DEBATING THE JFK CASE

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 6:33:26 AM1/25/12

to

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 12:42:01 PM1/25/12

to

David,
I have to applaud all the work that must have gone into those
volumes. Although when I looked at 'Arguments' I picked a 'part' at
random I found stuff I couldn't see being real. I looked at the
'arguments' section and then selected part 78, which says in part "A
CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

>>> "David, do you not find it significant that doctor after doctor at Parkland Hospital saw one-third of the back of [JFK's] head blown off, while both the WC and HSCA concluded there was a small 1-centimeter wound? One doctor may have been mistaken, but there is testimony after testimony and medical report after medical report by the Parkland doctors." <<<

DAVID V.P. SAID:

The likely explanation is that the Parkland doctors were fooled by the
pooling of blood and gore, which was all (naturally) pooling at the
BACK of Kennedy's head as he was lying flat on his back in the
Emergency Room.*

That just doesn't add up, and can only be the thinking of someone
that wants there to be a certain outcome, that of a shooter from
behind and above.

Far from being likely, to say that experienced doctors that worked
in the emergency room of a busy hospital could make such a stupid
mistake is ludicrous. Those doctors knew they were there to minister
to an ailing person. They had to follow their training and assess the
patient and look carefully at all injuries they could see.

They had to do a form of 'triage' to decide which injuries to treat
first (i.e. if a person is bleeding profusely and has stopped
breathing, you must quickly stop the bleeding then deal with the
breathing, or they will bleed out while you do CPR). In looking
carefully at JFK, the obvious thing you see is damage to the head, so
they would look there and examine the head wound to see what they were
dealing with. That would necessitate moving the flap of scalp and
hair and seeing the huge hole in the back of the skull. That's why
they described such a big hole in the back of the skull. Because there
WAS one there. Taking the scientific view, we then must face the fact
that there might have been a shot from the front. It is generally
accepted that an entry wound is usually small and the exit wound large
of ragged with damage to any bone in the way, and so on.

These were experienced doctors that had seen wounds bleed before
and they knew that a tiny hole could bleed profusely in certain parts
of the body, and they wouldn't be fooled by a pool under the head and
simply assume there was a big hole there, they would look and decide
what to do about it fit it was the major damage to the patient.

As much as I can applaud the amount of work, if the full volume set
is like the 'part 78' of arguments, I wouldn't want to go through a
complete set while constantly finding bad arguments. It interrupts my
reading.

Chris

bigdog

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 3:17:12 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 25, 7:42 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "David, do you not find it significant that doctor after doctor at Parkland Hospital saw one-third of the back of [JFK's] head blown off, while both the WC and HSCA concluded there was a small 1-centimeter wound? One doctor may have been mistaken, but there is testimony after testimony and medical report after medical report by the Parkland doctors." <<<
>
> DAVID V.P. SAID:
>
> The likely explanation is that the Parkland doctors were fooled by the
> pooling of blood and gore, which was all (naturally) pooling at the
> BACK of Kennedy's head as he was lying flat on his back in the
> Emergency Room.*
>
> That just doesn't add up, and can only be the thinking of someone
> that wants there to be a certain outcome, that of a shooter from
> behind and above.
>
> Far from being likely, to say that experienced doctors that worked
> in the emergency room of a busy hospital could make such a stupid
> mistake is ludicrous. Those doctors knew they were there to minister
> to an ailing person. They had to follow their training and assess the
> patient and look carefully at all injuries they could see.
>
> They had to do a form of 'triage' to decide which injuries to treat
> first (i.e. if a person is bleeding profusely and has stopped
> breathing, you must quickly stop the bleeding then deal with the
> breathing, or they will bleed out while you do CPR). In looking
> carefully at JFK, the obvious thing you see is damage to the head, so
> they would look there and examine the head wound to see what they were
> dealing with. That would necessitate moving the flap of scalp and
> hair and seeing the huge hole in the back of the skull. That's why

> they described such a big hole in ...
>
Can you explain how anyone could have seen such a wound even if it
existed, with JFK flat on his back the whole time. The back of his
head was against the guerney the whole time. The entire upper right
side of JFK's head was blown out with most of the skull pieces
remaining attached to the scalp. The Harper fragment was blown
completely away and that was toward the rear of the blast out area.
That opening is probably what the ER team saw giving them the
impression the blowout was toward the rear of the head when in fact
that was just the rear tip of the blowout. Had anyone at Parkland
actually examined the wound, they probably would have discovered the
true extent of it. No one at Parkland reported seeing the skull flap
that is so vivid in the Z-film and which is also seen in the autopsy
photos, so it is clear they had no idea how extensive the wound
actually was.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 7:40:13 PM1/25/12

to

>>> "I have to applaud all the work that must have gone into those volumes. .... [But] if the full volume set is like the 'part 78' of arguments, I wouldn't want to go through a complete set while constantly finding bad arguments. It interrupts my reading." <<<

Well, Chris, I guess you won't ever have a desire to read any of
Vincent Bugliosi's book then -- because Vince uses the exact same
argument that I have utilized to explain the "BOH" Parkland witnesses.
Here's what Vince said in his 2007 book:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs,
and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of
hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the
hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he
was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and
brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound
was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and
photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit
wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or
wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages
407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

-------------

Therefore, Chris now is forced to say that both Vincent Bugliosi and
Michael Baden have come up with "bad arguments" when it comes to
trying to explain why the Parkland personnel said they saw something
that we know they could have never seen on 11/22/63 (i.e., a great-big
hole in the occipital portion of John F. Kennedy's cranium).

BTW, Chris, when focusing on the Parkland witnesses, you might want to
try and evaluate the unbelievable and ridiculous comments made by the
doctor who had the best view of JFK's head among all the people who
saw the President at Parkland Hospital -- Dr. Robert McClellend.

I've recently posted some of my thoughts about McClelland's 11/22/63
observations, including the excerpt below:

"[Dr.] McClelland has obviously never even once thought about
how silly and impossible his theory is. Because if he ever stopped to
think about it for any length of time at all, he could never even
begin to believe that a bullet could have created a massive blown-out
exit wound in the occipital area of a human skull and yet leave the
scalp in that same occipital area totally free of any injury. And yet
that is EXACTLY what Dr. McClelland said he believes happened." --
David Von Pein; December 31, 2011

More on McClelland's goofiness here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b5cb21e2be2999f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/982db07263e36524
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

-----------------------

And for 3,560 more misc. battles with conspiracy theorists, try this
link:

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

aeffects

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 7:56:46 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 24, 10:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lunacy>

David Von Pein appears to believe nonsense debate trumps case
evidence... the aforementioned, collective alias, *David Von Pein* has
had its problems these past few years.... by simply throwing bandwidth
at WCR "problems" it might, if folks aren't paying attention, they'll
(the problems) will go away.....:)

Carry on Studley!

aeffects

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 7:59:57 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 25, 11:40 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I have to applaud all the work that must have gone into those volumes. .... [But] if the full volume set is like the 'part 78' of arguments, I wouldn't want to go through a complete set while constantly finding bad arguments. It interrupts my reading." <<<
>
> Well, Chris, I guess you won't ever have a desire to read any of

> Vincent Bugliosi's book then -- ...

lmao, rotflmao, ROTFLMAO, R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O ! ! ! ! !

Carry on Studley!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 8:30:44 PM1/25/12

to

In article <3b969025-a8d5-44e3...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

I have a fruitcake over on the Amazon forums that has the same thought... that
if he just keeps ignoring his lies, and keeps spouting nonsense, that something
will 'stick'...

He even complains that he won't respond to my questions because I'm not polite
enough...

These kooks merely have to be labeled for what they are... kooks.

They always end up running away from the evidence and the truth.

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 8:46:03 PM1/25/12

to

>>> "They always end up running away from the evidence and the truth." <<<

Think again, Mr. ABO Clown:

http://assorted-jfk-assassination-arguments.blogspot.com

http://misc-jfk-posts-of-interest.blogspot.com

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com

http://davidvonpein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 10:11:00 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 25, 12:30 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3b969025-a8d5-44e3-a305-31dcee4e1...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Jan 24, 10:33=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip the lunacy>
>
> >David Von Pein appears to believe nonsense debate trumps case
> >evidence... the aforementioned, collective alias, *David Von Pein* has
> >had its problems these past few years.... by simply throwing bandwidth
> >at WCR "problems" it might, if folks aren't paying attention, they'll
> >(the problems) will go away.....:)
>
> >Carry on Studley!
>
> I have a fruitcake over on the Amazon forums that has the same thought...

VonPeenski breeds like the devil.... lmao!

aeffects

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 10:09:40 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 25, 12:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "They always end up running away from the evidence and the truth." <<<
>
> Think again, Mr. ABO Clown:

moron... lmfao, you been getting your ass handed to you on these
boards for years, but for Cris-sakes don't go anywhere, we NEED your
lone nut stupidity FRONT and CENTER....

<snip the disinfo>

Raymond

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 11:26:55 PM1/25/12

to

THANK YOU DAVID
___ Raymond

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 11:27:22 PM1/25/12

to

COMING FROM ONE WHO 'REFUSED " TO DEBATE ON THE RTDIO HOSTED BY ANTON
BATEY.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 11:35:57 PM1/25/12

to

First of all, you haven't a clue as to whether his head remained
exactly in that position, and for my money, a doctor needing to treat
a patient with a head wound (the supposed dripping blood and gore)
will look at the damage to determine what to do next to treat thew
wound. It's simple and easy to turn the head this way and that to get
more info about the wound. That would give them access to the large
hole they described.

> The entire upper right
> side of JFK's head was blown out with most of the skull pieces
> remaining attached to the scalp. The Harper fragment was blown
> completely away and that was toward the rear of the blast out area.

Well, the doctors all described not "the upper right", but the
right rear as the location of the major wound. The photos we've seen
here and the X-ray all show the same. Damage to the head at the right
rear with a flap of scalp and hair in that area.

> That opening is probably what the ER team saw giving them the
> impression the blowout was toward the rear of the head when in fact
> that was just the rear tip of the blowout.

Probably 'this' and probably 'that'. Give it up. They clear ly
described what they saw, and we saw it too in the autopsy photos. To
continue to try and make the ER doctors into fools that couldn't tell
what they were seeing is just a red herring.

> Had anyone at Parkland
> actually examined the wound, they probably would have discovered the
> true extent of it.

They DID examine the wound, that was their job. Their MAIN job,
since it was the most obvious place where there was damage. They
couldn't do their job if they blithely looked only superficially at
that large hole and moved on.

> No one at Parkland reported seeing the skull flap
> that is so vivid in the Z-film and which is also seen in the autopsy
> photos, so it is clear they had no idea how extensive the wound
> actually was.

Their descriptions show they knew clearly the measure of damage that
was before them, they would be less concerned with the flap than the
hole it used to cover!

And I remember actually seeing someone here describe the wound as
being upper right front!! Insane!

Chris

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 12:00:26 AM1/26/12

to

Nothing of the kind. We had a discussion about Bugliosi here a
while back. It was clear at the time he was manufacturing evidence as
he chatted merrily along. I'm not 'forced to say' anything. I
voluntarily say that whoever thinks the autopsy photos and the
Parkland doctors were all wrong hasn't been paying attention to the
facts (not theories) or has a picture in mind they want to push onto
others. Are you now saying that the Parkland doctors did not say
what they saw? They were clear in their duties and clear in what they
HAD to see to perform those duties. It was obvious in the autopsy
photos where the major wound was and the general size of it.

> BTW, Chris, when focusing on the Parkland witnesses, you might want to
> try and evaluate the unbelievable and ridiculous comments made by the
> doctor who had the best view of JFK's head among all the people who
> saw the President at Parkland Hospital -- Dr. Robert McClellend.
>
> I've recently posted some of my thoughts about McClelland's 11/22/63
> observations, including the excerpt below:
>
> "[Dr.] McClelland has obviously never even once thought about
> how silly and impossible his theory is. Because if he ever stopped to
> think about it for any length of time at all, he could never even
> begin to believe that a bullet could have created a massive blown-out
> exit wound in the occipital area of a human skull and yet leave the
> scalp in that same occipital area totally free of any injury. And yet
> that is EXACTLY what Dr. McClelland said he believes happened." --
> David Von Pein; December 31, 2011
>

Well David, now we've heard YOUR thoughts on the subject, and your
opinion of McClelland's lack of medical ability. I saw the pictures
too, and you are saying something ridiculous and then using your
foolish statement to pretend that the doctor is also a fool. In
actuality, I saw the wounds, and the description that Parkland doctors
all made is the same as mine. A large hole in the skull under the
flap of scalp and hair which was blown back both by a bullet and by
explosive compression when a bullet hits a closed object and forces
insides to push out. The ER doctors were not inexperienced in bullet
wounds, certainly more experienced that Humes later. McClelland in
light of that was clearly in the right and doing his job.

> More on McClelland's goofiness here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b5cb21e2be2999fhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/982db07263e36524http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html
>

His 'goofiness' is a figment of your imagination that you concocted
to support your ridiculous theory. The facts belie that theory.

> -----------------------
>
> And for 3,560 more misc. battles with conspiracy theorists, try this
> link:
>
> http://Misc-JFK-Posts-Of-Interest.blogspot.com

I'm interested in facts and knowledge of normal human reactions in
situations, not your theories. The facts bear out the multiple
shooter scenario, and the human reactions were to issue orders to
remove JFK from everyone's hair, where he had placed himself. I find
it hard to understand how a competent compiler of information can then
imagine a scenario that goes against all his compilations and describe
an impossible event.

A little side note on LHO...he was only a 'sharpshooter' and that
level was obtained with a rapid fire weapon. Probably M14. His lack
of ability and interest were described by his buddies. He must have
done an awful lot of practice to learn how to quickly handle a bolt
action rifle with any speed, since he had been given no experience in
those.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 4:00:37 AM1/26/12

to

>>> "They [the Parkland doctors] DID examine the wound, that was their job. Their MAIN job, since it was the most obvious place where there was damage. They couldn't do their job if they blithely looked only superficially at that large hole and moved on." <<<

But as I recall, several of the Parkland doctors are on record as
saying they did not examine the President's head wounds in any great
detail.

Dr. Perry used these words in his Warren Commission testimony:

"I glanced cursorily at the head wound and noted its severe
character, and then proceeded with the tracheotomy."

And Dr. McClelland told PBS/NOVA in 1988 that "it was not an
appropriate thing to do at the time to examine the head wound" (at the
2:30 mark of Part 6 below).

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy.html

But, regardless of whether the Parkland physicians closely examined
JFK's head wounds or not, their observations about the President's
wounds do not (and cannot) trump the much BETTER evidence of the
autopsy photographs, X-rays, and the autopsy report. And those
pictures and X-rays simply do not show any large hole in the back of
JFK's head. There is no hole back there. Period.

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 4:04:10 AM1/26/12

to

>>> "His [Dr. McClelland's] 'goofiness' is a figment of your imagination that you concocted to support your ridiculous theory." <<<

I concocted nothing, Chris. Listen to McClelland in 1988 and 2009
again. He is very explicit in what he says he thinks happened, and he
thinks that a frontal shot blasted out a huge section of the occipital
part of the right-rear of JFK's head. And yet he also thinks, at the
same time, that the right-rear of Kennedy's scalp was left totally
intact (i.e., he doesn't believe the photos are fakes).

Therefore, per Dr. McClelland, the scalp of the President--which was
just millimeters from the skull that was blasted out directly
underneath that scalp--was left totally undamaged by the impact of the
same bullet that resulted in the skull being blasted open.

The above-described scenario is exactly what Dr. Robert McClelland
must certainly believe (even though he probably doesn't even realize
he believes in such a silly contradictory theory about the President's
head wounds).

So, Chris, please tell me how a high-speed bullet could have caused
the underlying SKULL of the President to be blasted out, and yet have
that same bullet cause absolutely no damage at all to President
Kennedy's right-rear SCALP, which (of course) was situated directly on
top of that blasted-out skull?

That's a neat trick that I doubt even Kreskin could have accomplished
in his prime.

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

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/12/dr-robert-mcclelland.html

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 12:20:00 PM1/26/12

to

On Jan 25, 11:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "They [the Parkland doctors] DID examine the wound, that was their job. Their MAIN job, since it was the most obvious place where there was damage. They couldn't do their job if they blithely looked only superficially at that large hole and moved on." <<<
>
> But as I recall, several of the Parkland doctors are on record as
> saying they did not examine the President's head wounds in any great
> detail.
>

Out of the total, how many is 'several'?

> Dr. Perry used these words in his Warren Commission testimony:
>
> "I glanced cursorily at the head wound and noted its severe
> character, and then proceeded with the tracheotomy."
>
> And Dr. McClelland told PBS/NOVA in 1988 that "it was not an
> appropriate thing to do at the time to examine the head wound" (at the
> 2:30 mark of Part 6 below).
>

> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy....

>
> But, regardless of whether the Parkland physicians closely examined
> JFK's head wounds or not, their observations about the President's
> wounds do not (and cannot) trump the much BETTER evidence of the
> autopsy photographs, X-rays, and the autopsy report. And those
> pictures and X-rays simply do not show any large hole in the back of
> JFK's head. There is no hole back there. Period.
>

Actually, the Parkland doctor's comments DO trump the Humes autopsy
in a number of ways. First, they were the first medically trained
people to see JFK and his wounds, and the earlier information is often
best where there is doubt or argument about what happens later in the
'chain of evidence' of the body. Second, the Parkland ER doctors had
more experience with bullet wounds and could better assess them.
Third, they weren't under the direct control of anyone in their
comments relating to the body and what they saw. Servicemen (such as
Humes and company) are under direct orders of their superiors and can
be ordered as to what they will relate of what they see, whether for
national security or any halfway possible reason under threat of
courts martial.

There have been many accusations that the body was modified or
tampered with during the illegal trip from Parkland to Bethesda, so
that there is doubt as to what might be found in the Humes autopsy.
And although there was some knowledge of the job at hand in one of the
Bethesda personnel, Humes was the senior in charge and that might have
kept the others from contributing important information that might
make Humes look less capable. We'll never know about that, but the
possibility exists.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 1:56:39 PM1/26/12

to

On Jan 25, 11:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "His [Dr. McClelland's] 'goofiness' is a figment of your imagination that you concocted to support your ridiculous theory." <<<
>
> I concocted nothing, Chris. Listen to McClelland in 1988 and 2009
> again. He is very explicit in what he says he thinks happened, and he
> thinks that a frontal shot blasted out a huge section of the occipital
> part of the right-rear of JFK's head. And yet he also thinks, at the
> same time, that the right-rear of Kennedy's scalp was left totally
> intact (i.e., he doesn't believe the photos are fakes).
>

So if we take the doctor at his word, he has described exactly what
can be seen in the autopsy photos. He says a 'frontal shot', which it
was, so he wasn't fooled by anything he saw. His comment about the
scalp being intact is right if you look at the autopsy pictures. In
one of them (for instance) you can see a person gripping the scalp
betwen his fingers and thumb and pulling the scalp forward into its
normal position, making it look just like normal in the picture.

> Therefore, per Dr. McClelland, the scalp of the President--which was
> just millimeters from the skull that was blasted out directly
> underneath that scalp--was left totally undamaged by the impact of the
> same bullet that resulted in the skull being blasted open.
>

Yep. You got it. And McClelland had it long ago. He wasn't an
incompetent. He described what he saw and his words were taken to
mean something other than what he said. Here's McClelland's original
testimony: "Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, on initially coming into the room
and inspecting him from a distance of only 2 or 3 feet as I put on a
pair of surgical gloves, it was obvious that he had sustained a
probably mortal head injury"

Then he said: "As I took the position at the head of the table that
I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in
such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and
I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been
extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of
the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp
and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as
well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral
haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way
that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see
that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior
cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted
out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly
from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted
open."

