undamaged BOH whether or =
>not any tears in the BOH scalp had been effected as part of the process to =
>prepare the body for an open casket funeral?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. Exactly.
>>
>> >>> "13. Isn=92t it true that=85you don=92t think that it=92s important t=
>hat high entry theorists reasonably explain the trail of opacities (bone ch=
>ips from the skull=92s beveled out inner table around the entry) seen on th=
>e original lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP?" <<<
>>
>> I can't answer this question at all....because I have never seen this
>> mystery "trail of opacities...near the EOP". (And neither have you, I
>> might add.)
>>
>> But you're comfortable enough to make such a bold declaration about
>> the existence of such a "trail" (and the exact explanation of where
>> any such bone fragments came from and what it all means with respect
>> to a definitive "entry" hole at the level of the EOP) even though
>> you've never laid eyes on that original X-ray.
>>
>> Well, to each his own.
>>
>> >>> "14. Isn=92t it true that=85you are 100% certain that Boswell (or Hum=
>es) did not push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhere=
>d to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken=85.even though=
> Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays or p=
>hotos being taken?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. Precisely correct. He (they) did no such thing. At any rate, they
>> certainly didn't perform any such "bone replacement" chore IN THE
>> PRECISE AREA OF JFK'S HEAD WHERE YOU NEED THEM TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED
>> THAT FEAT (i.e., in the far-right-rear of the head).
>>
>> How can we know they didn't do that in that area of the head?
>>
>> Answer: The lateral X-ray.
>>
>> >>> "15. Isn=92t it true that=85you are sure that the entry hole in the s=
>calp in the BOH photos is directly over the entry hole in the skull=85.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 bac=
>k up=85.and even though the entry appears to be at midline (in the photos) =
>and it has not been disputed by =93any=94 of the experts that the entry wou=
>nd was 2.5 cm right of midline?" <<<
>>
>> No. That's not quite what I've ever said. The cowlick (red spot) entry
>> hole could be "off" a little bit one direction or another during that
>> photo session. It doesn't have to line up perfectly for the benefit of
>> that picture.
>>
>> I doubt that Humes, Finck, and Boswell (in circa 1963-1964) could have
>> imagined (in their wildest dreams) that meaningless chaff-like
>> subjects like these we're discussing would ever come up in
>> conversation in a million years. And yet they do come up...over and
>> over again.
>>
>> The bottom line, of course, is this: JFK was struck in the head with
>> ONE single bullet and no more than one....and that one bullet entered
>> in the BACK of his head (somewhere), and exited the right-front part
>> of his head. And Lee Harvey Oswald and his 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano
>> rifle were responsible for this damage.
>>
>> >>> "16. Isn=92t it true that=85you 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?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. Generally-speaking, that's true. Mainly due to the fact that it's
>> so much easier to view the UNDENIABLE entry-hole location (the red
>> spot near the cowlick) by way of viewing the color photo showing the
>> back of JFK's head, rather than trying to decipher the X-rays with
>> respect to what "spot" on the X-rays represents the precise location
>> of the entry wound. I think even some of the experts who deal with X-
>> rays a lot have some difficulty with that one. Not all of them, true,
>> but some do.
>>
>> So, even if the slightly-loosened scalp was "skewing" the exact, to-
>> the-millimeter location of the entry wound in the color photo of the
>> back of the head, that photo is telling any reasonable person the
>> GENERAL location of the entry hole (which was certainly ABOVE the EOP,
>> and not below it).
>>
>> >>> "17. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe FBI Agents O=92Neill and Sieb=
>ert [sic], as well as SSA Clint Hill, were either lying or grossly mistaken=
> about seeing a BOH wound?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. The latter....they were mistaken. Without doubt. They didn't lie
>> though. And no Parkland or Bethesda witness did either. And I've never
>> once accused any of those people of "lying". Never once.
>>
>> Also refer back to my response in #11 above for more on this topic.
>>
>> Re: "Liars".....
>>
>> The only PROVABLE "liars" in the JFK case, IMO, are Roger Craig and
>> Jean Hill. Those witnesses don't play any part in our discussion re.
>> the head wounds, however. But both of them were proven liars without a
>> shred of a doubt.
>>
>> >>> "18. Isn=92t it true that=85you believe Dr. Ebersole was mistaken whe=
>n he recollected seeing a right rear gaping wound=85.even though he said he=
> held the President=92s head in his hands?" <<<
>>
>> Yes. That's correct.
>>
>> He could not possibly have seen a "right rear gaping wound" in the
>> head of the dead Chief Executive.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> <drumroll>
>>
>> Here's why:
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>>
>> Thank you, John.
>>
>> I enjoyed it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> David R. Von Pein
>>
>> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>>
awthr...@gmail.com
David, why don't you tell us how you really feel.
It's easy to get caught up in various scenarios about how the body was
removed and placed into a body bag...not a coffin...while it was on
the plane. I guess I would argue that if I were you, since I sure
wouldn't want to look at the forensic evidence because it would trump
all my (your) scenarios.
Despite 1,000 scenarios one might dream up about the timing of the
body switch, we must still come back to the best evidence which is the
forensic evidence.
Which brings us back to the body. We have a photo of the BOH that
looks almost normal. And then we have another BOH photo wherein the
right side of the skull is half missing. The two photos don't agree
with each other at all.
As they might say at NASA, "Dallas, we have a problem!"
There is no acceptable excuse for the differences. It is prima facie
evidence of tampering and fraud. There are many more examples of
tampering, each of which on their own would be proof of tampering.
As an aside, my brother is a professional magician, and has been one
for decades. It doesn't take a lot of room to hide a body on a big
plane...it can be done in a box that's being sawed in half. You don't
necessarily hide the second coffin on the plane, although you could.
All that's needed is a body bag.
But none of that is germane. The body is germane. It can't look two
grossly different ways at the same time. Yet, that is what the record
shows.
The x-rays don't match. The x-rays don't match the death stare photos.
The two BOH photos don't match.
The brain stem was severed. There is a deep parasagital slice in the
top of the brain with no missile and no exit for the missile.
The scalp is pulled back with no bruising...an impossibility for a
living person.
The body tells a story. But in JFK's case, the body tells two, or
three, or four, or five different stories. Those stories don't match.
There can be only one explanation for the many physical
contradictions: tampering with the body.
Oswald was otherwise occupied, so we must conclude there was a
conspiracy at the highest levels.
David Von Pein
The HSCA proved that the autopsy photos were authentic and were "not
altered in any manner". And, moreover, those photos were proven to be
authentic/real via means of STEREOSCOPIC PAIRING of various individual
photos.
In other words, these words you wrote were scientifically debunked 30
years ago:
"We have a photo of the BOH that looks almost normal. And then
we have another BOH photo wherein the right side of the skull is half
missing. The two photos don't agree with each other at all."
Was the HSCA photographic panel comprised of nothing but shills/liars/
cover-uppers, too?
David Von Pein
>>> "LNT'ers...would prefer to use later, rather than the earliest statements made by eyewitnesses." <<<
Yeah, like Jean Hill, right Mister Kook?
aeffects
> >>> "LNT'ers...would prefer to use later, rather than the earliest statements made by eyewitnesses." <<<
>
> Yeah, like Jean Hill, right Mister Kook?
hold on to your skirt, son...... you're not through yet!
David Von Pein
"awthraw" also contradicts his (or her?) own theory when he/she says
that the body was altered AND that there's something amiss with the
autopsy photos too.
Makes no sense.
Why would ANY autopsy pics need altering if the body had already been
altered to reflect only the "Lone Assassin From Behind" conclusion?
Better consult Lifton again. He'll straighten things out I'm sure.
After all, he's only changed the details of his theory two, three, or
four times since 1966.
awthr...@gmail.com
Your claim to authority doesn't hold any water. It was a panel of
politicians. Books have been written about the serious problems with
that committee's inner workings.
In one BOH photo, the back of JFK's head looks almost perfectly
normal. In the other photo, it's hard to see anything that is normal.
And then there is the death stare photo, and how it contradicts the x-
ray photos. And the parasagital slice. And the severed brain stem. And
the unbruised scalp.
Appeals to authority are no match for the actual forensic evidence.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c535cfbc-5d3b-446c...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You're NOT very well read David;
The ARRB found ALL of the AUTOPSY material was FAKED.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
tomnln
Catch up David.>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
awthr...@gmail.com
> "awthraw" also contradicts his (or her?) own theory when he/she says
> that the body was altered AND that there's something amiss with the
> autopsy photos too.
>
> Makes no sense.
>
> Why would ANY autopsy pics need altering if the body had already been
> altered to reflect only the "Lone Assassin From Behind" conclusion?
Gee, David, this isn't an English language rule of no double
negatives.
The body was tampered with to remove the missiles. The photos were
made as part of the shell game. Photos had to be taken and so they had
to be tampered with to match the 'Oswald story.'
Did the murderers do it perfectly? Hell no! That's why they've been
caught. They had the advantage of having a murder crew to back them
up, which more than made up for their imperfections. They could
intimidate quick studies like Humes.
tomnln
<awthr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f8d69d5-f5dd-4fb5...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
ALL of the autopsy material is PHONY>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
awthr...@gmail.com
> In article <8613de7f-b616-4692-98b9-33fefb943...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 17, 9:34=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>
> >> >>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of twisting=
> > the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below y=
> >ou apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" describe=
> >---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole,=
> > and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn=
> >'t your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that they also=
> > described a BOH wound?" <<<
>
> >> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> >> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV
>
> >If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
> >doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>
> >There is a huge conflict between what the experts saw at Parkland vs.
> >what was seen at Bethesda.
>
> >As a result, we should look at the hard evidence such as the x-rays
> >and photos of the body.
>
> This is precisely what CANNOT be done. The "hard evidence" contradicts the
> eyewitnesses, and contradicts itself.
The fact that the hard forensic evidence is so fraudulent tells us all
we need to know; it was a government conspiracy. When LBJ's behavior
is looked at in light of the tampering, he becomes suspect
#1...especially his having the limo sent off to be repaired, when it
was obviously forensic evidence.
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
>>> "In one BOH photo, the back of JFK's head looks almost perfectly normal. In the other photo, it's hard to see anything that is normal." <<<
So, where does that leave your "Body Alteration" theory?
Why in the world would there be any need to fake pictures AFTER the
wounds had been perfectly "altered" by the Super Surgeons at Walter
Reed (or the CT BatCave, or wherever else you kooks want to imagine
this impossible-to-pull-off magical head surgery was performed)?
Or do you think that the "alterations" took place AT BETHESDA (by
Humes & Co.)? And that Stringer took one picture of the UNALTERED body
of JFK one minute....and then (after some covert surgery was
performed) he took another picture that showed the ALTERED body?
You can either go down the Lifton Trail of hilarity....or you can
travel down the road marked "The Pictures Are Fakes".
Pick one.
Because you certainly cannot believe in BOTH of those scenarios.
Gil Jesus
>
> You're NOT very well read David;
>
> The ARRB found ALL of the AUTOPSY material was FAKED.
>
> SEE>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
He doesn't spent too much time on anything that's occurred since 1964.
He also prefers cartoons and fairy tales from the seven dwarfs on the
Warren Commission ( who WEREN'T there ) to video accounts of
eyewitnesses who SAW the head wounds.
Like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXkRO-zypo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XprQQrILI28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWtlkyCDRzU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9LTOhTU84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPOObPve3M
He spends too much time impressing himself.
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Aug 17, 11:11=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <8613de7f-b616-4692-98b9-33fefb943...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 17, 9:34=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>>
>ing=3D
>> > the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment belo=
>w y=3D
>> >ou apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" descr=
>ibe=3D
>> >---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Eberso=
>le,=3D
>> > and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or d=
>idn=3D
>> >'t your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that they a=
>lso=3D
>> > described a BOH wound?" <<<
>>
>> >> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>>
>front and
>> >> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV
>>
>> >If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
>> >doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>>
>> >There is a huge conflict between what the experts saw at Parkland vs.
>> >what was seen at Bethesda.
>>
>> >As a result, we should look at the hard evidence such as the x-rays
>> >and photos of the body.
>>
> the
>> eyewitnesses, and contradicts itself.
>
>The fact that the hard forensic evidence is so fraudulent tells us all
>we need to know; it was a government conspiracy.
Of course... It depends on your objective - if you want to prove that the entire
case was "put together" with altered evidence, you can examine the "hard
evidence". If you want to attempt to find out what really happened, you can't
go there... the hard evidence is sprinkled with altered and fraudulent items, so
the only place you can go to find out what actually happened on 11/22/63 are the
eyewitnesses.
And considering how many of them commented about their WCR testimony not being
identical to what they actually said, you have to worry about what you're
missing there, too.
The very best material is the earliest - before anyone could kick in to change
things... the Altgen's print, for example, or newspaper reports giving
eyewitness assertions, for another.
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 "I think the entry wound on JFK's head was located l=
>ow in the
>> >> back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the larger
>> >> wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was a fairly-
>> >> extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while the
>> >> second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipital)
>> >> area of the head."
>>
>> >> Have you got even ONE witness who provided the above description of
>> >> the head wounds?
>>
>> >> Didn't think so.
>>
>> >> >>> "How about a miracle that results in DVP answering, in good faith,=
> my=3D
>> > closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to ask for?=
>" <=3D
>> ><<
>>
>> >> I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closing
>> >> Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very moment
>> >> (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already
>> >> dropped to Page 2 on the aaj forum, so that didn't help me in seeing
>> >> it either.
>>
>> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18ea5..=
>.
>>
>> >> So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er... I mean Mr. Canal).......
>>
>> >> >>> "1. Isn=3D92t it true that=3D85you cannot name one single doctor w=
>ho was =3D
>> >either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK=3D92s life at PH,=
> or o=3D
>> >n the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wounds?"=
> <<=3D
>> ><
>>
>> >> No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound on
>> >> JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yours, as
>> >> it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the ENTRY
>> >> wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question of yours,
>> >> since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we all
>> >> know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entry on the
>> >> back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and I
>> >> have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossman; but
>> >> that's another topic).
>>
>> >> Anyway, with respect to the largest of the wounds, all three of the
>> >> autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head wounds.
>> >> One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've already
>> >> posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the =
>front and
>> >> right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes
>>
>> >> The autopsy report (signed by all 3 autopsists) corroborates the
>> >> location of the largest head wound (the exit wound), to wit -- "There
>> >> is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIGHT
>> >> involving CHIEFLY THE PARIETAL BONE but extending somewhat into the
>> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)
>>
>> >> And that "somewhat into the occipital" reference in the autopsy report
>> >> certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't think
>> >> for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your proposed
>> >> nonsense re. JFK's head wounds.