So he described what we can see in the autopsy photos. In looking
through this original testimony, I can't find any place where he says
the scalp was completely unharmed, or anything similar to that. If
you saw that some where, point me to it, so I can see the context. As
a side issue, he talked with Dr. Perry, who led him to believe the
throat wound was an entrance wound.

> The above-described scenario is exactly what Dr. Robert McClelland
> must certainly believe (even though he probably doesn't even realize
> he believes in such a silly contradictory theory about the President's
> head wounds).
>
> So, Chris, please tell me how a high-speed bullet could have caused
> the underlying SKULL of the President to be blasted out, and yet have
> that same bullet cause absolutely no damage at all to President
> Kennedy's right-rear SCALP, which (of course) was situated directly on
> top of that blasted-out skull?
>

See above. His original testimony (including AARB) didn't mention
that the scalp was completely undamaged. Let me know where you found
such a comment from McClelland.

> That's a neat trick that I doubt even Kreskin could have accomplished
> in his prime.
>

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-i...
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/12/dr-robert-mcclelland.html

As an interesting side note to my double-checking McClelland's
statements, I found that most of the Parkland doctors had spoken
negatively about the Humes autopsy when they were together discussing
it. They were unhappy with the illegible writing, and the drawings
that seemed out of line with what they remembered seeing. They also
felt that some things had been left out.

Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 2:14:17 PM1/26/12

to

Par klan d

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 3:22:40 PM1/26/12

to

In article <1fe1689b-7b5f-4566...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jan 25, 12:46=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "They always end up running away from the evidence and the truth." <<=

><
>>
>> Think again, Mr. ABO Clown:
>
>moron... lmfao, you been getting your ass handed to you on these
>boards for years, but for Cris-sakes don't go anywhere, we NEED your
>lone nut stupidity FRONT and CENTER....
>
>
><snip the disinfo>

Indeed... I've always thought of the kooks as a sort of 'blackboard' that I get
to write the evidence on.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 6:36:58 PM1/26/12

to

Ask any emergency room physician you can -if it's acceptable or
believable that President Kennedy's back Wound was moved at least 4
inches up posthumously to the neck, and then again at least 4 inches
from the EOP to near the top of the head, again 5 years later and that 3
doctors had hours to observe the wounds close up ...Laz

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 10:14:26 PM1/26/12

to

>>> "The Parkland doctor's comments DO trump the Humes autopsy..." <<<

Not a chance. And you're silly if you think the Parkland people trump
BOTH the autopsy report AND all of the verified-as-unaltered photos
and X-rays.

Bottom Line --- No hole in JFK's head where many witnesses said there
was a hole.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 26, 2012, 11:04:09 PM1/26/12

to

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED CHRIS SAID:

>>> "In looking through [Dr. Robert McClelland's] original testimony, I can't find any place where he says the scalp was completely unharmed, or anything similar to that. If you saw that somewhere, point me to it, so I can see the context." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're right. That type of "undamaged rear scalp" statement isn't to
be found in Dr. McClelland's official testimony anyplace.

But you seem to be constantly missing the point -- which is:

McClelland has said in private interviews some things that cannot
possibly co-exist regarding President Kennedy's head wounds:

1.) Dr. McClelland definitely thinks a shot fired from the front
(Grassy Knoll) caused all of JFK's head damage. (Ergo, he can't "pull
a John Canal" on us and theorize that a great-big hole in the right-
rear of Kennedy's head was some kind of "collateral" damage that was
caused by Oswald shooting JFK in the head from behind.)

2.) McClelland thinks there was a huge blasted-out hole in the right-
rear of JFK's SKULL.

3.) McClelland thinks that the right-rear of JFK's SCALP was left
totally untouched and undamaged by the same bullet that blasted out a
huge part of the right-rear SKULL. (And whether the good doctor is on
record in front of the WC or ARRB as making this third claim is
irrelevant, because we know from McClelland's later interviews that he
does believe that #2 and #3 on this list can co-exist on the same head
of JFK.)

Here's another way to try and get my point across to Chris about the
absurdity of Dr. McClelland's stance on this subject of JFK's head
wounds:

At some point after the assassination, someone created a drawing that
depicted the large exit wound in JFK's head according to the way Dr.
McClelland said the wound looked to him. This is that drawing:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DlD77Tq1mKY/TyHUSk6FGwI/AAAAAAAAEJk/Bq_lA75rXpo/s1600/JFK-Drawing-Head-Wound.gif

Now, given the fact that Robert McClelland generally agrees with the
information depicted in the above drawing, let me ask this:

How can that drawing be accurate when even Dr. McClelland agrees that
the right-rear scalp of President Kennedy remained completely
undamaged and unfazed by the assassin's bullet?

In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo
below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on
November 22, 1963?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2Tk4XjjGZs/TyHXhhYHGwI/AAAAAAAAEJs/vGRbjj6nhG0/s1600/JFK-Head-Wounds-Composite.jpg

I firmly believe that those two things shown in the above composite
picture cannot co-exist on JFK's head...and, therefore, Dr. Robert N.
McClelland was mistaken about the location of the large hole in the
President's skull.

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

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 12:01:42 AM1/27/12

to

On Jan 26, 5:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The Parkland doctor's comments DO trump the Humes autopsy..." <<<
>
> Not a chance. And you're silly if you think the Parkland people trump
> BOTH the autopsy report AND all of the verified-as-unaltered photos
> and X-rays.
>

Well David, time to face it, the autopsy photos and the X-rays make
it clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said
there was one. But why would they say there was a large hole and why
would McClelland say he looked down and INTO the hole and saw brain
material oozing out? Not a very small hole when that happens. The
pictures they drew also pointed out a large hole at the right rear of
the head. Why now are you trying to (in effect) call all the Parkland
doctors stupid or incompetent? Did you se the autopsy pictures? Do you
remember the one with all the brain materal hanging out? Very strange
you would try to put that one under the rug and go on like you never
saw it. Here's a page full of absolute witness statements and
drawings from Parkland personnel showing the large hole in the right
rear of JFK's head, now try to face up to this one:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

> Bottom Line --- No hole in JFK's head where many witnesses said there
> was a hole.

LOL! See link above...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 12:51:00 AM1/27/12

to

On Jan 26, 6:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED CHRIS SAID:
>

Now, now David. Be nice. I have insisted that I want facts and
common sense, not your theories.

> >>> "In looking through [Dr. Robert McClelland's] original testimony, I can't find any place where he says the scalp was completely unharmed, or anything similar to that. If you saw that somewhere, point me to it, so I can see the context." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're right. That type of "undamaged rear scalp" statement isn't to
> be found in Dr. McClelland's official testimony anyplace.
>

So the information you claimed existed is not avaliable to me to see
your proof. Without your proof, there is no point to what you were
trying to say. Sounds like your working on theories and not facts,
which is what I would rather deal with.

> But you seem to be constantly missing the point -- which is:
>
> McClelland has said in private interviews some things that cannot
> possibly co-exist regarding President Kennedy's head wounds:
>

So now you're going to quote to me from "Private interviews" that
McClelland admitted everything he said previously was a lie? And say
that I'm missing the point? Of course I'm missing the point, if
there's no statements to hang your theories on.

> 1.) Dr. McClelland definitely thinks a shot fired from the front
> (Grassy Knoll) caused all of JFK's head damage. (Ergo, he can't "pull
> a John Canal" on us and theorize that a great-big hole in the right-
> rear of Kennedy's head was some kind of "collateral" damage that was
> caused by Oswald shooting JFK in the head from behind.)
>

If this 'private' statement is even true, we'll add McClelland to
the many who think the GK is a likely spot for a frontal shot to come
from. After seeing the large hole in the right rear of JFK's head, it
makes sense that he would think that. Since the doctor now thinks
(you say) that the killing shot came from the front, why would he then
also think LHO had anything to do with it all? If he likes the GK,
then it's perfectly possible for the bullet to cause the large hole in
the back of the head, with a lot less gyrations than the single bullet
theory. Now we're talking factual information, with some logic and
common sense thrown in. If true, it all hangs together.

> 2.) McClelland thinks there was a huge blasted-out hole in the right-
> rear of JFK's SKULL.
>

Well, or course! See the page linked to in the previous post to see
all the people from Parkland that join with him in that belief, so
that they described the positioning and size of the hole, and drew the
same thing...:)

> 3.) McClelland thinks that the right-rear of JFK's SCALP was left
> totally untouched and undamaged by the same bullet that blasted out a
> huge part of the right-rear SKULL.

Whoa! You're claiming again some "private interview" that
McClelland made has all this ridiculous information in it. Where is
the link or copy that you were asked to provide? Otherwise it doesn't
exist as far as I'm concerned, and there is no such statement from
McClelland to muddy the waters.

> (And whether the good doctor is on
> record in front of the WC or ARRB as making this third claim is
> irrelevant, because we know from McClelland's later interviews that he
> does believe that #2 and #3 on this list can co-exist on the same head
> of JFK.)
>

Let me try to get poor David here to understand rational debate.
David, if you are going to say these things are true, it would be
proper to back them up with some sort of page or testimony or video or
something that can be relied on to prove your contentions, not a
'private interview' that we can't access without a pointer. Otherwise
you're whistling in the dark and hoping we won't notice.

David, you have just attempted to push aside all the information
copied here from the witness statements of McClelland made EARLIER in
the sequence by saying they are irrelevant, and yet you offer no proof
of your statement...not really sensible, eh?

> Here's another way to try and get my point across to Chris about the
> absurdity of Dr. McClelland's stance on this subject of JFK's head
> wounds:
>

Actually, you're going to have some trouble there, since now you say
McClelland has come to the GK belief along with many others, instead
the rabid theories of LHO in 'nests' and such. Of course, we need to
see where and when he said all this more recent stuff.

> At some point after the assassination, someone created a drawing that
> depicted the large exit wound in JFK's head according to the way Dr.
> McClelland said the wound looked to him. This is that drawing:
>

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DlD77Tq1mKY/TyHUSk6FGwI/AAAAAAAAEJk/Bq_lA75...
>
The link doesn't seem to work. Can't base any conclusions on that.
Fix it and we'll decide what's what.

> Now, given the fact that Robert McClelland gets

> information depicted in the above drawing, let me ask this:
>
> How can that drawing be accurate when even Dr. McClelland agrees that
> the right-rear scalp of President Kennedy remained completely
> undamaged and unfazed by the assassin's bullet?
>

Whoa! I don't know that McClelland agrees that the scalp remains
completely undamaged. Where did this statement come from? Where is
it now? Are you manufacturing this 'private interview'?

> In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo
> below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on
> November 22, 1963?
>

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2Tk4XjjGZs/TyHXhhYHGwI/AAAAAAAAEJs/vGRbjj6...
>
The above link doesn't work either. Get these fixed and try again,
then I will explain it to you.

> I firmly believe that those two things shown in the above composite
> picture cannot co-exist on JFK's head...and, therefore, Dr. Robert N.
> McClelland was mistaken about the location of the large hole in the
> President's skull.
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Now the above link worked, but I can't see why it's there. A bunch
of people including you David, chatting about various parts of the JFK
debate. But what of the 'private interview' of McClelland? Where is
it and what were the exact statements that McClelland made that you're
attempting to rely on?

If you can't supply facts and sense, then all you have are theories,
and they are wacky ones at that.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 1:08:24 AM1/27/12

to

I see something useful to look at based on the above link of the
Parkland personnel describing and drawing the large hole in the right
rear of JFK's head. Use the link above and look through all the
Parkland people's beliefs on what the hole looked like and where it
was, then go to the end of that page and click on the Bethesda link
there and you will see the very same thing from the personnel at
Bethesda's beliefs. There is a dramatic difference in the two groups
of pictures. The hole has gotten larger as if someone had used a
hammer on top of the skull to enlarge the hole and bring it more to
the top of the head. I wonder if that had any effect on the autopsy
people or changed their idea of what happened.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 2:45:10 AM1/27/12

to

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED CHRIS SAID:

>>> "So now you're going to quote to me from "Private interviews" that McClelland admitted everything he said previously was a lie? And say that I'm missing the point? Of course I'm missing the point, if there's no statements to hang your theories on. .... You're claiming again some "private interview" that McClelland made has all this ridiculous information in it. Where is the link or copy that you were asked to provide? Otherwise it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, and there is no such statement from McClelland to muddy the waters. .... Let me try to get poor David here to understand rational debate. David, if you are going to say these things are true, it would be proper to back them up with some sort of page or testimony or video or something that can be relied on to prove your contentions, not a 'private interview' that we can't access without a pointer. Otherwise you're whistling in the dark and hoping we won't notice. David, you have just attempted to push aside all the information copied here from the witness statements of McClelland made EARLIER in the sequence by saying they are irrelevant, and yet you offer no proof of your statement...not really sensible, eh? .... Whoa! I don't know that McClelland agrees that the scalp remains completely undamaged. Where did this statement come from? Where is it now? Are you manufacturing this 'private interview'? .... But what of the 'private interview' of McClelland? Where is it and what were the exact statements that McClelland made that you're attempting to rely on? If you can't supply facts and sense, then all you have are theories, and they are wacky ones at that." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Chris cannot possibly be as dense as he (or she) is pretending to be.
(Since Chris is a unisex name, I have no idea if I'm talking to a male
or a female. Not that that fact is important, of
course.)

And I've provided multiple links to the McClelland interviews from
1988 (on PBS-TV) and 2009 (McClelland's extensive 80-minute interview
with Canadian radio host Brent Holland) in my previous posts that
prove my point about McClelland's impossible theory.

Apparently Chris never clicked on any of them. E.G., two of my earlier
posts in this very thread, dated January 25 at 11:00 PM EST and
January 25 at 11:04 PM EST, respectively (linked below):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/974277394691068a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bbaa997bf914ab74

Maybe Chris needs a better computer, because both of the previous
photo links that he (she) said did not work are working just fine. No
problem with them at all. (BTW, a lengthy link will always break after
it's been copied into a reply here at Usenet. But the links in my
original post are unbroken and work just fine.)

So, I guess I'll have to walk Chris through McClelland's "rear scalp"
comments again, although I've already pointed out this segment of the
1988 NOVA program previously, but maybe Chris' computer rejected this
working link too:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy.html

Go to 0:50 of Part 6 of the above-linked video series to hear
McClelland say this:

"The pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp, which is
hanging back this way in most of the pictures, exposing this large
wound [DVP INTERJECTION: McClelland, again, is nuts here, because
there is no autopsy photo in existence that is "exposing this large
wound" in the back of JFK's head, and that's because there is no
"large wound" in the back of JFK's head], and has pulled the scalp
forward to take a picture. Naturally, the scalp appears to be in its
normal state, and there doesn't seem to be any sort of wound in the
area where I had drawn the picture that showed this large hole." --
Dr. Robert N. McClelland; PBS-TV; 1988

And McClelland, incredibly, also says in that same 1988 video that the
autopsy photos verify and somehow corroborate his own 11/22/63
observations about there being a rear blow-out to JFK's head.

Of course, as anyone can plainly see, the autopsy photos actually show
the exact OPPOSITE from what McClelland says he saw in Trauma Room 1.
And I guess that's why McClelland decided to invent his lame-ass
"pulled scalp" theory for the NOVA/PBS special.

And here's a link (again) to the 2009 interview with McClelland. And
in this '09 interview, McClelland definitely does talk about his
"pulled scalp" theory too, which are remarks that dovetail with his
earlier 1988 comments on PBS-TV:

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 2:32:05 AM1/27/12

to

CHRIS SAID:

>>> "Well David, time to face it, the autopsy photos and the X-rays make it clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said there was one." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're crazy if you believe the autopsy photos show a big blow-out at
the right-rear of JFK's head. Nothing like that is seen in any of the
autopsy photographs or X-rays.

Where's the occipital blow-out wound in this X-ray below, Chris? Where
is it? ....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

>>> "Did you see the autopsy pictures? Do you remember the one with all the brain materal hanging out?" <<<

Yes, of course. The photo you're referring to is the one linked below.
But that picture certainly doesn't show a great-big gaping hole in the
RIGHT-REAR of President Kennedy's head. Nothing like that is seen in
the photo below. This picture shows the TOP of JFK's head, not the
right-rear:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L-rjrX55bMs/TyIKO8ymBgI/AAAAAAAAEKE/-G-O8kwPlxk/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-Top-Of-Head.jpg

And this additional autopsy photo below, like the previous picture
above, also shows brain tissue adhering to JFK's hair, but it doesn't
show a big hole in the occipital part of the head. The large exit
wound, as seen in the picture below, is located above (and a little
forward) of JFK's right ear -- just exactly where we also see it in
the Zapruder Film:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qCSHYoRle-c/TyIIrHdbh7I/AAAAAAAAEJ8/T-M5aR5A5k8/s1600/00h.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.JPG

It seems as though Chris is making the exact same mistake that the
Parkland doctors made, because Chris seems to be implying that the
autopsy pictures (which depict JFK in the exact same prone, flat-on-
his-back posture that he was in at Parkland Hospital) are showing a
big blow-out at the BACK of Kennedy's head. But, in fact, the photos
are showing no such thing.

Maybe Chris should be propped up as a good example of how people CAN,
indeed, misinterpret the location of wounds in a victim's head when
that victim is lying flat on his back on a table (or a stretcher).

Thanks for confirming that fact for us, Chris.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 2:21:31 PM1/27/12

to

On Jan 26, 9:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "Well David, time to face it, the autopsy photos and the X-rays make it clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said there was one." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're crazy if you believe the autopsy photos show a big blow-out at
> the right-rear of JFK's head. Nothing like that is seen in any of the
> autopsy photographs or X-rays.
>
> Where's the occipital blow-out wound in this X-ray below, Chris? Where
> is it? ....
>

See the previous post, where all things are answered for you...:)

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...

>
> >>> "Did you see the autopsy pictures? Do you remember the one with all the brain materal hanging out?" <<<
>
> Yes, of course. The photo you're referring to is the one linked below.
> But that picture certainly doesn't show a great-big gaping hole in the
> RIGHT-REAR of President Kennedy's head. Nothing like that is seen in
> the photo below. This picture shows the TOP of JFK's head, not the
> right-rear:
>

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L-rjrX55bMs/TyIKO8ymBgI/AAAAAAAAEKE/-G-O8kw...

That link doesn't work. I'm not using Usenet directly. I'm using
Google Groups as a reader. When I try to click that link, it goes to
a 404 error. The link had an ellipsis after it as though some of it
has been left off. That may be the problem.
However, see the previous post for the description of the problem
with the wrong impression folks have been getting from the photos.

>
> And this additional autopsy photo below, like the previous picture
> above, also shows brain tissue adhering to JFK's hair, but it doesn't
> show a big hole in the occipital part of the head. The large exit
> wound, as seen in the picture below, is located above (and a little
> forward) of JFK's right ear -- just exactly where we also see it in
> the Zapruder Film:
>

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qCSHYoRle-c/TyIIrHdbh7I/AAAAAAAAEJ8/T-M5aR5...
>
Another ellipsis, another 404 error.

But again, the problem is obvious. The picture doesn't show brain
matter adhering to hair. It shows the other side of the flap of scalp
with skull fragments attached and brain matter attached to that. The
Scalp flap is flopped backwards, not forward, which can be
misleading..

> It seems as though Chris is making the exact same mistake that the
> Parkland doctors made, because Chris seems to be implying that the
> autopsy pictures (which depict JFK in the exact same prone, flat-on-
> his-back posture that he was in at Parkland Hospital) are showing a
> big blow-out at the BACK of Kennedy's head. But, in fact, the photos
> are showing no such thing.
>

Ah, but they are! You've erred seriously! Because the flap of
scalp flopped backward and not forward, everyone at Parkland that got
within 30 feet of the body could see the problem, and describe the
large wound. With McClelland only 18 inches from the wound, he could
see it better than anyone. It just isn't sensible to insult a
practicing doctor with such a clear view just because you don't
understand what he was able to see from his vantage point. One needs
to step back and figure out where they are going wrong before making
nonsense statements.

> Maybe Chris should be propped up as a good example of how people CAN,
> indeed, misinterpret the location of wounds in a victim's head when
> that victim is lying flat on his back on a table (or a stretcher).
>
> Thanks for confirming that fact for us, Chris.

Welp, David ol' fella, perhaps we'll have to 'prop you up' once you
fully understand the error you've been making with the flap of scalp
flopping back instead of forward all these years...That would allow
anyone to see the large wound clearly...the difficult thing for you
now is to be able to man up and recognize how many people you've
misled with your wrong impression of the wounds. Didn't you wonder
why all those people were saying things you thought were wild and
'goofy'? Or did you simply know you couldn't be wrong, so everyone
else was...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 2:01:25 PM1/27/12

to

On Jan 26, 9:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED CHRIS SAID:
>

Still pretending that, like you, I'm into theories! It just ain't
so. As noted before, I like facts and common sense and you haven't
provided much of either.

> >>> "So now you're going to quote to me from "Private interviews" that McClelland admitted everything he said previously was a lie? And say that I'm missing the point? Of course I'm missing the point, if there's no statements to hang your theories on. .... You're claiming again some "private interview" that McClelland made has all this ridiculous information in it. Where is the link or copy that you were asked to provide? Otherwise it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, and there is no such statement from McClelland to muddy the waters. .... Let me try to get poor David here to understand rational debate. David, if you are going to say these things are true, it would be proper to back them up with some sort of page or testimony or video or something that can be relied on to prove your contentions, not a 'private interview' that we can't access without a pointer. Otherwise you're whistling in the dark and hoping we won't notice. David, you have just attempted to push aside all the information copied here from the witness statements of McClelland made EARLIER in the sequence by saying they are irrelevant, and yet you offer no proof of your statement...not really sensible, eh? .... Whoa! I don't know that McClelland agrees that the scalp remains completely undamaged. Where did this statement come from? Where is it now? Are you manufacturing this 'private interview'? .... But what of the 'private interview' of McClelland? Where is it and what were the exact statements that McClelland made that you're attempting to rely on? If you can't supply facts and sense, then all you have are theories, and they are wacky ones at that." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Chris cannot possibly be as dense as he (or she) is pretending to be.
> (Since Chris is a unisex name, I have no idea if I'm talking to a male
> or a female. Not that that fact is important, of
> course.)
>

To help you in your confusion David, I'm male. I try not to beat my
chest and roar all the time as some LNers around here seem to do.

> And I've provided multiple links to the McClelland interviews from
> 1988 (on PBS-TV) and 2009 (McClelland's extensive 80-minute interview
> with Canadian radio host Brent Holland) in my previous posts that
> prove my point about McClelland's impossible theory.
>
> Apparently Chris never clicked on any of them. E.G., two of my earlier
> posts in this very thread, dated January 25 at 11:00 PM EST and
> January 25 at 11:04 PM EST, respectively (linked below):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/974277394691068ahttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bbaa997bf914ab74
>

Ah! A link that works! David, once again I have to try and help
you by telling you that pointing me to 6 videos of a 1 hour PBS
special isn't helpful, especially if it is told from the viewpoint of
the 'official' story of the lone nut theory. You're making another
foolish assumption. I remember going to your site and seeing the 6
videos lined up. You did not provide a clue to which segment was the
one to watch, nor how far in I should go, so I didn't spend all day
looking over all the videos. But if you would like to say which of the
6 videos, and how far in to go, I'll be happy to look over your
McClelland 'private interview' (as you called it) and see what the
fellow said. Let me know when you can provide this simple bit of
information. I'm certainly not going to sit through a 1 hour set of
videos hoping there will be some bit of evidence you've suggested
exists but can't quote and can't point to directly.

David, as it turns out, not only did you supply a link to a list of 6
videos with no clue which of them has the proper information, but you
have mentioned multiple links above and I see only one. If there are
others, please make them available so we will have something to
discuss. You've mentioned 2 interviews (you called them 'private
interviews') in 1988 and 2009. What is the link to the second? Your
last post had 2 bad links in it, perhaps one of those was what your
looking for? Let me know.

> Maybe Chris needs a better computer, because both of the previous
> photo links that he (she) said did not work are working just fine. No
> problem with them at all. (BTW, a lengthy link will always break after
> it's been copied into a reply here at Usenet. But the links in my
> original post are unbroken and work just fine.)
>

Nope. As I noted, the last link in the post worked just fine, so
there may be some other problem with the 2 early ones. And I've
picked up links for years lodged in text without problems. Perhaps
you made an error. Want to try again?

> So, I guess I'll have to walk Chris through McClelland's "rear scalp"
> comments again, although I've already pointed out this segment of the
> 1988 NOVA program previously, but maybe Chris' computer rejected this
> working link too:
>

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy....

>
> Go to 0:50 of Part 6 of the above-linked video series to hear
> McClelland say this:
>

Finally! Direct information, unprovided in the past. I'll look it
over and let you know whether it amounts to anything.

> "The pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp, which is
> hanging back this way in most of the pictures, exposing this large
> wound [DVP INTERJECTION: McClelland, again, is nuts here, because
> there is no autopsy photo in existence that is "exposing this large
> wound" in the back of JFK's head, and that's because there is no
> "large wound" in the back of JFK's head], and has pulled the scalp
> forward to take a picture. Naturally, the scalp appears to be in its
> normal state, and there doesn't seem to be any sort of wound in the
> area where I had drawn the picture that showed this large hole." --
> Dr. Robert N. McClelland; PBS-TV; 1988
>

David, David, David. Please listen and visit the links provided so
that you can repair your statements damaging the reputation of a
doctor that has done only his job and tried to be honest in describing
the JFK situation. First, for photos I'm using the following link:

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

I'll begin with describing the situation as I see it from the
photos:

If you look carefully at the picture labelled BE7 (large defect) you
will see a picture of the major hole in the right rear of the head
(you see, there WAS a picture of the large wound). The flaps of scalp
(with bone fragments attached) have been opened wide to allow a view
inside the hole. It might appear to someone not able to figure out
what they're seeing that the picture is not of use, but it shows the
huge size of the hole with all flaps and skull parts held back. If
you then put BE7 together with BE2 (top of head) you can make more
sense out of BE7. BE2 is showing you not the scalp, but the attached
brain matter when the flap of scalp is left to hang down and is not
held up. If you then move on to the BE4 (body turned), you will see
one of the pictures where a doctor is holding the flap forward to show
the original view of the head. Not only is there no little hole in
the flap (possible proof of a rear shot), but you can also see also a
large flap of skull lifted forward away from the large wound and it is
hinged just above the ear. Part of the trouble novices have with
these pictures is that they automatically assume that the flap of
scalp would be lifted from the back up to the top, when actually it is
lifted from the top of the head to the rear. The BE4 picture is
showing the flap pulled up and forward into it's original position.
It can be confusing for some that are just realizing the difference in
flap direction.

Now what I saw in your copy of the PBS video of McClellland was
almost exactly what I just described above. He was no fool, and he
got it right. I watched him from the beginning of Part 6. He was
there and so he knew that the flap was lifted from the top backward,
not the other way around. And as expected, he described (with his
right hand) the exact same large wound that all the other Parkland
personnel decribed and drew, cupping an area at the right rear of the
head, showing both position and size of the wound. As you note, some
doctors said they didn't spend a lot of time examining the wound in
the head, but that's because with JFK lying on his back, the flap of
scalp with skull fragments attached and brain matter attached to that,
was flopped backward and his brains were hanging out. They knew what
that meant and that there wasn't any use in looking more closely, but
they also got enough of a look to describe the wound later.

> And McClelland, incredibly, also says in that same 1988 video that the
> autopsy photos verify and somehow corroborate his own 11/22/63
> observations about there being a rear blow-out to JFK's head.
>

Yes indeed, David. He was right on target (see above explanation
for those that are confused). You've insulted a knowledgeable person
that knows his business.

> Of course, as anyone can plainly see, the autopsy photos actually show
> the exact OPPOSITE from what McClelland says he saw in Trauma Room 1.
> And I guess that's why McClelland decided to invent his lame-ass
> "pulled scalp" theory for the NOVA/PBS special.
>

Nope. Actually, the autopsy photos show exactly what the body
looked like and what happened to it, and McClelland. I knew once I
got a hold of the McClelland statement that was supposedly from a
'private interview', we could solve this whole misleading thread.

> And here's a link (again) to the 2009 interview with McClelland. And
> in this '09 interview, McClelland definitely does talk about his
> "pulled scalp" theory too, which are remarks that dovetail with his
> earlier 1988 comments on PBS-TV:
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

Yep, that sounds like the statement of McClelland that I heard
before, but since it was describing exactly what I know happened and
what JFK's wounds looked like, I didn't think it was what our David
was trying to say. Now I see the problem is that David has been led
astray by a few pictures and an 'official' story as maybe many people
have been misled, and he thinks that McClelland was 'goofy' and not
telling the exact truth as he had seen it. McClelland described being
18 inches from the wound at the back of JFK's head, and that it was a
large wound with brain matter showing. He saw all that because the
flap of scalp flopped backward, not forward, and it showed all anyone
at Parkland needed to see.

Now that we've solved David's problem with McClelland's statements,
I wonder what David thought of all the Parkland personnel describing
basically the same thing as McClelland? David, any thoughts on that,
or are they ALL goofy?

So one hopes that David can now handle the revealing of the reason
he has been mistaken all these years. That a flap of scalp actually
flopped backward and not forward, giving many the wrong impression,
and having them thinking the 'official' story was true instead of
being a handy theory from the officials that concocted it. The
evidence we have discussed and uncovered here will hopefully correct
the beliefs of many who hold these wrong impressions. There's nothing
like debate to rev up the interest in a subject...:)

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 9:12:00 PM1/27/12

to

>>> "If you look carefully at the picture labelled BE7 (large defect) you will see a picture of the major hole in the right rear of the head." <<<

If you think BE7 (aka F8) shows a hole in the right rear of JFK's
head, you are dead wrong. F8 is essentially worthless, because we
can't possibly tell (definitely) how to properly align the photo. Up?
Down? Left? Right? Who can know for sure? Nobody can. And even the
expert photo examiners have had trouble properly aligning that
picture. So, it's pretty much worthless, IMO.

But the reason we can know with 100% certainty that F8 does not show a
big hole in the back of JFK's head is due to this X-ray, which
verifies there is no hole in the BOH:

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 9:54:12 PM1/27/12

to

>>> "...The last link in the post worked just fine, so there may be some other problem with the 2 early ones." <<<

None of my links are bad. As I always do after posting, I checked all
the links myself. You just haven't bothered to click any of them from
my original post. They all work inside Google Groups. But some photo
links will break after hitting "reply".

Here's the working photo link again, illustrating the absurdity of
thinking these two pictures can co-exist on one head (as Dr. Robert
McClelland definitely does believe):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2Tk4XjjGZs/TyHXhhYHGwI/AAAAAAAAEJs/vGRbjj6nhG0/s1600/JFK-Head-Wounds-Composite.jpg

>>> "Now that we've solved David's problem with McClelland's statements..." <<<

You've solved nothing. You still don't understand what McClelland
believes, and apparently you never will. But maybe the composite photo
linked above will help you figure it out. (Hint: Click the link BEFORE
you hit "reply". It works fine. As have all the other links I've
posted.)

aeffects

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 10:36:00 PM1/27/12

to

On Jan 27, 1:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

you're dancing numb-nuts.....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 10:51:41 PM1/27/12

to

Okay, Healy, you're up. I'm giving you a chance to dazzle the two acj
lurkers with your brilliance regarding JFK's head wounds:

Please explain to those 2 lurkers how the following two photos can
possibly co-exist on the same head of John F. Kennedy:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2Tk4XjjGZs/TyHXhhYHGwI/AAAAAAAAEJs/vGRbjj6nhG0/s1600/JFK-Head-Wounds-Composite.jpg

Those two lurkers are waiting breathlessly for your reasonable
explanation, Mr. Healy. (And I didn't even mention the X-ray of JFK's
head. If you want to, you can also explain how that X-ray helps a
conspiracy theorist, including Dr. McClelland, who believes that a
great-big hole existed in the right-rear portion of President
Kennedy's cranium.)

Have you got the guts to actually talk about the evidence for a
change, Healy? Or will I get the usual "No advertising, hon" reply
from you?

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 11:16:22 PM1/27/12

to

On Jan 27, 4:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If you look carefully at the picture labelled BE7 (large defect) you will see a picture of the major hole in the right rear of the head." <<<
>
> If you think BE7 (aka F8) shows a hole in the right rear of JFK's
> head, you are dead wrong. F8 is essentially worthless, because we
> can't possibly tell (definitely) how to properly align the photo. Up?
> Down? Left? Right? Who can know for sure? Nobody can. And even the
> expert photo examiners have had trouble properly aligning that
> picture. So, it's pretty much worthless, IMO.
>

As you say, "In your opinion". So you're saying each person must
make up their own mind about that. OK.

> But the reason we can know with 100% certainty that F8 does not show a
> big hole in the back of JFK's head is due to this X-ray, which
> verifies there is no hole in the BOH:
>

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

Well, looking at the X-ray, I see a skull where all the pieces have
been put back in place, but with all the breaks in them showing. Oce
you get oriented, there are the breaks in the rear of the skull,
although there appears to also be some extra cracks in the top of the
skull too. Of course, there is some doubt about what might have
happened to the body (including the skull) between Parkland and
Bethesda, so the extra craxks at the top might be anything.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2012, 11:43:40 PM1/27/12

to

On Jan 27, 4:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "...The last link in the post worked just fine, so there may be some other problem with the 2 early ones." <<<
>
> None of my links are bad. As I always do after posting, I checked all
> the links myself. You just haven't bothered to click any of them from
> my original post. They all work inside Google Groups. But some photo
> links will break after hitting "reply".
>

Either way, I was able to get to the places you were pointing me to.

> Here's the working photo link again, illustrating the absurdity of
> thinking these two pictures can co-exist on one head (as Dr. Robert
> McClelland definitely does believe):
>

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2Tk4XjjGZs/TyHXhhYHGwI/AAAAAAAAEJs/vGRbjj6...

Apparently the link gets a '>' character on it after a reply is
hit. That seems to invalidate it as a link.

> >>> "Now that we've solved David's problem with McClelland's statements..." <<<
>
> You've solved nothing. You still don't understand what McClelland
> believes, and apparently you never will. But maybe the composite photo
> linked above will help you figure it out. (Hint: Click the link BEFORE
> you hit "reply". It works fine. As have all the other links I've
> posted.)

Yes, I determined that by experiment. Now, I'm sad to see you are
unable to understand the information I gave you. It's so clear too.
I understand exactly what McClelland meant, since I agree with him
completely and he makes all the sense in the world to me (apparently,
not to you). The problem here is your inability to keep an open mind
after having played the LN for so long. It takes an open mind to
realize that the scalp flap is flopping backward and not forward on
the head. It explains every problem anyone ever had with the autopsy
photos.

I suggest to you to try and orient your mind to see the scalp flap
as being attached at the back of the skull at the base, rather than at
the top of the skull and falling backward. The picture with all the
brains hanging out would make no sense unless you realize that the
flap is flopping backward and not forward.

The view I'm speaking of would make it obvious to everyone in
Parkland that the hole was a large one in the right rear of the head,
if they saw it from any distance, so they didn't need to peer closely
into it (although McClelland had the opportunity). If the flap were
the other way around, falling from top to the back, it wouldn't be
obvious to anyone. The view they had was different than we saw in the
autopsy photos, but the problem was still clear even after the
transport to Bethesda, and any possible messing with the body.

It still suprises me that you can insult so many doctors and nurses
that stated that there was a large hole at the back of the head. Do
you really think so many people with a medical specialty are so stupid
as to make a mistake like that, and only you, who are not a doctor as
far as I know, would be right, having not even been there? Talk about
hubris!

As far as I'm concerned, I gave you the information you need to
correct your mistake and take back all the insults you've leveled at
the medical workers. You now have to reconcile the information into
your world view and decide how much it affects all your other beliefs
about this case, including where the kill shot came from. My guess is
you will not want to give up a view you've held and fought for so long
and won't be able to make the transition. But that's not my problem,
onlty a problem for those you will falsely convince that the case was
a lone nut job.

Good luck,
Chris

Message has been deleted

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 12:09:35 AM1/28/12

to

On Jan 27, 5:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Okay, Healy, you're up. I'm giving you a chance to dazzle the two acj
> lurkers with your brilliance regarding JFK's head wounds:
>
> Please explain to those 2 lurkers how the following two photos can
> possibly co-exist on the same head of John F. Kennedy:
>

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p2Tk4XjjGZs/TyHXhhYHGwI/AAAAAAAAEJs/vGRbjj6...

>
> Those two lurkers are waiting breathlessly for your reasonable
> explanation, Mr. Healy. (And I didn't even mention the X-ray of JFK's
> head. If you want to, you can also explain how that X-ray helps a
> conspiracy theorist, including Dr. McClelland, who believes that a
> great-big hole existed in the right-rear portion of President
> Kennedy's cranium.)
>
> Have you got the guts to actually talk about the evidence for a
> change, Healy? Or will I get the usual "No advertising, hon" reply
> from you?

Now David, we can see that you don't understand what I showed you
about the scalp flap, but to take it out on little benny's alter ego
doesn't help anything. You asked me the same question with the same
picture, and I was busy explaining the truth to you and didn't
answer,
so I'll do it now.

First, the picture on the left, which appears to be drawn by
McClelland. It shows what so many other Parkland people saw ,
described and drew on the page I linked for you earlier. The large
hole is the same in all those people's effort to convey the wound to
us all.

Next, the picture on the right in color. Here we see the back of
the head with the scalp flap pulled up forward (remember it's
attached
at the bottom, not the top) and being held by a hand. Fingers go
underneath to help grip the (no doubt) slippery scalp flap.
McClelland explained this too, but you didn't want to listen. To the
right just over the right ear we see one of the large skull fragments
that is still attached at the back to th skull and scalp. It is
swung
forward as if on a hinge, and looking at it, it suggests large damage
to the skull and the brain inside and behind it. If we swung the
skull fragment backward to it's proper place, it would be just
forward
of the large hole that all the Parkland people saw and drew.

I'm still waiting for any comment you might have on so many of the
Parkland people all describing the same wound and drawing it
too,andthe differences after reaching Bethesda (clicklink at bottom of
page). Here's the background again:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 4:43:58 AM1/28/12

to

>>> "I'm still waiting for any comment you might have on so many of the Parkland people all describing the same wound and drawing it too, and the differences after reaching Bethesda." <<<

As far as I am concerned, the Parkland observations about JFK's head
wounds have always been the #1 mystery in this entire case.

It is, indeed, amazing that so many trained medical professionals
could actually have (in unison) mislocated the big hole in JFK's head.
But, I'm afraid I have no choice BUT to conclude that all of those
trained doctors and nurses DID mislocate the wound.

And the reason I have no choice but to believe they were all wrong is
because there is BETTER evidence to rely on when it comes to
definitively proving where the wounds were truly located in President
Kennedy's head. And that "better" evidence is, of course, the autopsy
photos and X-rays of the dead President, which are photos and X-rays
that just simply do not show any great-big hole in the right-rear of
JFK's cranium. It ain't there. Period.

But the Parkland people certainly weren't liars. I don't think a
single Parkland person lied about anything connected to the JFK case.
Not at all. They were simply honestly wrong.

And I think you, Chris, are illustrating in this very Internet thread
the exact same kind of error that was made back in 1963 by the
Parkland people (and by, incredibly, even some of the Bethesda
personnel too).

You've demonstrated your obvious error regarding the President's
wounds when you made the following two ludicrous statements in two
separate posts on January 26, 2012. And you've even had the huge
benefit of looking at and evaluating the autopsy photos and X-rays at
your leisure before making these two statements too, and yet you still
said these silly things anyway. Go figure:

"The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump the Humes autopsy. ....