>>
>> >> >>> "2. Isn=3D92t it true that=3D85you believe the autopsy report inco=
>rrectly=3D
>> > states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <<<
>>
>> >> No. (See #1 above.)
>>
>> >> >>> "3. Isn=3D92t it true that=3D85you believe Humes was wrong when he=
> said t=3D
>> >hey saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<
>>
>> >> Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):
>>
>> >> Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 "The cerebellum was somewhat disrupted, as I recall,=
> as well.
>> >> But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."
>>
>> >> Maybe you, John, can tell me how the term "somewhat disrupted" can be
>> >> turned into "severely lacerated".
>>
>> >> It doesn't sound like Dr. Humes was describing a "severely lacerated"
>> >> cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other time
>> >> in his life?
>>
>> >> BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 1964 WC
>> >> testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA session
>> >> either.
>>
>> >> >>> "4. Isn=3D92t it true that=3D85you believe that Humes, Boswell, an=
>d Finck=3D
>> > grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of JF=
>K=3D
>> >=3D92s head?" <<<
>>
>> >> Yes, they definitely misidentified it (with Humes realizing his error
>> >> and correcting it in 1978, before he went cuckoo again in '96 or so
>> >> and returned to his crazy "white spot at the hairline is the entry
>> >> wound" position).
>>
>> >> How anyone could believe, as apparently you do, John, that this piece
>> >> of dried brain tissue at the hairline level of JFK's head is a bullet
>> >> hole...is beyond the scope of my own brain:
>>
>> >>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA..=
>.
>>
>> >> Not only did the HSCA do extensive research on this "white mass" on
>> >> the back of Kennedy's head (and they found it to be, beyond all doubt,
>> >> a piece of material that was definitely stuck to the OUTSIDE of his
>> >> head, rather than a HOLE for a bullet's entry)....but that "white
>> >> spot" doesn't even remotely resemble a bullet hole. It's not even
>> >> close to looking anything like a bullet hole.
>>
>> >> >>> "5. Isn=3D92t it true that=3D85you believe Humes was mistaken abou=
>t his r=3D
>> >ecollection that when they reflected the scalp, pieces of bone fell/came=
> ou=3D
David Von Pein
>>> "The hard evidence is sprinkled with altered and fraudulent items..." <<<
And yet Ben The Kook can't prove that ONE single item is either
"fraudulent" or "altered" in this case.
He can't do it. No one can. Because such a sweeping claim about the
evidence is preposterous. It just didn't happen....and neither Benji
nor anyone else can prove it did.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <7b042623-355e-4694-b01c-709382905...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Then go ahead and prove it. Btw, in case you haven't noticed, your
*Lady in Yellow Pants* theory has already been weighed and found
wanting.
> so the only place you can go to find out what actually happened on 11/22/63
> are the eyewitnesses.
Didn't the majority of witnesses who expressed an opinion about the
number and source of shots indicate three shots from (the vicinity of)
the TSBD?
> And considering how many of them commented about their WCR testimony not being
> identical to what they actually said, you have to worry about what you're
> missing there, too.
They didn't offer any specifics on how their testimony had been
misrepresented?
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8f869dd9-0659-4f47...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 17, 9:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>
> > >>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of twisting the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment below you apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" describe---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebersole, and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? Or didn't your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that they also described a BOH wound?" <<<
>
> > To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>
> > "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> > right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-TV
>
> If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
> doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>
> There is a huge conflict between what the experts saw at Parkland vs.
> what was seen at Bethesda.
NOT really. Both set of doctors saw damage to the occipital area on
the right-rear of JFK's head. Both set of doctors saw the back wound
in the low T-3 thoracic area (T-2 at the highest level) and KNEW the
SBT was full of crap as the path did NOT line up with the throat
wound. Both set of doctors knew the throat wound was one of ENTRY,
and agreed there were surgery to that area as a 2 cm tracheaotomoy
turned into a 7-8 cm wound (they also took tissue samples of this area
which is not needed if it was just a tracheaotomy). The only thing
that differed was the autopsy report because it was CHANGED after LHO
was gunned down and they knew NO trial would occur.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> The HSCA proved that the autopsy photos were authentic and were "not
> altered in any manner". And, moreover, those photos were proven to be
> authentic/real via means of STEREOSCOPIC PAIRING of various individual
> photos.
How did they do this when EVERYONE involved in taking them said the
ones in the archives did NOT reflect the actual wounds they saw?
awthr...@gmail.com
> >>> "In one BOH photo, the back of JFK's head looks almost perfectly normal. In the other photo, it's hard to see anything that is normal." <<<
>
> So, where does that leave your "Body Alteration" theory?
It leaves the Body Alteration theory front and center. You're
basically arguing that the conspirators wouldn't make mistakes.
Actually, if you talk to any police officer or prosecuting attorney,
they'll tell you that killers make mistakes...big mistakes...when they
try to cover up their deed. It's nothing new. In fact, it happens
almost every time.
> Why in the world would there be any need to fake pictures AFTER the
> wounds had been perfectly "altered" by the Super Surgeons at Walter
> Reed (or the CT BatCave, or wherever else you kooks want to imagine
> this impossible-to-pull-off magical head surgery was performed)?
Mistakes. Killers make mistakes. You can count on them making
mistakes, in fact. It happens almost every time.
The body wasn't "perfectly 'altered.'" It was merely altered.
The scheme worked this time because it combined alteration with
intimidation.
> Or do you think that the "alterations" took place AT BETHESDA (by
> Humes & Co.)? And that Stringer took one picture of the UNALTERED body
> of JFK one minute....and then (after some covert surgery was
> performed) he took another picture that showed the ALTERED body?
I don't know what the room number was where the alteration took place.
To prove my case, it doesn't require knowing that information. Photos
that don't match x-rays, photos that don't match photos, unbruised
scalps, parasagital slices in the brain, a severed brain stem...those
problems make an open and shut case for government conspiracy.
> You can either go down the Lifton Trail of hilarity....or you can
> travel down the road marked "The Pictures Are Fakes".
>
> Pick one.
>
> Because you certainly cannot believe in BOTH of those scenarios.
I've given you five examples of contradictory forensic evidence. you
defense is to ask how could they have made so many mistakes. My answer
is they did because they could. When you've got the new President,
Hoover, and many others on your side, you can get away with
murder...sloppy murder.
Meanwhile, you are left with the argument, "My client can't be guilty
because mistakes...terrible mistakes...were made."
That's the beauty of the forensic evidence of the body...it difficult
to cover up the facts successfully.
awthr...@gmail.com
> In article <7b042623-355e-4694-b01c-709382905...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more »
The purpose of the investigation is to find out who did it. While the
alterations prevent some discovery, it screams loud and clear that the
murder was an organized hit with the support of LBJ, the Secret
Service, the FBI, and some military officers.
David Von Pein
>>> "It leaves the Body Alteration theory front and center. You're basically arguing that the conspirators wouldn't make mistakes. Actually, if you talk to any police officer or prosecuting attorney, they'll tell you that killers make mistakes...big mistakes...when they try to cover up their deed. It's nothing new. In fact, it happens almost every time." <<<
Oh, come now, my good kook-man! You think your make-believe "Body
Alterationists" would ever make a MISTAKE??? Rue the day! Never!