David, time to face it, the autopsy photos and the X-rays make it
clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said

there was one." -- Chris; 1/26/12

I'll close this post by repeating an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's
book. Chris must think that Dr. Baden was a total fool too. Right,
Chris? ....

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs,
and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of
hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the
hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he
was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and
brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound
was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and
photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit
wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or
wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages
407-408 of "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 5:49:05 AM1/28/12

to

CHRIS SAID:

>>> "It takes an open mind to realize that the scalp flap is flopping backward and not forward on the head. It explains every problem anyone ever had with the autopsy photos." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

For the purposes of this particular discussion regarding Dr.
McClelland's crazy "pulled scalp" theory, it makes no difference to me
whatsoever whether ANY scalp was, in fact, being pulled forward by the
Bethesda pathologists or not. That's immaterial here.

And it's actually immaterial even outside any "McClelland" discussion
too. It doesn't matter. Because the red-spot BOH photo and the X-ray
of the right side of JFK's head (in tandem) are the absolute PROOF
that Dr. McClelland mislocated the place on JFK's head where the large
wound was. That fact couldn't be any clearer when viewing that photo
and X-ray in conjunction with one another. And you can have your
"pulled scalp" being pulled from any direction you want. I don't care.
Because the photo and X-ray give me all the information I need in
order to answer the following question:

Were the Parkland doctors correct when they said that there a big hole
in the right-rear part of President Kennedy's head?

And after viewing the two pictures below, the answer to that question
is crystal clear -- the answer is "No".

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

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

And, Chris, you can't possibly be serious about still contending that
there was a great-big blow-out (with MISSING SKULL BONE) at the right-
rear of Kennedy's head after viewing the above autopsy X-ray -- can
you?

There is NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the occipital area of the head (per
that X-ray). There are some fracture lines in the rear of the head,
yes. But there's no missing bone there at all. None. The President's
skull is essentially intact in the area where McClelland, et al, have
insisted there was a HUGE SKULL DEFICIT. And the X-ray proves that
fact.

Back to Dr. McClelland again for a moment:

The "scalp-pulling" thing is totally unimportant when it comes to
assessing the major things that I'm trying to get you, Chris, to
understand regarding Robert McClelland.

Why?

Because even if McClelland is correct and the doctors are pulling a
piece of scalp forward on JFK's head in the autopsy photo, that still
doesn't change the following two facts, which are things that Dr.
McClelland certainly believes DO co-exist in the JFK case:

1.) The right-rear SKULL of JFK was blasted out by a bullet.

2.) The right-rear SCALP of JFK was left totally undamaged by the same
bullet that caused #1 above.

Will you ever understand that those two things listed above ARE things
that Robert McClelland actually does think exist (in tandem with each
other)?

Or do you actually want to believe that a rifle bullet plowed through
Kennedy's head, leaving a huge, easily-visible wound at the right-rear
of the President's head (per McClelland and many other Parkland
observers), and yet that same bullet (somehow, some way) didn't even
touch the SCALP of the same man, even though that scalp we're talking
about was located DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE SKULL that McClelland says
was blasted open in the occipital/right-rear?

Get it now? Or do I need to draw some more pictures to make you
understand the absurdity of McClelland's position?

And to emphasize again -- This has NOTHING to do with pulled-up
scalps, or the direction from which any scalp-pulling was done at
Bethesda. This, instead, has to do with something very basic that
McClelland (in 1988) said he actually believes. And he made it clear
in 1988 (on PBS) that he does believe #1 AND #2 above. He didn't use
the exact words I utilized above for my #1 and #2 items, but he
believes those things nonetheless, because it's clear that he DOESN'T
think the autopsy photos have been faked. Ergo, he knows (as I do)
that the right-rear portion of JFK's SCALP was undamaged by any bullet
that hit him on November 22nd, 1963.

Plus: Dr. McClelland's observations are completely blown out of the
water and proven wrong by just the X-ray of JFK's head alone. Because
we can see that the kind of damage that McClelland insists was present
in the occipital/right-rear of JFK's cranium just simply does not
exist on that X-ray.

Anyway, Chris, I'm glad that you also agree with McClelland that the
autopsy pictures are not fakes. Most CTers love to harp on the "fake
photos and X-rays" (even though the HSCA's photographic panel gave all
of those autopsy pictures a clean bill of "unaltered in any manner"
health in 1978).

So, therefore, since you don't think the autopsy pics are fakes, I'm
also glad to see that you can agree that there was absolutely no
damage in the right-rear of JFK's scalp (i.e., there is no great-big
hole there).

You surely agree with that last statement, right Chris? Since you
think the autopsy pictures ARE telling the true tale of JFK's wounds,
you don't think that this picture below is showing a great-big hole in
the SCALP of Kennedy, do you?....

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

And, along those same lines, you surely don't think that this X-ray is
showing a great-big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's skull, do you?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

And if you can also agree with me that the above X-ray is not a faked
X-ray, then how on Earth can you still maintain the validity and
accuracy of Parkland witnesses like Dr. McClelland?

McClelland, et al, said that the right-rear skull was BLASTED OUT
(i.e., a large part of the right-rear of JFK's head was MISSING). But
if that's true, why is there NO MISSING BONE at the right-rear of
President Kennedy's head on the above-linked X-ray?

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 12:50:32 PM1/28/12

to

On Jan 27, 11:43 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I'm still waiting for any comment you might have on so many of the Parkland people all describing the same wound and drawing it too, and the differences after reaching Bethesda." <<<
>
> As far as I am concerned, the Parkland observations about JFK's head
> wounds have always been the #1 mystery in this entire case.
>
> It is, indeed, amazing that so many trained medical professionals
> could actually have (in unison) mislocated the big hole in JFK's head.
> But, I'm afraid I have no choice BUT to conclude that all of those
> trained doctors and nurses DID mislocate the wound.
>
> And the reason I have no choice but to believe they were all wrong is
> because there is BETTER evidence to rely on when it comes to
> definitively proving where the wounds were truly located in President
> Kennedy's head. And that "better" evidence is, of course, the autopsy
> photos and X-rays of the dead President, which are photos and X-rays
> that just simply do not show any great-big hole in the right-rear of
> JFK's cranium. It ain't there. Period.
>

Well David, I found a statement from Dr. Boswell at the autopsy. He
stated clearly that he had pulled the flap of scalp had been pulled
forward in the color picture. Here is the link to his statement and
the picture that he is speaking about:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm#boswell_talks

Here are the comments and pictures from the Bethesda autopsy group,
who showed the damage to the skull they saw in drawings. Note that
they all placed the large hole mostly behind the ear-to-ear midline of
the skull. Certainly not any proof of a frontal shot, although the
skull could have been modified before they saw it.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

> But the Parkland people certainly weren't liars. I don't think a
> single Parkland person lied about anything connected to the JFK case.
> Not at all. They were simply honestly wrong.
>
> And I think you, Chris, are illustrating in this very Internet thread
> the exact same kind of error that was made back in 1963 by the
> Parkland people (and by, incredibly, even some of the Bethesda
> personnel too).
>

It is amazing to me that you continue to think that ONLY YOU
(without medical training or ER experience) are correct in your belief
as to the position and nature of the scalp flap in exception to all
the medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda who described it
after being right there and seeing it. Especially McClelland, who
looked right down into it from 18 inches away! You can actually say
publicly that 20-30 medically trained people who were in close or near
proximity to a body are wrong in what they saw! And you never for a
moment question your judgement! In your position, I would be
embarassed to ahve insulted all those trained people who were present
at the ER scene.

Most people hearing that kind of group saying the same thing
opposing their viewpoint would step back and wonder where they went
wrong. But not you! You plow right on determined to push your silly
viewpoint down everyone's throat and then wonder why the world why so
few hewre will pay any attention. To save yourself, you have tried to
dismiss the evidence of the scalp flap and all the medical personnel,
so that YOU are left telling everyone what the truth of the ages is.
Amazing.

> You've demonstrated your obvious error regarding the President's
> wounds when you made the following two ludicrous statements in two
> separate posts on January 26, 2012. And you've even had the huge
> benefit of looking at and evaluating the autopsy photos and X-rays at
> your leisure before making these two statements too, and yet you still
> said these silly things anyway. Go figure:
>
> "The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump the Humes autopsy. ....
> David, time to face it, the autopsy photos and the X-rays make it
> clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said
> there was one." -- Chris; 1/26/12
>

Well now, I'm only wrong to you. To all the Parkland personnel, I'm
right on and you're way off. My statement takes into account that the
body may have been modified between Parkland and Bethesda, and by
comparing the drawings from Parkland personnel and the Bethesda
personnel, it looks like that's a safe bet. The earlier you obtain a
piece of evidence and 'lock it down' and ensure the 'chain of
evidence', the closer you'll be to the murderers. In this case the
body was illegally grabbed and stolen away and taken to Bethesda,
where the government had more control of circumstances and people.

> I'll close this post by repeating an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's
> book. Chris must think that Dr. Baden was a total fool too. Right,
> Chris? ....
>
> "Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
> whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
> the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
> wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs,
> and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of
> hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
> for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
> the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the
> hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he
> was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and
> brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound
> was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and
> photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit
> wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or
> wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
> the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages
> 407-408 of "Reclaiming History"

I've already caught Bugliosi lying or manufacturing evidence in his
words from his book relateds to the throat wound. I can't trust
anything he says. However, he would give you air time for your
theories, I bet.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 2:17:09 PM1/28/12

to

On Jan 28, 12:49 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "It takes an open mind to realize that the scalp flap is flopping backward and not forward on the head. It explains every problem anyone ever had with the autopsy photos." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> For the purposes of this particular discussion regarding Dr.
> McClelland's crazy "pulled scalp" theory, it makes no difference to me
> whatsoever whether ANY scalp was, in fact, being pulled forward by the
> Bethesda pathologists or not. That's immaterial here.
>

It is a useful ploy to say it makes no difference to you and dismiss
it, because it could be your undoing. Note that it is YOU who say the
McClellland statement is 'crazy', not the Parkland personnel, or even
the autopsy people. It is necessary for you to maintain your position
as a senior LN evidence collector to call a trained madical man who
saw the wound from 18 inches away 'crazy'. Let's get him and his
statement of fact out of the way.

> And it's actually immaterial even outside any "McClelland" discussion
> too. It doesn't matter. Because the red-spot BOH photo and the X-ray
> of the right side of JFK's head (in tandem) are the absolute PROOF
> that Dr. McClelland mislocated the place on JFK's head where the large
> wound was. That fact couldn't be any clearer when viewing that photo
> and X-ray in conjunction with one another. And you can have your
> "pulled scalp" being pulled from any direction you want. I don't care.
> Because the photo and X-ray give me all the information I need in
> order to answer the following question:
>

Another ploy is to say something is 'immaterial' and dismiss that
too. Sweep it off the table so it doesn't blow away the clouds I'm
spreading around. For my money a red spot on the skin is just that.
A red spot, not a hole, which would no doubt be black. McClelland was
18 inches over the flap of scalp where brains were flowing out, and
yet you say he's crazy and 'mislocated' the hole! Of course, the X-
ray backs up the findings that show such a large area from top to back
of head. If you look carefully, you'll see the breaks in the skull
match the pictures drawn by the autopsy personnel, which means the
picture BE2 with the brains flowing out of the head fits too.

> Were the Parkland doctors correct when they said that there a big hole
> in the right-rear part of President Kennedy's head?
>
> And after viewing the two pictures below, the answer to that question
> is crystal clear -- the answer is "No".
>

Actually, the answer is 'yes' because they all corroborate each
other's description and drawings. Where you havew no one
corroborating your view.

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

>
> And, Chris, you can't possibly be serious about still contending that
> there was a great-big blow-out (with MISSING SKULL BONE) at the right-
> rear of Kennedy's head after viewing the above autopsy X-ray -- can
> you?
>

Wrong again. As noted above, the X-ray and color photo back up my
(and McClelland's) statements.

> There is NO MISSING SKULL BONE in the occipital area of the head (per
> that X-ray). There are some fracture lines in the rear of the head,
> yes. But there's no missing bone there at all. None. The President's
> skull is essentially intact in the area where McClelland, et al, have
> insisted there was a HUGE SKULL DEFICIT. And the X-ray proves that
> fact.
>

I haven't contended that there is a missing piece of skull. Do you
think maybe if all the Parkland people drew a hole it means there's a
piece of skull missing? I don't think so, but now it's my turn to
dismiss something and say it doesn't matter. If the Parkland people
drew the hole which they all saw, the pictures may give the impression
there is something missing, but that doesn't mean it was. That's an
impression someone looking on may get. The piece may be missing or
not. In the X-ray, are we seeing every bone in the skull? Is none of
the skull hidden from view? Is the picture JFK's?

> Back to Dr. McClelland again for a moment:
>
> The "scalp-pulling" thing is totally unimportant when it comes to
> assessing the major things that I'm trying to get you, Chris, to
> understand regarding Robert McClelland.
>
> Why?
>
> Because even if McClelland is correct and the doctors are pulling a
> piece of scalp forward on JFK's head in the autopsy photo, that still
> doesn't change the following two facts, which are things that Dr.
> McClelland certainly believes DO co-exist in the JFK case:
>
> 1.) The right-rear SKULL of JFK was blasted out by a bullet.
>
> 2.) The right-rear SCALP of JFK was left totally undamaged by the same
> bullet that caused #1 above.
>
> Will you ever understand that those two things listed above ARE things
> that Robert McClelland actually does think exist (in tandem with each
> other)?
>

David, you must appreciate that my feelings are just as strong as
yours in trying to get you to be open-minded and see the truth.
First, after going through all the links you supplied of McClellands
'private interviews', I found none of them inconsistent with what he
said in testimony or that I saw in photos. 1.) Yes, the right-rear
skull was blasted out by a bullet, but not detached from the scalp.
2.) the scalp had a flap, but it appeared not to be damaged other than
that. No picture proves that false, and the color picture proves it
true, that the scalp appeared to be undamaged when pulled forward as
Boswell admits to doing for the photo, and McClelland surmised when he
saw the photo. So that all fits. Why is that hard to understand?

> Or do you actually want to believe that a rifle bullet plowed through
> Kennedy's head, leaving a huge, easily-visible wound at the right-rear
> of the President's head (per McClelland and many other Parkland
> observers), and yet that same bullet (somehow, some way) didn't even
> touch the SCALP of the same man, even though that scalp we're talking
> about was located DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE SKULL that McClelland says
> was blasted open in the occipital/right-rear?
>

Obviously, I would have to go with all the Parkland personnel, who
have far more training and experience and were 'on scene' as to what
they saw and drew. You actually think I would choose your version of
events over theirs? I don't know of anyone that said a bullet never
touched the scalp, unless you want to say the bullet pushed out the
skull, which pushed out the scalp, so that the bullet never touched
the scalp. It's clear the bullet had to pass through the skull and
the scalp, one way or the other. I don't know where you got that from
though. I don't remember McClelland using that phrase in the links
you sent ('never touched the scalp').

> Get it now? Or do I need to draw some more pictures to make you
> understand the absurdity of McClelland's position?
>

Again you're caught in hubris. You continue to think that only you
have the anointed truth from above. I have given you drawings and
statements from both Parkland and Bethesda personnel who show the
skull damage and the flap, and you still think only you have all the
answers and they are all 'crazy' or something. You've been living too
closely to al this and can't stand back and look clearly with a fresh
open-minded attitude.

> And to emphasize again -- This has NOTHING to do with pulled-up
> scalps, or the direction from which any scalp-pulling was done at
> Bethesda. This, instead, has to do with something very basic that
> McClelland (in 1988) said he actually believes. And he made it clear
> in 1988 (on PBS) that he does believe #1 AND #2 above. He didn't use
> the exact words I utilized above for my #1 and #2 items, but he
> believes those things nonetheless, because it's clear that he DOESN'T
> think the autopsy photos have been faked. Ergo, he knows (as I do)
> that the right-rear portion of JFK's SCALP was undamaged by any bullet
> that hit him on November 22nd, 1963.
>

Uh-Oh!! Now we're getting to part of the problem! David, you
mean to say that YOU decided what McClelland meant and weren't using
his actual words? You DETERMINED what he meant by deciding what you
think he believes? Whoa! I believe the same things he does about the
photos and the drawings and statements of all the people at Parkland.
Funny how you keep leaving them all out. Maybe you realize how
ludicrous it sounds to dump the whole Parkland crowd into the loony
bin with just a word ('crazy'). I've explained to you what is in the
2 photos, did you try to understand what I was saying before you
immediately and automatically dismissed it and said under your breath
'crazy'?

> Plus: Dr. McClelland's observations are completely blown out of the
> water and proven wrong by just the X-ray of JFK's head alone. Because
> we can see that the kind of damage that McClelland insists was present
> in the occipital/right-rear of JFK's cranium just simply does not
> exist on that X-ray.
>

Well, I saw it, how come you couldn't? But I wonder who's X-ray it
is. If JFK's, then it matches the BE2 photo and the right-rear hole
seen by Parklland people.

> Anyway, Chris, I'm glad that you also agree with McClelland that the
> autopsy pictures are not fakes. Most CTers love to harp on the "fake
> photos and X-rays" (even though the HSCA's photographic panel gave all
> of those autopsy pictures a clean bill of "unaltered in any manner"
> health in 1978).
>

Well David, the photos seem to follow the injuries that the
Parkland people described and drew, which makes them mor likely to be
legitimate. As to believing a bunch of congressional politicians,
nope, I wouldn't go that far. I'm not totally convinced that the X-
rays are perfectly OK, but they seem in line witrh the injuries
described, all of them including the large hole in the right-rear.

> So, therefore, since you don't think the autopsy pics are fakes, I'm
> also glad to see that you can agree that there was absolutely no
> damage in the right-rear of JFK's scalp (i.e., there is no great-big
> hole there).
>

David, that kind of little shot is childish. Of course I believe
(from evidence) exactly what I said above many times. There is a
great big hole in the right-rear of JFK's head, based on the photos
which appear unretouched.

> You surely agree with that last statement, right Chris? Since you
> think the autopsy pictures ARE telling the true tale of JFK's wounds,
> you don't think that this picture below is showing a great-big hole in
> the SCALP of Kennedy, do you?....
>

The picture is showing a large flap of scalp being held forward (as
per Boswell) and covering the large hole in the skull of JFK. You
don't think I would be so stupid as to go against a full load of
medical personnel from Parkland who were all 'on scene' and saw
directly what they described and drew pictures of, do you?

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

>
> And, along those same lines, you surely don't think that this X-ray is
> showing a great-big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's skull, do you?
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
I think we are seeing a skull with many breaks that has been pushed
together (reassembled) to get a complete picture of that skull. The
breaks seem to match the injuries described by McClelland and the many
Parkland personnel. Certain of the fragments seen could be those
attached to the flap of scalp that was hanging.

> And if you can also agree with me that the above X-ray is not a faked
> X-ray, then how on Earth can you still maintain the validity and
> accuracy of Parkland witnesses like Dr. McClelland?
>

LOL! Wait up there Tonto! I don't agree that the X-ray is
completely legitimate. I don't really know its history, or who is in
it. It appears to match the injuries, but maybe it's from a cadaver
that was laying around and they hammered on its head. The other
photos of the head of JFK (BE1-BE7) at least were recognizable as
being his head.

> McClelland, et al, said that the right-rear skull was BLASTED OUT
> (i.e., a large part of the right-rear of JFK's head was MISSING). But
> if that's true, why is there NO MISSING BONE at the right-rear of
> President Kennedy's head on the above-linked X-ray?

Ah! An easy one at the end. Thanks! Why would there be a missing
bone? The hole was in the skull, but that doesn't mean that all the
skull fragments left the scalp, they just left the skull. The skull
pieces were attached to the scalp (picture autopsy photo BE2). The
scalp was hanging down backward (it does matter which way) and so it
covered the pieces of scalp that were underneath it and still
attached.

I know you will not change your mind, or even look at this from the
Parklnad people's viewpoint, but you could go through a lot less grief
if you did.

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 10:06:25 PM1/28/12

to

~sigh~

Chris,

The X-ray proves that McClelland was wrong. This X-ray simply does not
show what you think it does. I.E., it does not show the type of
fragmentation and fracturing at the right-rear of the head to permit
witnesses such as Dr. McClelland to be correct.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2012, 11:37:55 PM1/28/12

to

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...

~groan~

LOL! Or the X-ray shows where all the rest of us were right and
you were wrong. I guess you will see what you wish in any document I
show you. I show you 20 different trained medical people and you say
they're all crazy or mistaken. I show you how the flap is causing you
to have the wrong image and make the wrong decisions, and McClelland
did the same, and you still cling to your wacky theory against all
medical personnel! A picture of closed mindedness for sure.

I don't hear any comment from you about the pictures drawn by the
autopsy and Parkland doctors .
I don't hear anything from you as to how so many medical people who
were 'on scene' at Parkland and Bethesda see one thing and YOU see
another and say they're all mistaken.
I don't hear from you about which way the scalp flap goes, which is
a key element of your effort to convince the world that you're not
nuts.
What I hear is an avoidance of facts and an excursion into
wonderland theories against all medical advice.

I still appreciate all the work you have done to put together the
information on your website, but it's all of no use to anyone if you
use it in a nutty way. You can go to bed at night with that one X-ray
under your pillow and it won't change the fact that there are breaks
in the skull right where the autopsy surgeons say there was. YOU said
the autopsy was so important, and now that the doctors at Bethesda
have shown their view as to what they saw, you don't love them anymore
and are off on your own selling theories that go against all their
drawings.

Al lthe exhibits we've looked at have shown the clear, factual
proof that there was indeed a large hole in the skull of JFK at
Parkland (and thereafter) and you continue to cling to one little X-
ray that you and I can't agree on. Do we agree on the Parkland and
Bethesda staff drawings and viewing of the body? Do we agree on the
BE1-BE7 autopsy photos? They all show the large hole in the right-
rear. Don't you think that if all these medical people and all these
exhibits and all these onlookers to our discussion think that there
was a large hole in the right-rear, that you might try to look at it
from someone else's viewpoint for just a little minute and see if it
makes any sense to you? It's only a minute, and then you can go
backdown the rabbit hole. I just don't want to believe that you are
so locked into your fantasy that you can't for even a minute see what
all these people have been telling you all these years.

David, I'm worried about you.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 29, 2012, 1:41:28 AM1/29/12

to

CHRIS SAID:

>>> "I don't hear any comment from you about the pictures drawn by the autopsy and Parkland doctors. I don't hear anything from you as to how so many medical people who were 'on scene' at Parkland and Bethesda see one thing and YOU see another and say they're all mistaken." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Any pictures hand-drawn by anybody are trumped by the REAL photos and
X-rays of John Kennedy's body. You seem to want to believe that a
picture drawn by somebody showing a gaping hole in the back of JFK's
head somehow trumps the real autopsy pics and X-rays (not to mention
the autopsy report).

That's called "NOT FOCUSING ON THE BEST EVIDENCE", Chris.

>>> "You can go to bed at night with that one X-ray under your pillow and it won't change the fact that there are breaks in the skull right where the autopsy surgeons say there was." <<<

But there's no missing skull bone at the back of the head. That's the
key and principal aspect here, and that's because the Parkland people
insisted there was a gaping HOLE in the right-rear of Kennedy's head
-- i.e., there was MISSING SKULL BONE at the BOH. And the X-ray proves
there wasn't.

Moreover, it's my belief that the X-ray of the right side of JFK's
head proves that there was not nearly enough fracturing
(fragmentation) of the rear part of Kennedy's skull to permit the
Parkland witnesses to be correct about what they said they saw, even
if we want to accept the preposterous (IMO) notion that a high-speed
rifle bullet could have caused a huge blow-out at the rear of JFK's
skull and yet leave the scalp that was attached to that very same
skull totally undamaged (with several of the autopsy photos verifying
that the right-rear scalp of JFK was, indeed, completely intact,
without a hint of any damage being done to it by any bullet; and the
higher-quality black-and-white picture linked below from the JFK-
Lancer site proves my "intact scalp" point even more).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ku5umVxZlds/TySfSVen6wI/AAAAAAAAELE/NYoHgf9iD0Q/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-BOH.jpg

So, the idea that a bullet crashed completely through Kennedy's right-
rear skull and then just kind of pushed the scalp aside (without doing
a bit of damage to that scalp), is something that doesn't make a bit
of logical sense. If such damage was done to the right-rear of JFK's
SKULL, then surely the scalp on top of that skull would have shown
tell-tale signs of at least SOME damage too. And we know it does not.

Plus, Dr. McClelland has always claimed that he was able to peer
straight DOWN into the massive blown-out area of JFK's head at
Parkland. But that notion is yet another weird aspect of McClelland's
account. Because I'm wondering how he could possibly have been looking
DOWN into a huge cavity that he said was located in the BACK of
Kennedy's head, even though we know that the President was lying FACE-
UP on the stretcher during the entire time Dr. McClelland was in
Trauma Room 1 with JFK? Seems very odd to me.

And I wonder why that "looking down into the wound" aspect of
McClelland's story doesn't seem odd or contradictory to any of the
conspiracy theorists of the world. But, amazingly, it's not odd to
them at all. ~shrug~

>>> "All the exhibits we've looked at have shown the clear, factual proof that there was indeed a large hole in the skull of JFK at Parkland (and thereafter)..." <<<

Sure, there was a hole in JFK's head -- at the right/front/top part of
the head. And ONLY in that location. Noplace else. And that pesky X-
ray that you insist on misinterpreting proves my point.

>>> "Do we agree on the BE1-BE7 autopsy photos? They all show the large hole in the right-rear." <<<

Talk about seeing things you want to see. You've got that ailment for
sure, Chris. Because the reality is that NONE of the autopsy photos or
X-rays show a "large hole in the right-rear". None of them. You're
just making that up to fit your BOH theory. Because you've got ZERO
pictures that show any "right-rear" hole in JFK's head. And you know
it.

Plus, several of those autopsy photos you just mentioned (BE1-BE7, via
the numbers utilized at the JFK-Lancer webpage linked below) don't
even show the right-rear of Kennedy's head at all!

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

BE1, for example, is a picture of the LEFT SIDE of Kennedy's head. The
right half of his head isn't even visible in the picture at all. Nor
is the right-rear of the head visible in BE2 or BE6 either. And BE7
(aka F8), as I mentioned previously, is essentially a worthless photo
for the purposes of trying to orient anything on JFK's head.

And yet Chris thinks that those pictures (which don't even show the
back of JFK's head) are proving that a big hole existed in the
occipital area of his head.

I'm worried about you, Chris.

>>> "David, I'm worried about you." <<<

No need to be. But I'd be a little worried about your strange position
regarding the things that those autopsy photos and X-rays are
depicting. THAT'S where your worry should be focused.

BTW, as I quoted previously, Dr. Baden and the majority of the other 8
FPP members of the HSCA (probably all 8, even Wecht), agree that there
is no great-big hole at the back of JFK's head in the photos and X-
rays.

Dr. Baden said:

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head

other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

Naturally, Chris thinks Baden is the same kind of kook that David Von
Pein is.

Right, Christopher?

>>> "I just don't want to believe that you are so locked into your fantasy that you can't for even a minute see what all these people have been telling you all these years." <<<

I've heard what they've been telling me. I just disagree with them.
And I think I'm relying on the best possible evidence to prove that
those Parkland witnesses were incorrect.

You, OTOH, are attempting to manipulate the autopsy photos and X-rays
to suit your needs. You are doing pretty much the same thing John
Canal has been doing for over ten years -- you are putting forth your
own unprovable theories regarding those autopsy pictures and X-rays in
order to try and reconcile those pictures and X-rays with the
observations of the Parkland witnesses.

Unfortunately for you (and for John A. Canal), the autopsy photographs
and X-rays are things that are written in stone (so to speak), and
those pictures aren't going to change--ever. And they are providing a
reasonable person with all the proof necessary to conclude that
President John F. Kennedy did not have a large hole in the back part
of his head after he was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas, on November
22, 1963.

~Mark VII~

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 29, 2012, 2:05:49 AM1/29/12

to

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-17.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-18.html

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 29, 2012, 3:24:03 PM1/29/12

to

On Jan 28, 9:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-17.html
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-18.html

Poor David. He has taken out only brief parts of our conversation
where he was publicly embarassed, and now he has published it on his
website. He left out any text that would have embarassed him, and
much of it did. This is a childish effort to 'punish' me for backing
him into a corner, and to tell the world (by selectively leaving
things out) that he (and only he) has all the answers.

Now I have to look into putting up a website to advertise the truth
and to publish all our conversations exactly as they happened. At
least I can do some advertising for folks to come and get the truth
and avoid sites that manipulate the facts or ignore them in an effort
to shove the JFK assasination under the rug.

See a councilor David, it may help ease the pein...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 29, 2012, 3:24:14 PM1/29/12

to

On Jan 28, 8:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "I don't hear any comment from you about the pictures drawn by the autopsy and Parkland doctors. I don't hear anything from you as to how so many medical people who were 'on scene' at Parkland and Bethesda see one thing and YOU see another and say they're all mistaken." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Any pictures hand-drawn by anybody are trumped by the REAL photos and
> X-rays of John Kennedy's body. You seem to want to believe that a
> picture drawn by somebody showing a gaping hole in the back of JFK's
> head somehow trumps the real autopsy pics and X-rays (not to mention
> the autopsy report).
>
> That's called "NOT FOCUSING ON THE BEST EVIDENCE", Chris.
>

Well David, you've now proved yourself to be an egotistical phony.
With all your talk about autopsy evidence being primary, when I use it
to show you your errors, you suddenly dismiss it out of hand. I
mentioned (and showed you) drawings by all 3 people that did the
autopsy and you throw it away. Drawings of that type are standard for
autopsies, but they prove too much of the truth for you to handle.
Instead of dealing with the drawings, you dismiss them and run for
cover in an X-ray, which has also been shown to prove the large hole
case. All the photos I've used to show you your mistakes were done at
the autopsy too. Nope, you can't handle them either. You're going to
settle down on the one same little X-ray in hopes it will somehow get
you out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

> >>> "You can go to bed at night with that one X-ray under your pillow and it won't change the fact that there are breaks in the skull right where the autopsy surgeons say there was." <<<
>
> But there's no missing skull bone at the back of the head. That's the
> key and principal aspect here, and that's because the Parkland people
> insisted there was a gaping HOLE in the right-rear of Kennedy's head
> -- i.e., there was MISSING SKULL BONE at the BOH. And the X-ray proves
> there wasn't.
>

David, try to understand that there is no need for a piece of skull
to be missing! Because a large hole was seen by so many trained
people, doesn't mean that the skull piece was 'missing'. The skull
piece (as I've had to note for you a few times now) was stuck to the
back of the scalp flap that was hanging down backward. It couldn't be
seen in the position it was in, and many said they didn't spend all
the time in the world peering at the wound. There is only one way
they could see that there was a large hole, and that was with the flap
falling backward and the brain matter oozing out (autopsy photo BE2),
as they said, especially McClelland, who you have terribly insulted as
to his sanity. Never doubting (of course) your own sanity as the rare
person that disagrees with all the medical personnel!

Also, you've made a false assumption already! But we can use that
to help you toward the truth. You assume that when people draw a head
with a large hole in it, that it means there was a piece of missing
skull that would fill that hole. Wrong assumptiion, and another key
to your problem. They saw the hole (as in BE2) with brain matter
oozing which covered the flap with the skull piece attached backward
on the flap out of view of anyone around. So that's how they can see
a hole and there still be a skull piece present without being seen
immediately.

> Moreover, it's my belief that the X-ray of the right side of JFK's
> head proves that there was not nearly enough fracturing
> (fragmentation) of the rear part of Kennedy's skull to permit the
> Parkland witnesses to be correct about what they said they saw, even
> if we want to accept the preposterous (IMO) notion that a high-speed
> rifle bullet could have caused a huge blow-out at the rear of JFK's
> skull and yet leave the scalp that was attached to that very same
> skull totally undamaged (with several of the autopsy photos verifying
> that the right-rear scalp of JFK was, indeed, completely intact,
> without a hint of any damage being done to it by any bullet; and the
> higher-quality black-and-white picture linked below from the JFK-
> Lancer site proves my "intact scalp" point even more).
>

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ku5umVxZlds/TySfSVen6wI/AAAAAAAAELE/NYoHgf9...
>
OK David, now we'll dispense with the X-ray which is your last
hiding place from the truth. You have hidden from all the other
proofs and now there is only the X-ray. If you look at the X-ray
picture that you keep posting, a bit below the midline of the left
edge you will see a black line go rightward and hook upward. It then
goes left and if you look very closely, you will see it go downward to
meet the first 'hooked' line (this is dim, but visible. You will be
able to see that it circles a large piece of skull, and if you then
look even more closely at that piece, you'll see it looks very much
like the hole drawn by so many Parkland (and Bethesda) personnel. Of
course, for some reason they have reassembled all the pieces of the
skull and pushed them together in their (almost) original position.
If you've ever experimented, you can push two pieces of bone (or china
dishes or similar) together and if you get it right, they will look
almost like they were never broken or apart, yet they didn't do such a
good job at Bethesda and we can see the breaks (breaks doesn't mean
'missing', only a break in the bone) that easily support the Parkland
descriptions, and the Bethesda descriptions, and the autopsy photos.

> So, the idea that a bullet crashed completely through Kennedy's right-
> rear skull and then just kind of pushed the scalp aside (without doing
> a bit of damage to that scalp), is something that doesn't make a bit
> of logical sense. If such damage was done to the right-rear of JFK's
> SKULL, then surely the scalp on top of that skull would have shown
> tell-tale signs of at least SOME damage too. And we know it does not.
>

You erased the previous discussion so that you don't have to keep
seeing the proofs of your mistakes, and so you forgot the earlier
points that were proven to you. In this case, it was mentioned to you
that there is such a thing as explosive hydraulic pressure that occurs
in a skull that can reach as much as 200 atmospheres, plenty enough to
punch out the back of the skull and the skull piece pushing out and
splitting the attached scalp partially away and down. There's no
reason that the scalp flap would show any damage aside from being
pulled away from the rest of the scalp left on top of the head.

> Plus, Dr. McClelland has always claimed that he was able to peer
> straight DOWN into the massive blown-out area of JFK's head at
> Parkland. But that notion is yet another weird aspect of McClelland's
> account. Because I'm wondering how he could possibly have been looking
> DOWN into a huge cavity that he said was located in the BACK of
> Kennedy's head, even though we know that the President was lying FACE-
> UP on the stretcher during the entire time Dr. McClelland was in
> Trauma Room 1 with JFK? Seems very odd to me.
>

First, let's listen to a couple answers from Boswell, who was doing
the autopsy with Humes, and remember that you give great credence to
the autopsy and the folks who did it. He said:
"Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp was pulled
forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then the
scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or
less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain.

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you
have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case,
the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the
wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."

the above is from: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/arrb_period/Boswell_dep_afternoon.html

Yep. "Pull it back to to make the wound completely lucid".
Simple. The flap goes backward, and when it does, the wound is
obvious, and would be obvious to anyone at Parkland too, like the
Bethesda people. If JFK was lying on his back, then the flap would
fall back and the wound would be "lucid" or easily seen, especially by
McClelland the maligned doctor, from 18 inches away. Note also that
Boswell said that pullling the scalp forward would "obscure the
wound". He then mentioned that they removed the brain through the
wound hole, so it couldn't be too small...:) So we now have an
autopsy explanation of the wound in the back of the head, and the
approximate size (big enough to remove the brain). From these facts
we can easily see how McClelland could see the damage to the head by
looking down. Picture autopsy photo BE2 and think about it. I'm
sure that now we have the above information added to all the many
other facts, that you will try to find a way to dismiss that too, but
it needs to be there for the this record to be complete.

> And I wonder why that "looking down into the wound" aspect of
> McClelland's story doesn't seem odd or contradictory to any of the
> conspiracy theorists of the world. But, amazingly, it's not odd to
> them at all. ~shrug~
>

Try "conspiracy Factualists" since you're the one presenting wacky
theories here. The answer to this has been presented above.

> >>> "All the exhibits we've looked at have shown the clear, factual proof that there was indeed a large hole in the skull of JFK at Parkland (and thereafter)..." <<<
>
> Sure, there was a hole in JFK's head -- at the right/front/top part of
> the head. And ONLY in that location. Noplace else. And that pesky X-
> ray that you insist on misinterpreting proves my point.
>

Ah! So you believe that *I* misinterpret the X-ray? YOU of course,
could never do that, being such a careful person...:)

> >>> "Do we agree on the BE1-BE7 autopsy photos? They all show the large hole in the right-rear." <<<
>
> Talk about seeing things you want to see. You've got that ailment for
> sure, Chris. Because the reality is that NONE of the autopsy photos or
> X-rays show a "large hole in the right-rear". None of them. You're
> just making that up to fit your BOH theory. Because you've got ZERO
> pictures that show any "right-rear" hole in JFK's head. And you know
> it.
>

So tell me David, in autopsy BE@, what are all the brains coming
through to be hanging down backward?

> Plus, several of those autopsy photos you just mentioned (BE1-BE7, via
> the numbers utilized at the JFK-Lancer webpage linked below) don't
> even show the right-rear of Kennedy's head at all!
>

The right rear is hidden by the brain matter hanging down backward
(Note Boswell's comments).

> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
>
> BE1, for example, is a picture of the LEFT SIDE of Kennedy's head. The
> right half of his head isn't even visible in the picture at all. Nor
> is the right-rear of the head visible in BE2 or BE6 either. And BE7
> (aka F8), as I mentioned previously, is essentially a worthless photo
> for the purposes of trying to orient anything on JFK's head.
>

That's your wackiest statement of all so far. Take a look at BE4
and you will see the back of the right side of the head. The scalp
flap is pulled forward (as per Boswell), but there it is. BE2 shows
what is coming out of the right rear as well as the other damaged
parts of the skull. When the further damage was done is up for
argument, but it's in the 'famous' X-ray too.

> And yet Chris thinks that those pictures (which don't even show the
> back of JFK's head) are proving that a big hole existed in the
> occipital area of his head.
>
> I'm worried about you, Chris.
>

Indeed. I'm slowly but surely showing to all and sundry that you
have made many mistakes and run away from them all no matter how
clearly they are shown to the world. I can see that would be worrying
if it will upset your whole world.

> >>> "David, I'm worried about you." <<<
>
> No need to be. But I'd be a little worried about your strange position
> regarding the things that those autopsy photos and X-rays are
> depicting. THAT'S where your worry should be focused.
>

LOL! Remember that my "strange position" is shared by competent,
trained medical personnel at both Parklnad and Bethesda. The strange
person is the one that doesn't share a belief with a majority of
others, especially if many of the others were immediately 'on scene',
and not making decisions from reading and seeing pictures and X-rays
later on.

> BTW, as I quoted previously, Dr. Baden and the majority of the other 8
> FPP members of the HSCA (probably all 8, even Wecht), agree that there
> is no great-big hole at the back of JFK's head in the photos and X-
> rays.
>
> Dr. Baden said:
>
> "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
> other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
> Michael Baden; January 8, 2000
>

Ah! So now we are no longer talking up the autopsy evidence, but
using HSCA statements...:) Now weren't those guys the ones that came
up with the information that the autopsy crew had placed the wound 4
inches from where the HSCA medical crew did? That autopsy just can't
get the same corroboration that the Parkland people can,can it David?