But what's more amazing is the fact that Mr. Lifton has actually
gotten so many different people to believe that ANYONE in their right
mind would even begin to ATTEMPT the kind of crazy, off-the-wall, half-
assed "Body Alteration" on JFK's mangled head in the first place.
And to do all of that altering of the body within an hour or two of
the President's death, and then expect everything to look just
perfect, so as to fool everybody at the autopsy.
Or did the never-identified and proverbial "they" think they could
easily coerce Humes, Finck, Boswell, Ebersole, Stringer, Burkley, et
al, into just "going with the LN flow" even if things didn't go well
at the CT BatCave where the "alterations" took place?
And if that's the case, the next logical question is -- WHY THE NEED
TO ALTER THE BODY AT ALL? Why not just fake some pictures and X-rays,
coerce all the autopsists, and file all kinds of false, misleading
reports and documents? (Which is what you kooks think occurred anyway,
isn't it?)
So what possible purpose would it serve to alter the body? Just FAKE
everything instead. And it's a "Mark VII". You kooks are cool with
that, right? Right.
Don't ya love the contradictory mindset of the Kook Faction, kids? A
lot of fun, indeed. And for laughs--they're better than Jack Benny.
And for those kids too young to know him, Jack was damn funny:
awthr...@gmail.com
> >>> "It leaves the Body Alteration theory front and center. You're basically arguing that the conspirators wouldn't make mistakes. Actually, if you talk to any police officer or prosecuting attorney, they'll tell you that killers make mistakes...big mistakes...when they try to cover up their deed. It's nothing new. In fact, it happens almost every time." <<<
>
> Oh, come now, my good kook-man! You think your make-believe "Body
> Alterationists" would ever make a MISTAKE??? Rue the day! Never!
>
> But what's more amazing is the fact that Mr. Lifton has actually
> gotten so many different people to believe that ANYONE in their right
> mind would even begin to ATTEMPT the kind of crazy, off-the-wall, half-
> assed "Body Alteration" on JFK's mangled head in the first place.
>
> And to do all of that altering of the body within an hour or two of
> the President's death, and then expect everything to look just
> perfect, so as to fool everybody at the autopsy.
An hour or two?? The Bethesda autopsy was conducted in the evening.
JFK's body was still in Dallas an hour or two after the death. LBJ
held up the plane for 45 minutes waiting for a judge to swear him in.
> Or did the never-identified and proverbial "they" think they could
> easily coerce Humes, Finck, Boswell, Ebersole, Stringer, Burkley, et
> al, into just "going with the LN flow" even if things didn't go well
> at the CT BatCave where the "alterations" took place?
>
> And if that's the case, the next logical question is -- WHY THE NEED
> TO ALTER THE BODY AT ALL? Why not just fake some pictures and X-rays,
> coerce all the autopsists, and file all kinds of false, misleading
> reports and documents? (Which is what you kooks think occurred anyway,
> isn't it?)
>
> So what possible purpose would it serve to alter the body? Just FAKE
> everything instead. And it's a "Mark VII". You kooks are cool with
> that, right? Right.
>
> Don't ya love the contradictory mindset of the Kook Faction, kids? A
> lot of fun, indeed. And for laughs--they're better than Jack Benny.
> And for those kids too young to know him, Jack was damn funny:
>
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E037D07CDF79DD9F
When a killer murders someone with a gun, do you stand around and ask
why didn't he commit the murder with a knife?
All you've done is submit alternate scenarios...scenarios that weren't
employed. There is one way...and only one way... that the events
unfolded. We have contradictory photos and x-rays as a result of what
actually transpired that day.
To complain that the conspirators would have done it another way,
doesn't add anything to the discussion when we have real evidence of
tampering to look at.
It seems odd that you'd expect the doctors not to conduct an autopsy
when JFK was taken to Bethesda for that purpose. They could not skip
conducting an autopsy. Again, you've inserted in this case a 'no
autopsy' scenario, although we know there was an autopsy.
Since there was an autopsy, and there were photos and x-rays, we use
THOSE photos and x-rays to make a determination. We don't say "Coulda,
woulda shoulda." In the case of JFK, the photos and x-rays don't
match. It doesn't get any clearer than that.
David Von Pein
>>> "You've inserted in this case a 'no autopsy' scenario..." <<<
Of course I did no such thing.
As with all kooks of your idiotic ilk, you can't interpret things
properly. Which is why you should steer clear of this case entirely.
awthr...@gmail.com
You keep asking in so many words, "Why didn't they do this and why
didn't they do that?" Those questions add nothing to the facts at hand
which is the contradictory trail of evidence.
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Aug 18, 9:22=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <7b042623-355e-4694-b01c-709382905...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 17, 11:11=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8613de7f-b616-4692-98b9-33fefb943...@d1g2000hsg.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Aug 17, 9:34=3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>>
>ist=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid comment b=
>elo=3D
>> >w y=3D3D
>> >> >ou apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses" de=
>scr=3D
>> >ibe=3D3D
>> >> >---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, Ebe=
>rso=3D
>> >le,=3D3D
>> >> > and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind? O=
>r d=3D
>> >idn=3D3D
>> >> >'t your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that the=
>y a=3D
>> >lso=3D3D
>> >> > described a BOH wound?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>>
>d to the =3D
>> >front and
>> >> >> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; CBS-=
>TV
>>
>> >> >If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
>> >> >doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>>
>> >> >There is a huge conflict between what the experts saw at Parkland vs.
>> >> >what was seen at Bethesda.
>>
>> >> >As a result, we should look at the hard evidence such as the x-rays
>> >> >and photos of the body.
>>
>dicts=3D
>> > the
>> >> eyewitnesses, and contradicts itself.
>>
>> >The fact that the hard forensic evidence is so fraudulent tells us all
>> >we need to know; it was a government conspiracy.
>>
> entire
>> case was "put together" with altered evidence, you can examine the "hard
>u can't
>> go there... the hard evidence is sprinkled with altered and fraudulent it=
>ems, so
>> the only place you can go to find out what actually happened on 11/22/63 =
>are the
>> eyewitnesses.
>>
>> And considering how many of them commented about their WCR testimony not =
>being
>> identical to what they actually said, you have to worry about what you're
>> missing there, too.
>>
>hange
>> things... the Altgen's print, for example, or newspaper reports giving
>> eyewitness assertions, for another.
>>
>> >When LBJ's behavior
>> >is looked at in light of the tampering, he becomes suspect
>> >#1...especially his having the limo sent off to be repaired, when it
>> >was obviously forensic evidence.
>>
>nce
>> >> in this case, and then only if it's corroborated by others not in a po=
>sition
>> >> to be intimidated.
>>
>> >> The earliest of all statements is to be preferred in almost all cases
>> >> over later statements.
>>
>> >> LNT'ers would prefer to use only the "hard evidence", and would prefer
>.
>>
>> >> >That is the best evidence (although there is
>> >> >evidence that in this case the best evidence was tampered with.
>>
>> >> Rather persuasive and overwhelming evidence, I'd say...
>>
>> >> >But that possibility doesn't help your position, does it?)
>>
>> >> >The death stare photo indicates a normal face and forehead. Another
>> >> >photo of the back of the head looks normal, too, in terms of major
>> >> >destruction. But then another photo shows tremendous damage to the
>> >> >side and back of the skull.
>>
>> >> >In other words, one BOH photo completely contradicts the other BOH
>> >> >photo. To wit, you can't have both a normal BOH and a major trauma
>> >> >photo that shows the same area.
>>
>> >> >So once you come to grips with the fraudulent nature of the evidence,
>> >> >then you must look at the nature of Humes' comments in that light.
>>
>> >> >He clearly recognized that the President was taken out in a coup.
>,
>> >> >he realized that if the President could be killed and his body
>> >> >tampered with, his life was in jeopardy if he didn't behave properly.
>>
>> >> >When you read Humes comments in that light, it's clear that his often
>> >> >inscrutable remarks make perfect sense.
>>
>> >> >The bottom line is this: the body didn't look the same in Parkland as
>> >> >it did in Bethesda. So JFK's skull had a different set of injuries in
>> >> >Bethesda compared to what he had in Parkland.
>>
>e-
>> >> >> mentioned quotation; but he still thought there was ANOTHER wound i=
>n
>> >> >> the BOH too (but he decided not to talk about that "other" one on C=
>BS-
>> >> >> TV with correspondent Dan Rather). Correct?
>>
>> >> >> And when did Dr. Boswell EVER say there was the kind of "Large BOH"
>> >> >> wound that you and the Parkland witnesses advocate? (I think you're
> of
>> >> >> yours.)
>>
>> >> >> BTW, John, I doubt very much that you can come up with a single
>er
>> >> >> YOU think is correct -- i.e., come up with one witness who said thi=
>s:
>>
>> >> >> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 "I think the entry wound on JFK's head was =
>located l=3D
>> >ow in the
>> >> >> back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the larger
>ly-
>> >> >> extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while th=
>e
>> >> >> second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipital)
>> >> >> area of the head."
>>
>> >> >> Have you got even ONE witness who provided the above description of
>> >> >> the head wounds?
>>
>> >> >> Didn't think so.
>>
>th,=3D
>> > my=3D3D
>> >> > closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to ask f=
>or?=3D
>> >" <=3D3D
>> >> ><<
>>
>> >> >> I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closing
>t
>> >> >> (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already
>g
>> >> >> it either.
>>
>> >> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18ea=
>5..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er... I mean Mr. Canal).......
>>
>octor w=3D
>> >ho was =3D3D
>> >> >either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK=3D3D92s life a=
>t PH,=3D
>> > or o=3D3D
>> >> >n the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wound=
>s?"=3D
>> > <<=3D3D
>> >> ><
>>
>> >> >> No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound on
>s
>> >> >> it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the ENTRY
>s,
>> >> >> since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we all
>he
>> >> >> back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and I
>t
>> >> >> that's another topic).
>>
>> >> >> Anyway, with respect to the largest of the wounds, all three of the
>.
>> >> >> One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've already
>> >> >> posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:
>>
>d to the =3D
>> >front and
>> >> >> right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes
>>
>> >> >> The autopsy report (signed by all 3 autopsists) corroborates the
>re
>> >> >> is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIGHT
>> >> >> involving CHIEFLY THE PARIETAL BONE but extending somewhat into the
>> >> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> >> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)
>>
>ort
>> >> >> certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't thin=
>k
>> >> >> for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your proposed
>> >> >> nonsense re. JFK's head wounds.
>>
>rt inco=3D
>> >rrectly=3D3D
>> >> > states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?" <=
><<
>>
>> >> >> No. (See #1 above.)
>>
>> >> >> >>> "3. Isn=3D3D92t it true that=3D3D85you believe Humes was wrong =
>when he=3D
>> > said t=3D3D
>> >> >hey saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):
>>
>> >> >> Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:
>>
>I recall,=3D
>> > as well.
>> >> >> But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."
>>
>be
>> >> >> turned into "severely lacerated".
>>
>d"
>> >> >> cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other ti=
>me
>> >> >> in his life?
>>
>> >> >> BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 1964 W=
>C
>> >> >> testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA session
>> >> >> either.
>>
>ell, an=3D
>> >d Finck=3D3D
>> >> > grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back of=
> JF=3D
>> >K=3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D92s head?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> Yes, they definitely misidentified
>>
>> ...
>>
>
>The purpose of the investigation is to find out who did it. While the
>alterations prevent some discovery, it screams loud and clear that the
>murder was an organized hit with the support of LBJ, the Secret
>Service, the FBI, and some military officers.
Then your purpose isn't the same as mine. You want to prove alteration - that
was proven long ago, so I'm interested in what happened. That can only be
discovered by listening to the eyewitnesses.
If you tell people to only look at the hard physical evidence, they may or may
not be knowledgeable enough to understand the contradictions.
aeffects
> In article <72d9b133-977e-4951-8064-7af0c70fb...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y
awthr...@gmail.com
> In article <72d9b133-977e-4951-8064-7af0c70fb...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
That's cool. of course we also have the doctored Z-tape to give us an
idea of what happened - sort of, maybe!
>
> If you tell people to only look at the hard physical evidence, they may or may
> not be knowledgeable enough to understand the contradictions.
I've never spoken anyone who didn't understand the significance of the
obvious contradictions.
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Aug 19, 9:19=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <72d9b133-977e-4951-8064-7af0c70fb...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 18, 9:22=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7b042623-355e-4694-b01c-709382905...@e53g2000hsa.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Aug 17, 11:11=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <8613de7f-b616-4692-98b9-33fefb943...@d1g2000hsg.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Aug 17, 9:34=3D3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit of=
> tw=3D
>> >ist=3D3D
>> >> >ing=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid commen=
>t b=3D
>> >elo=3D3D
>> >> >w y=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ou apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witnesses"=
> de=3D
>> >scr=3D3D
>> >> >ibe=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyers, =
>Ebe=3D
>> >rso=3D3D
>> >> >le,=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your mind=
>? O=3D
>> >r d=3D3D
>> >> >idn=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >'t your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact that =
>the=3D
>> >y a=3D3D
>> >> >lso=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > described a BOH wound?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> >> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>>
>ular woun=3D
>> >d to the =3D3D
>> >> >front and
>> >> >> >> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967; C=
>BS-=3D
>> >TV
>>
>> >> >> >If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
>> >> >> >doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>>
>vs.
>> >> >> >what was seen at Bethesda.
>>
>s
>> >> >> >and photos of the body.
>>
>ontra=3D
>> >dicts=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> eyewitnesses, and contradicts itself.
>>
>l
>> >> >we need to know; it was a government conspiracy.
>>
>the=3D
>> > entire
>> >> case was "put together" with altered evidence, you can examine the "ha=
>rd
>> >> evidence". =3DA0If you want to attempt to find out what really happene=
>d, yo=3D
>> >u can't
>> >> go there... the hard evidence is sprinkled with altered and fraudulent=
> it=3D
>> >ems, so
>> >> the only place you can go to find out what actually happened on 11/22/=
>63 =3D
>> >are the
>> >> eyewitnesses.
>>
>> >> And considering how many of them commented about their WCR testimony n=
>ot =3D
>> >being
>> >> identical to what they actually said, you have to worry about what you=
>'re
>> >> missing there, too.
>>
>> >> The very best material is the earliest - before anyone could kick in t=
>o c=3D
>> >hange
>> >> things... the Altgen's print, for example, or newspaper reports giving
>> >> eyewitness assertions, for another.
>>
>> >> >When LBJ's behavior
>> >> >is looked at in light of the tampering, he becomes suspect
>> >> >#1...especially his having the limo sent off to be repaired, when it
>> >> >was obviously forensic evidence.