> Naturally, Chris thinks Baden is the same kind of kook that David Von
> Pein is.
>
> Right, Christopher?
>

The name is Chris, was that a childish attempt to irritate me? Or
pretend that you're somehow senior to me and everybody else here on
this subject?
Now, back to business. I don't think any of these medical people
are kooks. They have described what they saw and that's it. Some of
them have more reliable testimony that is corroborated by others and
some do not. Some were also in positions where pressure could be
brought on them more so than others. We also have the problem that
sometimes occurs in murder investigations where there is a break in
the 'chain of custody' with the body, so that we cannot guarantee that
no one messed with the evidence the body represents. It was stolen by
federal agents and spirited away to where federal employees would do
the autopsy, but was out od sight for hours between Parkland and
Bethesda.

> >>> "I just don't want to believe that you are so locked into your fantasy that you can't for even a minute see what all these people have been telling you all these years." <<<
>
> I've heard what they've been telling me. I just disagree with them.
> And I think I'm relying on the best possible evidence to prove that
> those Parkland witnesses were incorrect.
>

Odd that you disagree with trained medical people who were 'on
scene' when you didn't have the training and weren't present either.
To waht do you attribute such an action on your part?

> You, OTOH, are attempting to manipulate the autopsy photos and X-rays
> to suit your needs. You are doing pretty much the same thing John
> Canal has been doing for over ten years -- you are putting forth your
> own unprovable theories regarding those autopsy pictures and X-rays in
> order to try and reconcile those pictures and X-rays with the
> observations of the Parkland witnesses.
>

Strangely enough, the unprovable theories are yours, against all
medical statements, pictorial evidence and X-rays. Why is it that all
these people try to tell you what they know, and you say "They don't
know anything, but *I* do?

> Unfortunately for you (and for John A. Canal), the autopsy photographs
> and X-rays are things that are written in stone (so to speak), and
> those pictures aren't going to change--ever. And they are providing a
> reasonable person with all the proof necessary to conclude that
> President John F. Kennedy did not have a large hole in the back part
> of his head after he was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas, on November
> 22, 1963.
>

Yes, the evidence is there to embarass you forever.

> ~Mark VII~

An interesting side issue is that Humes testified that there was a
piece of skull bone found at Dealey Plaza by a medical student and
brought in. Humes and his team got it in the late evening, and he
said it could be one of the missing pieces of skull. That piece was
supposedly found in the casket at Bethesda with the body. So even
though it wasn't necessary that a skull piece be missing, there really
was one missing ...:)
That is from:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md20/html/Image01.htm

Chris

aeffects

unread,

Jan 29, 2012, 7:35:05 PM1/29/12

to

> the above is from:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/arrb_period/Boswell_dep_afternoo...

> That is from:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md20/html/...

welcome to the Dave VonPein perpetual state of denial. You've
undressed him, dressed him then undressed and dressed him 5 more
times, yet the moron only looks at the lone nut hat he wears, in a
full length mirror yet -- next to long ago-Dave Stager and Dave
Reitzes, Dave Von Pein is the dumbest lone nut, SBT, LHO did it all by
his lonesome, disinfo agent haunting this board... carry on!

> Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 2:34:02 AM1/30/12

to

"aeffects" mentioned:
> Dave Stager

do these people ever graduate?

or is it like hotel university california, where they check in, but can
never leave?

making it two trolls and a professor troll total?

one troll is all the daves, the other randomly named creations?

their next writing assignment is making professor troll not look like a
troll, or at least attempting to

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 3:18:25 AM1/30/12

to

I've concluded, after due deliberation, that Chris ("mainframetech")
is retarded. He will never understand and comprehend the most basic
things associated with the most basic elements of the JFK case --
e.g., the fact that the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, the
autopsy doctors, the autopsy report, the WC, the HSCA, and the Clark
Panel all concluded that JFK did not have a hole in the back of his
head.

Incredibly, though, Chris is claiming that all of those organizations
and the pictures DO say and show a hole in the back of President
Kennedy's head.

As usual, night is day, up is down, and "no hole" is "a hole" to a
conspiracy clown.

Welcome to the CT circus, Chris.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-17.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-18.html

aeffects

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 5:45:25 AM1/30/12

to

On Jan 29, 7:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've concluded, after due deliberation, that Chris ("mainframetech")
> is retarded.

chickenshit.... all you lone nut trolls are pussies whom run when
debating the evidence stares you in the face... It's in your genes to
be a coward....

pssst, mainframetech kicked you wee-willy ass....

<fuck your advertising> ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! ! !

aeffects

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 5:48:40 AM1/30/12

to

On Jan 29, 6:34 pm, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "aeffects" mentioned:
>
> > Dave Stager
>
> do these people ever graduate?

hell no they don't Sam... they're on the government dole, stipends
every which way they turn -- fuckers don't retire or die, either!

No, Stager..... R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O that dude was a REAL WCR supporter,
not like these pussy-wannabes around here these days...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 7:54:43 AM1/30/12

to

Question for Bud:

I think that you have concluded, as I have recently done, that Chris
(mainframetech) is retarded. Am I correct in that assumption, Bud?

I'm just curious about your opinion of the recent debate I've been
having the last few days with Chris regarding JFK's head wounds.

In your opinion, Bud, does Chris make any sense to you at all when he
says things like this? ....

"The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump the Humes autopsy. ....

The autopsy photos and the X-rays make it clear that there was a hole

right where the Parkland doctors said there was one." -- Chris;
1/26/12

Bud, am I the one in The Twilight Zone here? Or is it Chris who
belongs in that Zone? Am I "missing" something in those autopsy
photographs and X-rays, which are pictures that Chris says clearly
show "a hole right where the Parkland doctors said there was one"?

Or is Chris, just perhaps, really retarded when it comes to this
issue?

I'd very much appreciate it, Bud, if you would provide your opinion on
this matter, because you are a person whose opinion I greatly
respect.

Thank you.

Bud

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 12:09:29 PM1/30/12

to

On Jan 30, 2:54 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Question for Bud:
>
> I think that you have concluded, as I have recently done, that Chris
> (mainframetech) is retarded. Am I correct in that assumption, Bud?

Of course. Like all of them, they aren`t really interested in what
really occurred so they jump on any information they think can take
them where they are desperate to go.

> I'm just curious about your opinion of the recent debate I've been
> having the last few days with Chris regarding JFK's head wounds.

I haven`t been following it that closely. I did pop in on a few
exchanges and thought about interjecting something at one point, but I
saw you had it handled.

> In your opinion, Bud, does Chris make any sense to you at all when he
> says things like this? ....
>
> "The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump the Humes autopsy. ....

The retard is applying Alice in Wonderland rules. Up is down. When I
argued this issue with Chris he had this to say about the Parkland
personnel...

"...but it was their job to note wounds and where they
were and the seriousness of them. That is necessary to determine
treatment."

But this just isn`t true. How can you arrive at the truth by
starting at an untruth? It is pretty much irrelevant information to
the doctors whether the wound was front, rear, side, went from "here
to here" or "there to there", was deep or shallow, ect. None of these
things really matter or effect what the doctors have to do. If a
doctor came in and asked an attending nurse what they had, and the
nurse said "A gunshot wound to the head", the doctor is not going to
inquire about the particulars of the wound, it is meaningless
information. He will ask about vital signs. This is the information he
needs, blood pressure, heartbeat, ekg, are the lungs inflated or
collapsed, this kind of thing. *Of course* a gunshot wound to the head
is serious, he doesn`t need to examine the wound at all, it`s a waste
of precious time. It isn`t even necessary for him to see the wound, it
can`t help him. Because he can`t heal this wound, and it will never
heal if the patient dies, so all effort is put into keeping the
patient alive. Chris represents this information as important to the
doctors when it is trivial to what they were trying to accomplish. He
does this to make it seem impossible for them to be wrong about the
details of the head wound. But lets face it, if casual observations
were adequate autopsies wouldn`t be needed.

> The autopsy photos and the X-rays make it clear that there was a hole
> right where the Parkland doctors said there was one." -- Chris;
> 1/26/12
>
> Bud, am I the one in The Twilight Zone here? Or is it Chris who
> belongs in that Zone? Am I "missing" something in those autopsy
> photographs and X-rays, which are pictures that Chris says clearly
> show "a hole right where the Parkland doctors said there was one"?

It`s a waste of time to argue with retards about what they claim to
see in evidence photos.

Chris sees it and all the forensic experts missed it? Or most likely
he will fall back on the weak "they were all in on it". An ever
expanding list of faked evidence or false testimony or their ideas
just aren`t valid, which is the more likely?

> Or is Chris, just perhaps, really retarded when it comes to this
> issue?
>
> I'd very much appreciate it, Bud, if you would provide your opinion on
> this matter, because you are a person whose opinion I greatly
> respect.

<snicker> Me too.

> Thank you.

You are welcome.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 12:32:06 PM1/30/12

to

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Question for Bud:

I think that you have concluded, as I have recently done, that Chris
(mainframetech) is retarded. Am I correct in that assumption, Bud?

BUD SAID:

Of course. Like all of them, they aren`t really interested in what
really occurred so they jump on any information they think can take
them where they are desperate to go.

DVP:

I'm just curious about your opinion of the recent debate I've been
having the last few days with Chris regarding JFK's head wounds.

BUD:

I haven`t been following it that closely. I did pop in on a few
exchanges and thought about interjecting something at one point, but I
saw you had it handled.

DVP:

In your opinion, Bud, does Chris make any sense to you at all when he
says things like this? .... "The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump

the Humes autopsy. .... The autopsy photos and the X-rays make it

clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said
there was one." -- Chris; 1/26/12

BUD:

DVP:

Bud, am I the one in The Twilight Zone here? Or is it Chris who
belongs in that Zone? Am I "missing" something in those autopsy
photographs and X-rays, which are pictures that Chris says clearly
show "a hole right where the Parkland doctors said there was one"?

BUD:

It`s a waste of time to argue with retards about what they claim to
see in evidence photos.

Chris sees it and all the forensic experts missed it? Or most likely
he will fall back on the weak "they were all in on it". An ever
expanding list of faked evidence or false testimony or their ideas
just aren`t valid, which is the more likely?

DVP:

Or is Chris, just perhaps, really retarded when it comes to this
issue?

I'd very much appreciate it, Bud, if you would provide your opinion on
this matter, because you are a person whose opinion I greatly respect.

BUD:

<snicker> Me too.

DVP:

Thank you.

BUD:

You are welcome.

DVP:

Thanks, Bud, for your answers (and your insight). I appreciate it--as
always.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 12:45:35 PM1/30/12

to

On Jan 29, 10:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've concluded, after due deliberation, that Chris ("mainframetech")
> is retarded. He will never understand and comprehend the most basic
> things associated with the most basic elements of the JFK case --
> e.g., the fact that the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, the
> autopsy doctors, the autopsy report, the WC, the HSCA, and the Clark
> Panel all concluded that JFK did not have a hole in the back of his
> head.
>
> Incredibly, though, Chris is claiming that all of those organizations
> and the pictures DO say and show a hole in the back of President
> Kennedy's head.
>
> As usual, night is day, up is down, and "no hole" is "a hole" to a
> conspiracy clown.
>
> Welcome to the CT circus, Chris.
>

David, all these nutty claims you're making have been proven wrong
by many, many people including medical personnel at both hospitals,
agents and technicians, but anyone with half a brain can see (and
read) from the links below that you've gone off the reservation. I
don't know how you can show your face here with the embarassment you
must be feeling from not being able to admit that the whole world can
see the evidence and doesn't need your wacky theories.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-17.html
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-18.html

LOL! Typical sour grapes attitude, but at least we tried to
straighten out your twisted view of the case. If only the federal
authorities had not illegally stolen the body, we might have learned a
lot more, still, there was enough left to make a determination of the
head wound's location and size. A proper autopsy could have been done
and the body would not have been lost to the world for hours when it
could have been manipulated to further the head wounds to look more
like the kill shot came from above and behind. The obvious difference
in the drawings made by the Parkland and Bethesda staff show that
difference quite clearly.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Look at the above links and then page down to the bottom of either
one and click on the link that will take you to the same information,
but from the other staff's drawings. Notice how dramatically larger
the skull damage has become in Bethesda! What happened between
Parkland and Bethesda? Someone knows, and they might come up with a
deathbed confession. On the Bethesda link, you might enjoy reading
and viewing the statements and drawings of multiple FBI and other
agents as well as autopsy doctors and technicians. They all agree
there was a large hole on the right-rear, and some say it extended up
to the top of the head.

It's interesting to see everyone in the list making the exact same
gesture to describe the head wound. They raise their right arm behind
their head and cup their hand behind the right-rear of the head, and
say the size was about the size of the hand. Some wacky people see
all that and say, they were all mistaken...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 12:55:53 PM1/30/12

to

My My! It has gotten sadder by the minute. Now David is asking
the lead LNT to agree with him because he is even doubting himself and
needs some ego and confidence building.

Poor ol' Bud isn't up to investigating the 2 pages of medical
testimony and drawings and coming up with an honest interpretation.
Still, it wouldn't be fair to kick him to the side and not let him at
least look at the evidence. Then after he says he agrees with David
and there is only a tiny entrance wound in the back of the head, then
we can all look at the pictures and get a chuckle. Here are the
pictures:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

::: chuckle :::

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 1:06:27 PM1/30/12

to

>>> "David, all these nutty claims you're making have been proven wrong by many, many people including medical personnel at both hospitals..." <<<

Totally retarded. No doubt about it.

Message has been deleted

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 1:24:24 PM1/30/12

to

On Jan 30, 7:32 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Question for Bud:
>
> I think that you have concluded, as I have recently done, that Chris
> (mainframetech) is retarded. Am I correct in that assumption, Bud?
>
> BUD SAID:
>
> Of course. Like all of them, they aren`t really interested in what
> really occurred so they jump on any information they think can take
> them where they are desperate to go.
>
> DVP:
>
> I'm just curious about your opinion of the recent debate I've been
> having the last few days with Chris regarding JFK's head wounds.
>
> BUD:
>
> I haven`t been following it that closely. I did pop in on a few
> exchanges and thought about interjecting something at one point, but I
> saw you had it handled.
>

LOL! I see that we are going to have a mutual admiration society
meeting here. There will be mutual back scratching all day...:)

> DVP:
>
> In your opinion, Bud, does Chris make any sense to you at all when he
> says things like this? .... "The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump
> the Humes autopsy. .... The autopsy photos and the X-rays make it
> clear that there was a hole right where the Parkland doctors said
> there was one." -- Chris; 1/26/12
>

Usually the earlier statements are the more honest ones, before
people begin to mentally modify the information to fit some template
they may have, or have heard from outside themselves. That makes the
earlier statements more valid from an investigative point of view.
And even though an autopsy is usually one of the most important
functions in a murder case, when you have lost the 'chain of custody'
and there may be reason for certain perpetrators to modify the body
evidence (and opportunity to do so), it suddenly becomes less
important, though still having some weight in the evidentiary arena.
Check the links below and see for yourself whether there is a large
hole in the back of the head of JFK, and then decide who is nuts or
sucking up to a nut.

> BUD:
>
> The retard is applying Alice in Wonderland rules. Up is down. When I
> argued this issue with Chris he had this to say about the Parkland
> personnel...
>
> "...but it was their job to note wounds and where they were and the
> seriousness of them. That is necessary to determine treatment."
>
> But this just isn`t true. How can you arrive at the truth by starting
> at an untruth? It is pretty much irrelevant information to the doctors
> whether the wound was front, rear, side, went from "here to here" or
> "there to there", was deep or shallow, ect. None of these things
> really matter or effect what the doctors have to do.
>

Don't be silly. The wound in the head was so obvious that no one
had to bother to give it complete attention. The brains were hanging
out of a hole in the back of the head, and everyone testified to that,
and we have autopsy to prove it. Let's not pretend that there was no
indication of the status of the head wound! If you read the testimony
of the ER doctors, one of them made that clear.

> If a doctor came in and asked an attending nurse what they had, and
> the nurse said "A gunshot wound to the head", the doctor is not going
> to inquire about the particulars of the wound, it is meaningless
> information. He will ask about vital signs. This is the information he
> needs, blood pressure, heartbeat, ekg, are the lungs inflated or
> collapsed, this kind of thing.
>

He wouldn't have to ask. It was obvious.

> *Of course* a gunshot wound to the head is serious, he doesn`t need to
> examine the wound at all, it`s a waste of precious time. It isn`t even
> necessary for him to see the wound, it can`t help him. Because he
> can`t heal this wound, and it will never heal if the patient dies, so
> all effort is put into keeping the patient alive.
>

Now we have commenters pretending to be doctors! If all else is
taken care of, you decide if there is something you can do to stop the
leaking of blood from the wound, or the replacing of blood, whichever
works, as well as looking into closing the wound in whatever fashion
seems best. There are any number of things they can do at that
point. Not stand around wringing their hands and saying 'there's
nothing to be done'...:)

> Chris represents this information as important to the doctors when it
> is trivial to what they were trying to accomplish. He does this to
> make it seem impossible for them to be wrong about the details of the
> head wound. But lets face it, if casual observations were adequate
> autopsies wouldn`t be needed.
>

David, don't try to grasp at that straw, you lost it earlier.
Common sense (not just evidence and witness statements) says that if
so many people, medical personnel, agents and technicians all agree
and only you disagree with them all, then there is some backing up and
rethinking that needs to be done. Only someone caught up in their own
ego would ignore all that and go blithely on saying they all screwed
up and *I* am the only one that knows what is true! At the least, you
would try and picture what they were talking about, and then if you
still believe differently, then you would argue using some common
sense and logic that the evidence says this because, or that...etc.

> DVP:
>
> Bud, am I the one in The Twilight Zone here? Or is it Chris who
> belongs in that Zone? Am I "missing" something in those autopsy
> photographs and X-rays, which are pictures that Chris says clearly
> show "a hole right where the Parkland doctors said there was one"?
>

LOL! No, you're not alone in the Twilight Zone, Bud seems to want
to keep you company...:)

> BUD:
>
> It`s a waste of time to argue with retards about what they claim to
> see in evidence photos.
>
> Chris sees it and all the forensic experts missed it? Or most likely
> he will fall back on the weak "they were all in on it". An ever
> expanding list of faked evidence or false testimony or their ideas
> just aren`t valid, which is the more likely?
>

Now David, don't try to pretend that all the medical personnel of
both Parkland and Bethesda and the agents as well, all were wrong and
didn't see the large hole in the right-rear of the head. Look below
and look into the links there and see what the people thought that
were actually there and could see much better than us who were never
present and have little or none of any medical training. You've bee
reading your own website...:)

> DVP:
>
> Or is Chris, just perhaps, really retarded when it comes to this
> issue?
>
> I'd very much appreciate it, Bud, if you would provide your opinion on
> this matter, because you are a person whose opinion I greatly respect.
>
> BUD:
>
> <snicker> Me too.
>
> DVP:
>
> Thank you.
>
> BUD:
>
> You are welcome.
>
> DVP:
>
> Thanks, Bud, for your answers (and your insight). I appreciate it--as
> always.

For those that are interested in what the medical personnel thought
about the head wound, here are the links:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 1:44:11 PM1/30/12

to

>>> "...and there may be reason for certain perpetrators to modify the body evidence (and opportunity to do so)..." <<<

Lovely. Now Chriskook is going to jump in bed with Lifton. (And, yes,
I do realize you've suggested possible body alteration in past posts.
I just never responded to that idiotic claim. So I decided to here.)

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

>>> "The brains were hanging out of a hole in the back of the head..." <<<

There was no hole in the back of his head. No matter how many times
you spout this untruth, it will still remain untrue. And no matter how
many doctors & nurses drew sketches showing their mistake, it still
won't change the autopsy pictures, which prove you are retarded
regarding this subject.

>>> "...and we have [the] autopsy to prove it." <<<

~El-Oh-El~

The exact opposite is true, of course. But, as always, when a
conspiracy clown says it's dusk, it's really dawn.

>>> "David, don't try to grasp at that straw, you lost it earlier." <<<

You were responding to a comment made by Bud there, not me. Can't you
get anything right?