>>
>ide=3D
>> >nce
>> >> >> in this case, and then only if it's corroborated by others not in a=
> po=3D
>> >sition
>> >> >> to be intimidated.
>>
>> >> >> The earliest of all statements is to be preferred in almost all cas=
>es
>> >> >> over later statements.
>>
>> >> >> LNT'ers would prefer to use only the "hard evidence", and would pre=
>fer
>> >> >> to use later, rather than the earliest statements made by eyewitnes=
>ses=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >That is the best evidence (although there is
>> >> >> >evidence that in this case the best evidence was tampered with.
>>
>> >> >> Rather persuasive and overwhelming evidence, I'd say...
>>
>> >> >> >But that possibility doesn't help your position, does it?)
>>
>r
>> >> >> >photo of the back of the head looks normal, too, in terms of major
>> >> >> >destruction. But then another photo shows tremendous damage to the
>> >> >> >side and back of the skull.
>>
>> >> >> >In other words, one BOH photo completely contradicts the other BOH
>> >> >> >photo. To wit, you can't have both a normal BOH and a major trauma
>> >> >> >photo that shows the same area.
>>
>ce,
>> >> >> >then you must look at the nature of Humes' comments in that light.
>>
>> >> >> >He clearly recognized that the President was taken out in a coup.
>hat=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >he realized that if the President could be killed and his body
>ly.
>>
>> >> >> >When you read Humes comments in that light, it's clear that his of=
>ten
>> >> >> >inscrutable remarks make perfect sense.
>>
> as
>> >> >> >it did in Bethesda. So JFK's skull had a different set of injuries=
> in
>> >> >> >Bethesda compared to what he had in Parkland.
>>
>bov=3D
>> >e-
>> >> >> >> mentioned quotation; but he still thought there was ANOTHER woun=
>d i=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >> the BOH too (but he decided not to talk about that "other" one o=
>n C=3D
>> >BS-
>> >> >> >> TV with correspondent Dan Rather). Correct?
>>
>OH"
>> >> >> >> wound that you and the Parkland witnesses advocate? (I think you=
>'re
>> >> >> >> "extending" Boswell's comments a little bit too far into that "B=
>OH"=3D
>> > of
>> >> >> >> yours.)
>>
>> >> >> >> BTW, John, I doubt very much that you can come up with a single
>ann=3D
>> >er
>> >> >> >> YOU think is correct -- i.e., come up with one witness who said =
>thi=3D
>> >s:
>>
>> >> >> >> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 "I think the entry wound on JFK's =
>head was =3D
>> >located l=3D3D
>> >> >ow in the
>> >> >> >> back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the large=
>r
>> >> >> >> wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was a f=
>air=3D
>> >ly-
>> >> >> >> extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; while=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occipit=
>al)
>> >> >> >> area of the head."
>>
> of
>> >> >> >> the head wounds?
>>
>> >> >> >> Didn't think so.
>>
>fai=3D
>> >th,=3D3D
>> >> > my=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to as=
>k f=3D
>> >or?=3D3D
>> >> >" <=3D3D3D
>> >> >> ><<
>>
>> >> >> >> I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Closi=
>ng
>> >> >> >> Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very mo=
>men=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's already
>ein=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> >> it either.
>>
>> >> >> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1=
>8ea=3D
>> >5..=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er... I mean Mr. Canal).......
>>
>ingle d=3D
>> >octor w=3D3D
>> >> >ho was =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK=3D3D3D92s l=
>ife a=3D
>> >t PH,=3D3D
>> >> > or o=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >n the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head wo=
>und=3D
>> >s?"=3D3D
>> >> > <<=3D3D3D
>> >> >> ><
>>
>> >> >> >> No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wound =
>on
>> >> >> >> JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yours=
>, a=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >> it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the EN=
>TRY
>> >> >> >> wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question of y=
>our=3D
>> >s,
>> >> >> >> since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as we =
>all
>> >> >> >> know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entry o=
>n t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> >> back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; and=
> I
>> >> >> >> have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossman;=
> bu=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> that's another topic).
>>
>the
>> >> >> >> autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head wou=
>nds=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> >> One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've alread=
>y
>> >> >> >> posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:
>>
>ular woun=3D
>> >d to the =3D3D
>> >> >front and
>> >> >> >> right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes
>>
>> >> >> >> The autopsy report (signed by all 3 autopsists) corroborates the
>The=3D
>> >re
>> >> >> >> is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIGHT
>the
>> >> >> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actua=
>l
>> >> >> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> >> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)
>>
>rep=3D
>> >ort
>> >> >> >> certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don't t=
>hin=3D
>> >k
>> >> >> >> for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your propos=
>ed
>> >> >> >> nonsense re. JFK's head wounds.
>>
>sy repo=3D
>> >rt inco=3D3D
>> >> >rrectly=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipital?=
>> ><<
>>
>> >> >> >> No. (See #1 above.)
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> "3. Isn=3D3D3D92t it true that=3D3D3D85you believe Humes was=
> wrong =3D
>> >when he=3D3D
>> >> > said t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >hey saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):
>>
>> >> >> >> Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:
>>
>pted, as =3D
>> >I recall,=3D3D
>> >> > as well.
>> >> >> >> But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly."
>>
>an =3D
>> >be
>> >> >> >> turned into "severely lacerated".
>>
>ate=3D
>> >d"
>> >> >> >> cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some other=
> ti=3D
>> >me
>> >> >> >> in his life?
>>
>> >> >> >> BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' 196=
>4 W=3D
>> >C
>> >> >> >> testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA sessi=
>on
>> >> >> >> either.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> "4. Isn=3D3D3D92t it true that=3D3D3D85you believe that Hume=
>s, Bosw=3D
>> >ell, an=3D3D
>> >> >d Finck=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the back=
> of=3D
>> > JF=3D3D
>> >> >K=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D92s head?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, they definitely misidentified
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >alterations prevent some discovery, it screams loud and clear that the
>> >murder was an organized hit with the support of LBJ, the Secret
>> >Service, the FBI, and some military officers.
>>
>> Then your purpose isn't the same as mine. You want to prove alteration - that
>> was proven long ago, so I'm interested in what happened. That can only be
>> discovered by listening to the eyewitnesses.
>
>That's cool. of course we also have the doctored Z-tape to give us an
>idea of what happened - sort of, maybe!
The eyewitnesses will tell you what you *should have been seen* on the Z-film -
as well as what's on there that shouldn't be.
For example, the famous "Back and to the Left" movement was not real - most
probably simply an artifact of frame removal. *No* eyewitness described JFK
that way... nowadays, of course, almost everyone can "remember" the 'back and to
the left' movement that almost certainly never really existed.
In fact, one of the early viewers of the film (Dan Rather) was roundly
criticized by the CT faction for supposedly lying about what he saw when *he*
viewed what was almost certainly the original Z-film... what he described is in
line with what other eyewitnesses saw and described.
But this sort of analysis is only possible by comparing the altered film with
what must have originally been there - and you only know that by listening to
the eyewitnesses.
>> If you tell people to only look at the hard physical evidence, they may
>> or may not be knowledgeable enough to understand the contradictions.
>
>I've never spoken anyone who didn't understand the significance of the
>obvious contradictions.
How many people knew that the "back and to the left" made famous by Oliver
Stone's film was almost certainly historical fiction?
How many knew that *NO-ONE* mentioned this movement in their statements and
testimony?
awthr...@gmail.com
> In article <7ab4753c-1617-4f5b-85d4-777001043...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Actually, I was referring to the contradictions between the post
mortem photos and x-rays.
BTW, what was the actual head movement?
muc...@gmail.com
Was that a direct question? Sure looks like one to me...
Sadly, Ben Holmes avoids direct questions like the plague. Expect (at
best) a counter question.
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>On Aug 19, 11:35=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <7ab4753c-1617-4f5b-85d4-777001043...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 19, 9:19=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <72d9b133-977e-4951-8064-7af0c70fb...@79g2000hsk.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Aug 18, 9:22=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <7b042623-355e-4694-b01c-709382905...@e53g2000hsa.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Aug 17, 11:11=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <8613de7f-b616-4692-98b9-33fefb943...@d1g2000hsg.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Aug 17, 9:34=3D3D3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>> >> >> >> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e=
>1
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> "And besides your deplorable debating methods, your habit=
> of=3D
>> > tw=3D3D
>> >> >ist=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ing=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > the facts gets pretty old too. For example, in your stupid com=
>men=3D
>> >t b=3D3D
>> >> >elo=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >w y=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ou apparently refer to the BOH wound that "I and the PH witness=
>es"=3D
>> > de=3D3D
>> >> >scr=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ibe=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >---but what about Humes, Boswell, O'Neill, Siebert [sic], Boyer=
>s, =3D
>> >Ebe=3D3D
>> >> >rso=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >le,=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > and C. Hill.....what, they don't rate a mere mention in your m=
>ind=3D
>> >? O=3D3D
>> >> >r d=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >idn=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >'t your feeble research reading RH enlighten you to the fact th=
>at =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> >y a=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >lso=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > described a BOH wound?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> >> >> To pick the first person on your list above, Dr. Humes:
>>
>ge, irreg=3D
>> >ular woun=3D3D
>> >> >d to the =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >front and
>> >> >> >> >> right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; 1967=
>; C=3D
>> >BS-=3D3D
>> >> >TV
>>
>> >> >> >> >If you present what Humes saw in isolation to what the Parkland
>> >> >> >> >doctors saw you get spaghetti.
>>
>nd =3D
>> >vs.
>> >> >> >> >what was seen at Bethesda.
>>
>ray=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >> >and photos of the body.
>>
>ce" c=3D
>> >ontra=3D3D
>> >> >dicts=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> eyewitnesses, and contradicts itself.
>>
> al=3D
>> >l
>> >> >> >we need to know; it was a government conspiracy.
>>
>at =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > entire
>> >> >> case was "put together" with altered evidence, you can examine the =
>"ha=3D
>> >rd
>> >> >> evidence". =3D3DA0If you want to attempt to find out what really ha=
>ppene=3D
>> >d, yo=3D3D
>> >> >u can't
>> >> >> go there... the hard evidence is sprinkled with altered and fraudul=
>ent=3D
>> > it=3D3D
>> >> >ems, so
>> >> >> the only place you can go to find out what actually happened on 11/=
>22/=3D
>> >63 =3D3D
>> >> >are the
>> >> >> eyewitnesses.
>>
>> >> >> And considering how many of them commented about their WCR testimon=
>y n=3D
>> >ot =3D3D
>> >> >being
>> >> >> identical to what they actually said, you have to worry about what =
>you=3D
>> >'re
>> >> >> missing there, too.
>>
>> >> >> The very best material is the earliest - before anyone could kick i=
>n t=3D
>> >o c=3D3D
>> >> >hange
>> >> >> things... the Altgen's print, for example, or newspaper reports giv=
>ing
>> >> >> eyewitness assertions, for another.
>>
>> >> >> >When LBJ's behavior
>> >> >> >is looked at in light of the tampering, he becomes suspect
>it
>> >> >> >was obviously forensic evidence.
>>
> ev=3D
>> >ide=3D3D
>> >> >nce
>> >> >> >> in this case, and then only if it's corroborated by others not i=
>n a=3D
>> > po=3D3D
>> >> >sition
>> >> >> >> to be intimidated.
>>
>> >> >> >> The earliest of all statements is to be preferred in almost all =
>cas=3D
>> >es
>> >> >> >> over later statements.
>>
>> >> >> >> LNT'ers would prefer to use only the "hard evidence", and would =
>pre=3D
>> >fer
>> >> >> >> to use later, rather than the earliest statements made by eyewit=
>nes=3D
>> >ses=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >That is the best evidence (although there is
>> >> >> >> >evidence that in this case the best evidence was tampered with.
>>
>> >> >> >> Rather persuasive and overwhelming evidence, I'd say...
>>
>> >> >> >> >But that possibility doesn't help your position, does it?)
>>
>the=3D
>> >r
>> >> >> >> >photo of the back of the head looks normal, too, in terms of ma=
>jor
>> >> >> >> >destruction. But then another photo shows tremendous damage to =
>the
>> >> >> >> >side and back of the skull.
>>
>BOH
>> >> >> >> >photo. To wit, you can't have both a normal BOH and a major tra=
>uma
>> >> >> >> >photo that shows the same area.
>>
>den=3D
>> >ce,
>> >> >> >> >then you must look at the nature of Humes' comments in that lig=
>ht.
>>
>> >> >> >> >He clearly recognized that the President was taken out in a cou=
>p.
>> >> >> >> >Being a bright guy who had graduated from medical school and al=
>l t=3D
>> >hat=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> >> >he realized that if the President could be killed and his body
>per=3D
>> >ly.
>>
>> >> >> >> >When you read Humes comments in that light, it's clear that his=
> of=3D
>> >ten
>> >> >> >> >inscrutable remarks make perfect sense.
>>
>and=3D
>> > as
>> >> >> >> >it did in Bethesda. So JFK's skull had a different set of injur=
>ies=3D
>> > in
>> >> >> >> >Bethesda compared to what he had in Parkland.
>>
>e a=3D
>> >bov=3D3D
>> >> >e-
>> >> >> >> >> mentioned quotation; but he still thought there was ANOTHER w=
>oun=3D
>> >d i=3D3D
>> >> >n
>> >> >> >> >> the BOH too (but he decided not to talk about that "other" on=
>e o=3D
>> >n C=3D3D
>> >> >BS-
>> >> >> >> >> TV with correspondent Dan Rather). Correct?
>>
>e B=3D
>> >OH"
>> >> >> >> >> wound that you and the Parkland witnesses advocate? (I think =
>you=3D
>> >'re
>> >> >> >> >> "extending" Boswell's comments a little bit too far into that=
> "B=3D
>> >OH"=3D3D
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> yours.)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> BTW, John, I doubt very much that you can come up with a sing=
>le
>> >> >> >> >> witness who described the President's head wounds in the exac=
>t m=3D
>> >ann=3D3D
>> >> >er
>> >> >> >> >> YOU think is correct -- i.e., come up with one witness who sa=
>id =3D
>> >thi=3D3D
>> >> >s:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 "I think the entry wound =
>on JFK's =3D
>> >head was =3D3D
>> >> >located l=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ow in the
>> >> >> >> >> back of his head, I'd say pretty near the EOP....while the la=
>rge=3D
>> >r
>> >> >> >> >> wounds I saw on his head were located in two places--one was =
>a f=3D
>> >air=3D3D
>> >> >ly-
>> >> >> >> >> extensive wound in the right-frontal portion of his skull; wh=
>ile=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> >> >> second large wound was located in the far-right-rear (or occi=
>pit=3D
>> >al)
>> >> >> >> >> area of the head."