>>> "Now David, don't try to pretend that all the medical personnel of both Parkland and Bethesda and the agents as well, all were wrong..." <<<

You were responding to Bud again, not DVP.

No wonder you can't distinguish a completely intact skull from one
that has a big hole in the back of it. You can't even figure out who
you're talking to.

BTW, Chris, who shot J.D. Tippit?

Just curious to know if you act like a retard when talking about that
murder too.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 2:21:57 PM1/30/12

to

On Jan 30, 8:44 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "...and there may be reason for certain perpetrators to modify the body evidence (and opportunity to do so)..." <<<
>
> Lovely. Now Chriskook is going to jump in bed with Lifton. (And, yes,
> I do realize you've suggested possible body alteration in past posts.
> I just never responded to that idiotic claim. So I decided to here.)
>

LOL! So now it's name calling to add to your embarassing display of
yourself! Poor David, falling down the lader to ad hominem
attacks...:)

> http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com
>
> >>> "The brains were hanging out of a hole in the back of the head..." <<<
>
> There was no hole in the back of his head. No matter how many times
> you spout this untruth, it will still remain untrue. And no matter how
> many doctors & nurses drew sketches showing their mistake, it still
> won't change the autopsy pictures, which prove you are retarded
> regarding this subject.
>
> >>> "...and we have [the] autopsy to prove it." <<<
>

Whoa! I have also shown pictures drawn by the doctors at Bethesda
that performed the autopsy! That is a standard step that an autopsy
includes. The personnel that performed the autopsy draw what they
found. In this case, I will post the proof (real evidence, not rash
judgements) below at the end of this post for all to see and decide.
David, you shouldn't try such simple tactics to get people to think
you know what you're talking about.

> ~El-Oh-El~
>
> The exact opposite is true, of course. But, as always, when a
> conspiracy clown says it's dusk, it's really dawn.
>
> >>> "David, don't try to grasp at that straw, you lost it earlier." <<<
>
> You were responding to a comment made by Bud there, not me. Can't you
> get anything right?
>
> >>> "Now David, don't try to pretend that all the medical personnel of both Parkland and Bethesda and the agents as well, all were wrong..." <<<
>
> You were responding to Bud again, not DVP.
>

No differnece, DVP has already stated many times in our discussions
that al the medical personnel were 'mistaken'. Versus HIS view which
he knows is right!

> No wonder you can't distinguish a completely intact skull from one
> that has a big hole in the back of it. You can't even figure out who
> you're talking to.
>

Take a look at the X-ray that you kept showing to everyone. It
shows clearly the many breaks in the skull. Just because they pushed
the pieces back together for a picture, that didn't hide the breaks in
the skull. And the hole in the back of the skull has been carefully
explained to you as the fragment of skull from the hole (that all
medical personnel saw and described) that was attached to the other
side of the scalp flap.

> BTW, Chris, who shot J.D. Tippit?
>

I wan't there and haven't researched it. Now David, why did ALL
medical personnel at both hospitals say there was a large hole in the
right-rear of JFK's head? (see below for proof of that statement)

> Just curious to know if you act like a retard when talking about that
> murder too.

~sigh~

David, why not seek life elsewhere? It's not doing you any good
here.

Now for all to view, the Parkland and Bethesda medical personnel
stating and drawing the large hole in the skull of JFK. Remember,
these are the trained people that actually SAW the body and the head:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Chris

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 3:04:48 PM1/30/12

to

It's just a shame that every photographic piece of evidence
contradicts the witnesses -- from the autopsy photos, to the X-rays,
to the Zapruder Film.

In order for the Parkland (and some Bethesda) witnesses to be correct,
the autopsy pictures must be fakes, the X-rays are fakes, AND the
Zapruder Film is a fake too.

It's a quandary alright.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 7:01:19 PM1/30/12

to

lmao.... my, you two ARE an item, aren't ya? So, careful what you wish
for--falling in love with an entire class of .john underclassmen can
come back and bite in that 'WCR, SBT, LHO did it all by his lonesome'
ass of yours. Just trying to help you out there Dudster--rotflmfao....

aeffects

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 7:03:02 PM1/30/12

to

On Jan 30, 5:06 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, all these nutty claims you're making have been proven wrong by many, many people including medical personnel at both hospitals..." <<<
>
> Totally retarded. No doubt about it.

you're running again, David 'Studley' Von Pein (sic).....

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 7:55:56 PM1/30/12

to

In article <3ad93c49-6869-4481...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jan 30, 4:09=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>> On Jan 30, 2:54=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Question for Bud:
>>
>> > I think that you have concluded, as I have recently done, that Chris
>> > (mainframetech) is retarded. Am I correct in that assumption, Bud?
>>
>> Of course. Like all of them, they aren`t really interested in what
>> really occurred so they jump on any information they think can take
>> them where they are desperate to go.

Wow! One kook asking another kook if another kook is a kook!

The head just spins...

>> > I'm just curious about your opinion of the recent debate I've been
>> > having the last few days with Chris regarding JFK's head wounds.
>>
>> I haven`t been following it that closely. I did pop in on a few
>> exchanges and thought about interjecting something at one point, but I
>> saw you had it handled.
>>
>> > In your opinion, Bud, does Chris make any sense to you at all when he
>> > says things like this? ....
>>
>> > "The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump the Humes autopsy.

Since the LNT'er kooks *CANNOT* believe the official Autopsy Report, it really
doesn't matter, does it?

They only *pretend* to believe the autopsy report.

But since the autopsy report contradicts the 'BOH photo', and they are unwilling
to accept that the 'BOH photo' isn't authentic, then they must spin the autopsy
report into something else...

And, as far as the original bullet wound that Bugliosi got caught lying about,
the Parkland doctors' comments *DO* "trump the Humes autopsy." That's just a
fact. Humes never saw the wound, and never dissected it.

>> The retard is applying Alice in Wonderland rules. Up is down. When I
>> argued this issue with Chris he had this to say about the Parkland
>> personnel...
>>

>> =A0 "...but it was their job to note wounds and where they
>> =A0were and the seriousness of them. =A0That is necessary to determine
>> =A0treatment."
>>
>> =A0 But this just isn`t true. How can you arrive at the truth by

>> =A0It`s a waste of time to argue with retards about what they claim to
>> see in evidence photos.
>>
>> =A0Chris sees it and all the forensic experts missed it? Or most likely

>> he will fall back on the weak "they were all in on it". An ever
>> expanding list of faked evidence or false testimony or their ideas
>> just aren`t valid, which is the more likely?
>>
>> > Or is Chris, just perhaps, really retarded when it comes to this
>> > issue?
>>
>> > I'd very much appreciate it, Bud, if you would provide your opinion on
>> > this matter, because you are a person whose opinion I greatly
>> > respect.
>>

>> =A0<snicker> Me too.
>>
>> > Thank you.
>>
>> =A0 You are welcome.

>
>lmao.... my, you two ARE an item, aren't ya? So, careful what you wish
>for--falling in love with an entire class of .john underclassmen can
>come back and bite in that 'WCR, SBT, LHO did it all by his lonesome'
>ass of yours. Just trying to help you out there Dudster--rotflmfao....

Do you remember the time when LNT'ers actually *DEBATED* the evidence?

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

Bud

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 10:34:06 PM1/30/12

to

I wasn`t, I was showing your claim that it was necessary to examine
the wound in order to treat Kennedy was silly.

> The wound in the head was so obvious that no one
> had to bother to give it complete attention. The brains were hanging
> out of a hole in the back of the head, and everyone testified to that,
> and we have autopsy to prove it. Let's not pretend that there was no
> indication of the status of the head wound! If you read the testimony
> of the ER doctors, one of them made that clear.

McClelland, right?

> > If a doctor came in and asked an attending nurse what they had, and
> > the nurse said "A gunshot wound to the head", the doctor is not going
> > to inquire about the particulars of the wound, it is meaningless
> > information. He will ask about vital signs. This is the information he
> > needs, blood pressure, heartbeat, ekg, are the lungs inflated or
> > collapsed, this kind of thing.
>
> He wouldn't have to ask. It was obvious.
>
> > *Of course* a gunshot wound to the head is serious, he doesn`t need to
> > examine the wound at all, it`s a waste of precious time. It isn`t even
> > necessary for him to see the wound, it can`t help him. Because he
> > can`t heal this wound, and it will never heal if the patient dies, so
> > all effort is put into keeping the patient alive.
>
> Now we have commenters pretending to be doctors! If all else is
> taken care of, you decide if there is something you can do to stop the
> leaking of blood from the wound,

Right, if they had a coconut handy perhaps they could use it to
replace the missing skull.

> or the replacing of blood, whichever
> works,

The extremely low blood pressure tells them that.

> as well as looking into closing the wound in whatever fashion
> seems best.

Closing the wound is not that important. When they operate there is
often big gaping openings in the body. It can be managed if and only
if the vital signs can be stabilized.

> There are any number of things they can do at that
> point. Not stand around wringing their hands and saying 'there's
> nothing to be done'...:)

There was nothing to be done. Oswald had inflicted fatal wounds.

> > Chris represents this information as important to the doctors when it
> > is trivial to what they were trying to accomplish. He does this to
> > make it seem impossible for them to be wrong about the details of the
> > head wound. But lets face it, if casual observations were adequate
> > autopsies wouldn`t be needed.
>
> David, don't try to grasp at that straw, you lost it earlier.
> Common sense (not just evidence and witness statements) says

Don`t invoke what you don`t have.

I`ve used Paul Seaton`s excellent site many times, it is a treasure
trove and a testament to a person really interested in how these
things came to be, instead of just someone having an agenda. He used
to post here before Ben Holmes drove him off with his churlish
behavior and ad hominem attacks.

> Chris

Bud

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 10:38:57 PM1/30/12

to

On Jan 30, 2:55 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3ad93c49-6869-4481-be80-86f9f5eb1...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Jan 30, 4:09=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jan 30, 2:54=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Question for Bud:
>
> >> > I think that you have concluded, as I have recently done, that Chris
> >> > (mainframetech) is retarded. Am I correct in that assumption, Bud?
>
> >> Of course. Like all of them, they aren`t really interested in what
> >> really occurred so they jump on any information they think can take
> >> them where they are desperate to go.
>
> Wow! One kook asking another kook if another kook is a kook!
>
> The head just spins...
>
> >> > I'm just curious about your opinion of the recent debate I've been
> >> > having the last few days with Chris regarding JFK's head wounds.
>
> >> I haven`t been following it that closely. I did pop in on a few
> >> exchanges and thought about interjecting something at one point, but I
> >> saw you had it handled.
>
> >> > In your opinion, Bud, does Chris make any sense to you at all when he
> >> > says things like this? ....
>
> >> > "The Parkland doctors' comments DO trump the Humes autopsy.
>
> Since the LNT'er kooks *CANNOT* believe the official Autopsy Report, it really
> doesn't matter, does it?

Since you can`t defend or support what you say in this forum it

really doesn`t matter, does it?

> They only *pretend* to believe the autopsy report.
>
> But since the autopsy report contradicts the 'BOH photo',

You`re lying.

> and they are unwilling
> to accept that the 'BOH photo' isn't authentic, then they must spin the autopsy
> report into something else...
>
> And, as far as the original bullet wound that Bugliosi got caught lying about,
> the Parkland doctors' comments *DO* "trump the Humes autopsy."

Are you referring to Carrico saying it could have been an entrance
or an exit?

With who?

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 30, 2012, 10:47:42 PM1/30/12

to

It's really a shame that you are unable to use the photos that so
closely match the drawings and the descriptions of the medical
personnel at both facilities. If you had a problem with the match,
why not discuss it and let us together determine where the problem
lies for you in not seeing the same thing as me. Name a particular
statement or picture and tell me, and I'll look it over and between us
we might be able to figure out why you disagree with everyone on the
large hole in the right-rear. Or if you would rather...why they all
disagree with you.

In lieu of your input I've had to give you my best guess at why you
don't see the same thing most everybody else sees. It may be
something entirely different and I'm not aware of what you're seeing.
Give it a try and maybe we can resolve at least this one element of
the case.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 2:19:26 AM1/31/12

to

>>> "It's really a shame that you are unable to use the photos that so closely match the drawings and the descriptions of the medical personnel at both facilities. If you had a problem with the match, why not discuss it and let us together determine where the problem lies for you in not seeing the same thing as me. Name a particular statement or picture and tell me, and I'll look it over and between us we might be able to figure out why you disagree with everyone on the large hole in the right-rear. .... It may be something entirely different and I'm not aware of what you're seeing. Give it a try and maybe we can resolve at least this one element of the case." <<<

In a nutshell, Chris, I simply do not see the type of damage in ANY of
the autopsy photos or X-rays that I believe would HAVE to have been
present in those pictures & X-rays in order for the Parkland "BOH"
witnesses to be correct. It's really as simple as that.

Plus: The autopsy report is pretty clear on where the large wound was
really located -- it was "chiefly parietal" -- not "chiefly
occipital". Seems pretty clear to me. Moreover, those THREE THINGS
(the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the autopsy report) CORROBORATE
EACH OTHER. They fit together like bread and butter, like a hand and a
glove, or like Dave Healy and his crackpipe.

The pictures, X-rays, and autopsy report are the things that
positively refute the notion that JFK had a big hole in the back of
his head.

Plus there are the things I didn't even mention on the "Big Three"
list:

There's the Zapruder Film, which is a film that also corroborates what
I'm seeing in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And the film also
perfectly corroborates what the autopsy report says about the big
wound being "chiefly parietal", which is just exactly where we see the
wound in the Zapruder Film.

http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo

And there are the many statements and testimony given by the three
autopsy surgeons (Humes, Finck, and Boswell). None of those doctors
ever claimed that there was a great-big hole at the back of JFK's
head. They always maintained that the large exit wound was toward the
RIGHT-FRONT of the head.

I'd like for you to find just ONE quote from any of those three
autopsy doctors which has any of them saying something akin to this:

"I was wrong and the autopsy repoprt I signed in 1963 was wrong.
The large exit wound in President Kennedy's head was really located in
the right-rear portion of his head, just as the many Parkland
witnesses claimed. The large wound was not located 'chiefly parietal',
which is what we stated in our 1963 autopsy report. I'm sorry, I was
mistaken for all these years when I have said the big hole in JFK's
head was located to the 'right-front' part of his head. It was really
not even close to that right-front location. It was at the far-right-
rear of the head. I hope God can forgive my ignorance (and lies)
regarding this key issue."

But instead of finding something like the above comments coming from
any of the autopsy physicians, what do we find? We find this:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- James J. Humes; 1967

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 31, 2012, 11:42:09 PM1/31/12

to

On Jan 30, 9:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "It's really a shame that you are unable to use the photos that so closely match the drawings and the descriptions of the medical personnel at both facilities. If you had a problem with the match, why not discuss it and let us together determine where the problem lies for you in not seeing the same thing as me. Name a particular statement or picture and tell me, and I'll look it over and between us we might be able to figure out why you disagree with everyone on the large hole in the right-rear. .... It may be something entirely different and I'm not aware of what you're seeing. Give it a try and maybe we can resolve at least this one element of the case." <<<
>
> In a nutshell, Chris, I simply do not see the type of damage in ANY of
> the autopsy photos or X-rays that I believe would HAVE to have been
> present in those pictures & X-rays in order for the Parkland "BOH"
> witnesses to be correct. It's really as simple as that.
>

Well David, that lets you escape any real down to earth debate, if
you won't discuss the details. You mention the BOH. What do you
think is the case in autopsy photo BE2 (top of head), which also shows
the BOH with brains hanging down over it? Are the large glob of
brains coming out of a tiny 1/4 inch hole? Or what?

> Plus: The autopsy report is pretty clear on where the large wound was
> really located -- it was "chiefly parietal" -- not "chiefly
> occipital". Seems pretty clear to me. Moreover, those THREE THINGS
> (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the autopsy report) CORROBORATE
> EACH OTHER. They fit together like bread and butter, like a hand and a
> glove, or like Dave Healy and his crackpipe.
>

You've been corrected on the definition of 'parietal' meaning the
top (rear half) and back of the skull. Impinging on the occipital and
temporal or the lower back and side of the skull. But we do agree
that the photos, X-ray, autopsy report and the ones you left out: the
drawings and descriptions from all the medical personnel on both
hospitals, all of which matched the huge wound that Boswell described
in testimony on their autopsy.

David, I have yet to hear a single word of any kind from you about
that testimony I copied for you where Boswell made it clear that they
removedthe brain through the wound in the head. After pulling the
scalp flap back, I'm sure. Any thoughts on that?

> The pictures, X-rays, and autopsy report are the things that
> positively refute the notion that JFK had a big hole in the back of
> his head.
>

Or prove it.

> Plus there are the things I didn't even mention on the "Big Three"
> list:
>
> There's the Zapruder Film, which is a film that also corroborates what
> I'm seeing in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And the film also
> perfectly corroborates what the autopsy report says about the big
> wound being "chiefly parietal", which is just exactly where we see the
> wound in the Zapruder Film.
>

remember where 'parietal' is...:)
I se no inconsistency in any event.

> http://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo
>
> And there are the many statements and testimony given by the three
> autopsy surgeons (Humes, Finck, and Boswell). None of those doctors
> ever claimed that there was a great-big hole at the back of JFK's
> head. They always maintained that the large exit wound was toward the
> RIGHT-FRONT of the head.
>

Tut Tut! Aren't you reading what I've researched and copied here
for you and everyone else? Boswell claimed the hole was large enough
to get the brain out through it without damage ot trouble, and it was
done. Humessaid the hole was 13 cm across, Boswell said 17cm.
Where do you get this wacky stuff of yours?

> I'd like for you to find just ONE quote from any of those three
> autopsy doctors which has any of them saying something akin to this:
>
> "I was wrong and the autopsy repoprt I signed in 1963 was wrong.
> The large exit wound in President Kennedy's head was really located in
> the right-rear portion of his head, just as the many Parkland
> witnesses claimed. The large wound was not located 'chiefly parietal',
> which is what we stated in our 1963 autopsy report. I'm sorry, I was
> mistaken for all these years when I have said the big hole in JFK's
> head was located to the 'right-front' part of his head. It was really
> not even close to that right-front location. It was at the far-right-
> rear of the head. I hope God can forgive my ignorance (and lies)
> regarding this key issue."
>

Don't be silly. Government employess don't admit they lied, they
just tell more and more complicated lies.
However, see below where we dispense with the 'right-front' baloney.

> But instead of finding something like the above comments coming from
> any of the autopsy physicians, what do we find? We find this:
>
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> right side of the President's head." -- James J. Humes; 1967
>
> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

David I found no need to use your website, I found the statement in
a reporters file. As it turns out, if this is the last hidey-hole you
have to escape to, you're all done on this particular part of the JFK
multiple perpetrator case, the report said:

"Dan Rather asked him, "And (where was) the exit wound?" Humes said: "
And the exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and side -
right side of the President's head." (5) No witness had described it
there. To muddy the waters further, in the third of three interviews
before the HSCA, Dr. Humes seemed to change his mind on the entrance,
claiming the bullet entered high, in parietal bone, rather than low,
in occipital bone, as per the autopsy report. (6) Further, in
testimony before the Conyers Committee on 11/17/93, Gerald Posner
claimed he'd interviewed Drs. Humes and Boswell and that " they have
confirmed their change of testimony that they gave before the HSCA",
and that the entrance wound was "correctly placed 4 inches higher" in
parietal bone. (No evidence can be found that Boswell ever admitted to
the high location, though Humes may have). So the location of the
entrance wound and exit defect may be uncertain despite the autopsy
report's statements."
From: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/enduringcontro.html

Note: "No witness had described it there". Humes seems to have
tried a number of different locations and viewpoints at different
times. Either not sure of what he was describing, or being
manipulated. In the video he was very unsure when he tried to speak
about the wound. I don't think we can depend on a statement that was
only one of many differing statements. Or one that no one else had
made. Humes was on his own on that one.