>>
>ion=3D
>> > of
>> >> >> >> >> the head wounds?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Didn't think so.
>>
>od =3D
>> >fai=3D3D
>> >> >th,=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > my=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > closing arguments "yes" or "no" questions? Is that too much to=
> as=3D
>> >k f=3D3D
>> >> >or?=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >" <=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> ><<
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I'll admit, I totally missed seeing your August 15, 2008, "Cl=
>osi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >> >> Argument" thread. No kidding, I didn't see it until this very=
> mo=3D
>> >men=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >> >> (8:01 AM EDT, 08/17/2008); and as of this writing, it's alrea=
>dy
>> >> >> >> >> dropped to Page 2 on the aaj forum, so that didn't help me in=
> se=3D
>> >ein=3D3D
>> >> >g
>> >> >> >> >> it either.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/threa=
>d/1=3D
>> >8ea=3D3D
>> >> >5..=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So, here we go, Mr. Spence (er... I mean Mr. Canal).......
>>
>e one s=3D
>> >ingle d=3D3D
>> >> >octor w=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ho was =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >either among the team of doctors who tried to save JFK=3D3D3D3D=
>92s l=3D
>> >ife a=3D3D
>> >> >t PH,=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > or o=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >n the autopsy team, who you think accurately described his head=
> wo=3D
>> >und=3D3D
>> >> >s?"=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > <<=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> ><
>>
>> >> >> >> >> No, that statement is not true (with respect to the large wou=
>nd =3D
>> >on
>> >> >> >> >> JFK's head, that is). And for the sake of this question of yo=
>urs=3D
>> >, a=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >> it is phrased, I'll have to assume that we cannot include the=
> EN=3D
>> >TRY
>> >> >> >> >> wound on the back side of JFK's head in this first question o=
>f y=3D
>> >our=3D3D
>> >> >s,
>> >> >> >> >> since you make reference to the Parkland people here; and as =
>we =3D
>> >all
>> >> >> >> >> know, the Parkland witnesses never even saw the wound of entr=
>y o=3D
>> >n t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >> >> back of Kennedy's head at all (save Dr. Grossman, I believe; =
>and=3D
>> > I
>> >> >> >> >> have my doubts about believing anything uttered by Dr. Grossm=
>an;=3D
>> > bu=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >> >> that's another topic).
>>
>of =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> >> >> autopsy physicians, of course, accurately described the head =
>wou=3D
>> >nds=3D3D
>> >> >.
>> >> >> >> >> One example of this, on television, is Dr. Humes, as I've alr=
>ead=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >> >> posted above. Here's that 1967 quote again:
>>
>ge, irreg=3D
>> >ular woun=3D3D
>> >> >d to the =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >front and
>> >> >> >> >> right side of the President's head." -- Dr. J.J. Humes
>>
>the
>> >> >> >> >> location of the largest head wound (the exit wound), to wit -=
>- "=3D
>> >The=3D3D
>> >> >re
>> >> >> >> >> is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the RIG=
>HT
>> >> >> >> >> involving CHIEFLY THE PARIETAL BONE but extending somewhat in=
>to =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> >> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an ac=
>tua=3D
>> >l
>> >> >> >> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> >> >> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." (My emphasis.)
>>
>sy =3D
>> >rep=3D3D
>> >> >ort
>> >> >> >> >> certainly does NOT help out your theory very much, John. Don'=
>t t=3D
>> >hin=3D3D
>> >> >k
>> >> >> >> >> for a minute it does. Because it's not even close to your pro=
>pos=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >> >> >> nonsense re. JFK's head wounds.
>>
>e autop=3D
>> >sy repo=3D3D
>> >> >rt inco=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >rrectly=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > states that the large wound extended somewhat into the occipit=
>al?=3D
>> >" <=3D3D
>> >> ><<
>>
>> >> >> >> >> No. (See #1 above.)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> "3. Isn=3D3D3D3D92t it true that=3D3D3D3D85you believe Hu=
>mes was=3D
>> > wrong =3D3D
>> >> >when he=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > said t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >hey saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated?" <<=
><
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes (but with an addendum attached to my "yes"):
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Here's what Dr. Humes said in 1996 to the ARRB:
>>
>hat disru=3D
>> >pted, as =3D3D
>> >> >I recall,=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > as well.
>> >> >> >> >> But the photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly.=
>"
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Maybe you, John, can tell me how the term "somewhat disrupted=
>" c=3D
>> >an =3D3D
>> >> >be
>> >> >> >> >> turned into "severely lacerated".
>>
>cer=3D
>> >ate=3D3D
>> >> >d"
>> >> >> >> >> cerebellum in '96. Did he say "severely lacerated" at some ot=
>her=3D
>> > ti=3D3D
>> >> >me
>> >> >> >> >> in his life?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> BTW, the word "cerebellum" doesn't appear ONE time in Humes' =
>196=3D
>> >4 W=3D3D
>> >> >C
>> >> >> >> >> testimony, and it doesn't appear even once in his '78 HSCA se=
>ssi=3D
>> >on
>> >> >> >> >> either.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> "4. Isn=3D3D3D3D92t it true that=3D3D3D3D85you believe th=
>at Hume=3D
>> >s, Bosw=3D3D
>> >> >ell, an=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >d Finck=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > grossly misidentified the location of the entry wound to the b=
>ack=3D
>> > of=3D3D
>> >> > JF=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >K=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D3D92s head?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes, they definitely misidentified
>>
>> >> >> ...
>>
>> >> >The purpose of the investigation is to find out who did it. While the
>e
>> >> >murder was an organized hit with the support of LBJ, the Secret
>> >> >Service, the FBI, and some military officers.
>>
> - that
>> >> was proven long ago, so I'm interested in what happened. That can only=
> be
>> >> discovered by listening to the eyewitnesses.
>>
>> >That's cool. of course we also have the doctored Z-tape to give us an
>> >idea of what happened - sort of, maybe!
>>
>film -
>> as well as what's on there that shouldn't be.
>>
>st
>> probably simply an artifact of frame removal. =A0*No* eyewitness describe=
>d JFK
>> that way... nowadays, of course, almost everyone can "remember" the 'back=
> and to
>> the left' movement that almost certainly never really existed.
>>
>> In fact, one of the early viewers of the film (Dan Rather) was roundly
>*he*
>> viewed what was almost certainly the original Z-film... what he described=
> is in
>> line with what other eyewitnesses saw and described.
>>
>with
>> what must have originally been there - and you only know that by listenin=
>g to
>> the eyewitnesses.
>>
>> >> If you tell people to only look at the hard physical evidence, they ma=
>y
>> >> or may not be knowledgeable enough to understand the contradictions.
>>
>> >I've never spoken anyone who didn't understand the significance of the
>> >obvious contradictions.
>>
>r
>> Stone's film was almost certainly historical fiction?
>>
>nd
>> testimony?
>
>Actually, I was referring to the contradictions between the post
>mortem photos and x-rays.
>
>BTW, what was the actual head movement?
Just off the top of my head, many people reported JFK 'slumping forward'... the
complete lack of any eyewitness testimony to the most dramatic movement *now*
seen in the extant Z-film should be a huge clue.