If you come across other Humes 'front' statements, I'll be glad to
look them over...:)

Let's add a note here for you to ponder:
Take a look at autopsy photo BE4 and point out for me where the
bullet hole is that came from the 6th floor.
Then take a look at this next photo from the autopsy and tell me
how you figure that little red spot is a bullet hole. Don't you think
it would be almost black, like dried blood or black like a hole?
Naah. There's nothing there. No bullet hole. Just the back of the
scalp flap with a tiny little red irritated area.

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 3:51:19 AM2/1/12

to

CHRIS SAID:

>>> ""You mention the BOH. What do you think is the case in autopsy photo BE2 (top of head), which also shows the BOH with brains hanging down over it? Are the large glob of brains coming out of a tiny 1/4-inch hole? Or what?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't be serious with this crap, can you Chris?

BE2 doesn't show the right-rear ("BOH") area of JFK's head at all. It
shows the very TOP of JFK's head. That's not the "BOH".

Kennedy is literally lying on the right-rear of his head in that
picture, and the occipital (right-rear) is not even in the camera's
view in BE2:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wcIxxfegz8c/TyijK4vD9uI/AAAAAAAAEM4/ytfgpVJ7JO4/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-Top-Of-Head.jpg

The brain tissue that we see on the TOP of JFK's head got there by way
of its coming out of the one and only big wound in his head, which
was, of course, located at the right-front-top portion of the head
(just as the pictures show and just as the autopsy says).

And this additional autopsy photo below shows a little bit better the
relationship between the location of the right-frontal exit wound in
JFK's head and the location on his head/hair which has a lot of brain
tissue adhering to it:

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

In the picture above, it's not difficult at all to visualize how that
brain tissue got on top of JFK's head (and from what wound the brain
tissue extruded from) -- it got there after coming out of the large
wound located at the right-front-top part of his head.

Plus -- Why on Earth would any brains that would have been ejected
from a wound in the right-rear of his head be showing up at the VERY
TOP of his head, which is where we see the brains in BE2?

Any brain tissue that would have been ejected from your make-believe
wound at the far right-rear of the head would have been brain tissue
that Mr. Kennedy would have been literally LYING ON in BE2. Either
that, or somehow a bunch of brain tissue (which you say exited from
the right-rear) managed to take a sharp turn UPWARD and adhere itself
all over the TOP of Kennedy's head and hair. Do you want to suggest a
new theory, Chris -- the MSBTT (the "Magic Swerving Brain Tissue
Theory")?

What obviously happened is that brain tissue was exuded from the large
RIGHT-FRONTAL-TOP wound in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, with some of this
brain tissue then adhering to his thick hair at the very top of his
head. And that's exactly what we see in the BE2 autopsy photograph.

So there's no need to postulate a huge gaping hole at the right-rear
of JFK's head to explain and reconcile that BE2 photo. My above
explanation reconciles that photo very nicely, thank you. While your
theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. And you are, indeed, making
the exact same orientation mistake that many people believe the
Parkland witnesses apparently also made when they saw JFK in Trauma
Room #1 on 11/22/63 (Jim Moore being one such researcher and author
who promotes this point-of-view; although I, myself, do not agree with
Moore on this point) -- i.e., you seem to be implying that a certain
part of President Kennedy's head is visible in a certain picture, when
(in reality) the portion of the head you claim to be viewing is really
not in the picture at all.

Another way to look at this mistake that I think you are making is by
looking at this composite photo I created for two of the autopsy
photos:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBHISnnSPE4/TyijKuibhNI/AAAAAAAAEMw/f3Ipo1NpHXE/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-Composite.jpg

When looking at the above two pictures in conjunction with each other,
do you, Chris, really think that the photo on the left depicts the
area of JFK's head where you say a large wound was located (the right-
rear-occipital area of the head)?

It's fairly clear from the angles at which the two pictures were taken
that NONE of the "occipital" area of Kennedy's head can be seen in the
picture on the left. The President's hair is obscuring any portion of
his head in that photo which could be considered "occipital" or "right-
rear".

In order for Mr. Stringer (the photographer at JFK's autopsy at
Bethesda) to have captured any part of the "right-rear" or "occipital"
areas of JFK's head, he would need to photograph the President from
the SIDE (as was done in the photo on the right, which does depict a
portion of the "left-rear" or "left occipital" area of the head).

Or, if not from the side, Stringer would have needed to photograph JFK
from directly UNDERNEATH the autopsy table (and also would have needed
to remove that metal headrest on which the President's head is lying,
in order to get a complete and unobstructed view of the right-rear
area of Kennedy's head that so many people think contained a great-big
gaping hole).

Or, Kennedy's body could have been rolled over and his head lifted, so
that Stringer could get that unobstructed view of the right-rear of
the head. And, of course, we have a series of pictures taken by
Stringer that do depict that very thing--an unobstructed view of the
right-rear of JFK's head (the three pictures below). And these three
photos are showing a "right-rear" portion of the head that is
completely INTACT and WOUND-FREE:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oysbjGcLmUg/TyijKQGRjqI/AAAAAAAAEMo/_z9grR3IHIs/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-BOH-Composite.jpg

In short -- Chris has totally misrepresented what can be seen in
Autopsy Photo #BE2.

>>> "Humes said: "And the exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and side - right side of the President's head." [End Humes' quote] No witness had described it there." <<<

And yet the large wound is there anyway -- in the autopsy photographs,
and in the autopsy X-rays, and in the Zapruder Film too.

Go figure that.

>>> "Then take a look at this next photo from the autopsy and tell me how you figure that little red spot is a bullet hole. Don't you think it would be almost black, like dried blood or black like a hole? Naah. There's nothing there. No bullet hole. Just the back of the scalp flap with a tiny little red irritated area." <<<

Which is a "tiny little red irritated area" that was determined by
BOTH the Clark Panel and the HSCA to be a bullet (entry) hole. Let's
have as gander at what they had to say about it:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated
near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this
wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray
film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2),
a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface
of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen
in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." --
Clark Panel Report

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt

"We, as the [FPP] panel members, do feel after close examination
of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher
perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and
we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-
rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be
immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. .... It
is the firm conclusion of the panel members...there is no bullet
perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single
one in the cowlick." -- Dr. Michael Baden

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm

Chris should also listen to the 1978 HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre
Finck linked below. Some interesting observations about the location
of the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head are
discussed in this interview:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-finck.html

IN SUMMARY:

Chris accuses me of ignoring a bunch of witnesses. But what does Chris
do? He totally ignores (or brushes aside) BOTH of the above
investigative panels--the Clark Panel from 1968 and the House Select
Committee from ten years later.

And the Clark and HSCA panels were examining THE BEST EVIDENCE in the
whole case for determining where the wounds were located in President
Kennedy's body (other than having JFK's body right there in the same
room with them in 1968 and 1978) -- the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Bottom Line (again) -- The autopsy pictures and X-rays do not support
the Parkland witnesses. Anyone saying the pictures and X-rays DO
corroborate the Parkland people must be snorting some funny white
stuff. Or they are currently residing in Rod Serling's eerie "Zone".

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-20.html

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 1, 2012, 4:11:11 PM2/1/12

to

On Jan 31, 10:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> >>> ""You mention the BOH. What do you think is the case in autopsy photo BE2 (top of head), which also shows the BOH with brains hanging down over it? Are the large glob of brains coming out of a tiny 1/4-inch hole? Or what?" <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You can't be serious with this crap, can you Chris?
>
> BE2 doesn't show the right-rear ("BOH") area of JFK's head at all. It
> shows the very TOP of JFK's head. That's not the "BOH".
>
> Kennedy is literally lying on the right-rear of his head in that
> picture, and the occipital (right-rear) is not even in the camera's
> view in BE2:
>

David, if you look carefully at BE1 you will see that the head is
resting on the lower occipital portion. There is a 'T-holder' extended
under the head that leaves much of the skull accessible to autopsy
personnel, and leaves the right-rear mostly free. Since there was
only one wound in the head, one would think the brains hanging down
would have to come from that wound (singular), and not from a little
red spot on the scalp, although interestingly enough the brains
hanging down in BE2 are more forward of right where the little red
spot was supposed to be, and then flopping backward and down. So did
all those brains come out of that little red spot? Not possible,
since they cover the little red spot from above it. Or from a large
hole described by all of the Parkland personnel that has somehow
expanded more forward at Bethesda?

> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wcIxxfegz8c/TyijK4vD9uI/AAAAAAAAEM4/ytfgpVJ...

>
> The brain tissue that we see on the TOP of JFK's head got there by way
> of its coming out of the one and only big wound in his head, which
> was, of course, located at the right-front-top portion of the head
> (just as the pictures show and just as the autopsy says).
>

Nope. Won't do. You can forget all your little efforts to make the
wound be in 'front' of anything. As you've been informed 'Parietal'
means top-to-rear. And temporal and occipital means side and far
back. Maybe this time you'll check it out so you don't keep making
that mistake.

> And this additional autopsy photo below shows a little bit better the
> relationship between the location of the right-frontal exit wound in
> JFK's head and the location on his head/hair which has a lot of brain
> tissue adhering to it:

Statement cancelled...'frontal' used improperly. Nofrontal wound
exists.

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5o...

>
> In the picture above, it's not difficult at all to visualize how that
> brain tissue got on top of JFK's head (and from what wound the brain
> tissue extruded from) -- it got there after coming out of the large
> wound located at the right-front-top part of his head.
>

LOL! You just can't help pretending that the large wound is
somehow in 'front' of something. It just plain isn't. And saying it
was 'on top' of his head would look awful funny if that were true just
by itself. The wound (based on the X-ray) was top to rear (parietal
was the term used by autopsy personnel). That X-ray had all skull
pieces together and yet we can see large amount of brain coming out of
the head. What hole of the X-ray did they come out of? Or do you
admit that they reassembled the skull fragments for the X-ray
picture?

> Plus -- Why on Earth would any brains that would have been ejected
> from a wound in the right-rear of his head be showing up at the VERY
> TOP of his head, which is where we see the brains in BE2?
>

That's an easy one. We merely need to look over the testimony and
the drawings of the Parkland trained medical personnel to determine
where the large wound was located. They all saw it at the right-rear
and much smaller than what they saw at Bethesda, but they did see
brain mater hanging out. If we then look over the drawings (standard
part of an autopsy) and photos of the autopsy at Bethesda, we see the
large wound is now described as going from the right-rear up and
forward to continue to the top of the head, far past the point of the
little red spot. We also see that flap of skull that was hinged out
from the original right side wound. Funny they left that out, but put
back all the other fragments...:)

> Any brain tissue that would have been ejected from your make-believe
> wound at the far right-rear of the head would have been brain tissue
> that Mr. Kennedy would have been literally LYING ON in BE2. Either
> that, or somehow a bunch of brain tissue (which you say exited from
> the right-rear) managed to take a sharp turn UPWARD and adhere itself
> all over the TOP of Kennedy's head and hair. Do you want to suggest a
> new theory, Chris -- the MSBTT (the "Magic Swerving Brain Tissue
> Theory")?
>

LOL! You just did put forward a wacky theory, so I'll try to bring
you back to earth with the truth. Your suggestion is false. See
above...where the head was resting on a "T-holder' (BE1) leaving the
right-rear free for doctors to work on the head. That leaves the
brain matter free to hang out and not be rested on by the head. Now
where you take a sharp turn into outer space is saying that brain
matter takes any kind of turn and adheres to hair. I know you'd love
for it to be that way, but it just wasn't. The brain matter you see
hanging down is in an autopsy photo at Bethesda, and the wound (for
some odd reason) has been expanded to alow more brain matter to hang
out from a larger wound than was recorded at Parkland. That brain
matter, as you now know from our pointing it out, is attached to skull
fragments that are then attached to the skull flap that autopsy
personnel described. And, as you say, the autopsy is where the really
good evidence is at...:)

> What obviously happened is that brain tissue was exuded from the large
> RIGHT-FRONTAL-TOP wound in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, with some of this
> brain tissue then adhering to his thick hair at the very top of his
> head. And that's exactly what we see in the BE2 autopsy photograph.
>

Forget it. 'Frontal' can't be used if we're following autopsy
personnel and their autopsy report.

> So there's no need to postulate a huge gaping hole at the right-rear
> of JFK's head to explain and reconcile that BE2 photo.

Whoops! You said 'postulate', when in actuality the Parkland
medical personnel didn't postulate anything, they stated clearly what
they saw, some of them from only 18 inches away. We know you want to
pretend that it's all guesswork, but you're attempting (without
success) to do away with the Parkland personnel, as if you knew
something they didn't, although you weren't anywhere near the body
that they saw. Since you don't now and never did have the direct
sight of the body, and aren't medically trained to the degree the
Parkland personnel qwere, you can't really say anything about what
they saw. We just take their word, since they corroborate each other
nicely.

> My above
> explanation reconciles that photo very nicely, thank you. While your
> theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. And you are, indeed, making
> the exact same orientation mistake that many people believe the
> Parkland witnesses apparently also made when they saw JFK in Trauma
> Room #1 on 11/22/63 (Jim Moore being one such researcher and author
> who promotes this point-of-view; although I, myself, do not agree with
> Moore on this point) -- i.e., you seem to be implying that a certain
> part of President Kennedy's head is visible in a certain picture, when
> (in reality) the portion of the head you claim to be viewing is really
> not in the picture at all.
>

Once again you're saying that what the Parkland people saw they
didn't see! When you weren't even there! Are you trying to rewrite
history to cover something up, or are you just deluded? I'm not
putting forward any theory here as you seem to be, I'm taking the word
of medically trained witnesses that have no reason to lie.

> Another way to look at this mistake that I think you are making is by
> looking at this composite photo I created for two of the autopsy
> photos:
>

These pictures are available on the internet on other websites.
If these are from the 'BE' autopsy series, I have the URL for them. If
you simply say which ID they have, we can all follow along. Now, to
clear up your continuing confusion about the photos, look carefully at
the photo on the left. Got it yet? If you check the hair hanging
down on our left, you'll see that it is not matted and from a side
view it would look like the right side picture. Let's get into the
hard stuff that you're having a problem with.

> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBHISnnSPE4/TyijKuibhNI/AAAAAAAAEMw/f3Ipo1N...

>
> When looking at the above two pictures in conjunction with each other,
> do you, Chris, really think that the photo on the left depicts the
> area of JFK's head where you say a large wound was located (the right-
> rear-occipital area of the head)?
>

I didn't say it. I repeated it from the Parkland medically
trained personnel. They were the ones who said it.

> It's fairly clear from the angles at which the two pictures were taken
> that NONE of the "occipital" area of Kennedy's head can be seen in the
> picture on the left. The President's hair is obscuring any portion of
> his head in that photo which could be considered "occipital" or "right-
> rear".
>

Wrong again. What is obscuring our view is brain matter hanging out
of the wound that has been expanded to the top of the head. What is
hanging down is the scalp flap described by Boswell that has skull and
brain matter attached.

> In order for Mr. Stringer (the photographer at JFK's autopsy at
> Bethesda) to have captured any part of the "right-rear" or "occipital"
> areas of JFK's head, he would need to photograph the President from
> the SIDE (as was done in the photo on the right, which does depict a
> portion of the "left-rear" or "left occipital" area of the head).
>

A shame that so many of his photos have gone missing. They might
have been instrumental in helping see the truth of the wounds. And as
we know, there was no wound on the left side of the head.

> Or, if not from the side, Stringer would have needed to photograph JFK
> from directly UNDERNEATH the autopsy table (and also would have needed
> to remove that metal headrest on which the President's head is lying,
> in order to get a complete and unobstructed view of the right-rear
> area of Kennedy's head that so many people think contained a great-big
> gaping hole).
>

Many people are the Parklnad trained medical personnel did not say
they 'thought' they might have seen something, they clearly stated and
drew their description of the wound that they DID see in the right-
rear of the head. Since the scalp flap that Boswell described and
that we can see, was open and hanging down with brain matter hanging
out (as per their statements), they had a good idea of where the hole
was.

> Or, Kennedy's body could have been rolled over and his head lifted, so
> that Stringer could get that unobstructed view of the right-rear of
> the head. And, of course, we have a series of pictures taken by
> Stringer that do depict that very thing--an unobstructed view of the
> right-rear of JFK's head (the three pictures below). And these three
> photos are showing a "right-rear" portion of the head that is
> completely INTACT and WOUND-FREE:
>

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oysbjGcLmUg/TyijKQGRjqI/AAAAAAAAEMo/_z9grR3...

>
> In short -- Chris has totally misrepresented what can be seen in
> Autopsy Photo #BE2.
>

Oh, get off your ego. You're not lecturing to an audience, you're
discussing with me. I can't misrepresent any photo we've examined,
since they exist and can't (we hope) be changed. They are what they
are. It may be that some folks (and I include you in that group)
might 'misinterpret' a photo though. See above for the explanations
and it might help you understand some of the things you've asked
about.

> >>> "Humes said: "And the exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and side - right side of the President's head." [End Humes' quote] No witness had described it there." <<<
>
> And yet the large wound is there anyway -- in the autopsy photographs,
> and in the autopsy X-rays, and in the Zapruder Film too.
>
> Go figure that.
>

Easy to figure. You can't see what the photos and the statements
and drawings show. No one has said that the large wound isn't there,
so maybe you're not paying attention to the answers you're getting.
And we now know that Humes had that wound being in a few different
places over the years. Maybe his memory was failing from 1963 to
1967. He was the only person (including other autopsy personnel)
trhat used the word 'front', and he looked like an ass when he did it,
becasue he was very unsure of himself in the video. As a side
interest on the video, Humes also 'verified' the placement of the back
wound as being just at the lower neck with a picture used in the
video, when the autopsy photo (the last word) has it lower down on the
upper back and way below that spot. His video for CBS was a failure if
he was suppposed to convince me and the Parkland doctors what he would
like us to believe. Looks like he sold you the bridge though...:)

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-fin...

>
> IN SUMMARY:
>
> Chris accuses me of ignoring a bunch of witnesses. But what does Chris
> do? He totally ignores (or brushes aside) BOTH of the above
> investigative panels--the Clark Panel from 1968 and the House Select
> Committee from ten years later.
>

Get a grip on yourself David. You yourself have made statements
clearly showing your contempt and disbelief for all the Parkland
medically trained personnel who actually saw the body and the head,
and have stated that you know the truth in opposition to what they
have said, although you were never present. I accept the Parkland
wirness statements completely. They make sense, and there is less
chance they were coerced at the time of the ER work on JFK, whereas
some of the later testimony and photos don't make as much sense.

However, there are those that do have a problem with the various
panels that have tried to look over the information and make sense out
of it all. They found (as you know) differences in viewpoints,
changed statements along the way, facts which had to be refigured that
didn't make sense. As a matter of fact, many ups and downs. It
doesn't make one feel very cozy and secure, like reading the foolish
WC and finding they ignored certain witnesses that had pertinent
testimony. All stuff that can make one insecure about their
government in doing a simple task of investigation. That includes
stealing bodies and spiriting them away to a government installation
wher they had greater control over outcomes. that makes one have
doubts as to an 'official' story, and those that promote it.

> And the Clark and HSCA panels were examining THE BEST EVIDENCE in the
> whole case for determining where the wounds were located in President
> Kennedy's body (other than having JFK's body right there in the same
> room with them in 1968 and 1978) -- the autopsy photos and X-rays.
>

First, let's take the testimony of Dr. Finck about the 'little red
spot'.
"Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon
examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if
anything, that red spot in the upper portions?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.
Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16,
of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder
if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to
what you believe that could be.
Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?
Mr. PURDY. Yes.
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. "

Now let's see some more of this 'little red spot' that means nothing
with Boswell and Humes:

"It is this photograph that Humes and Boswell were told to place an
entry wound, forced to choose between: A. a red spot near the cowlick,
or B. a small speck that looks like a piece of brain or fat clinging
to the hair by the HSCA forensic panel. They did not want to choose
either but picked B. To the ARRB they choose a spot behind the right
ear that seems dark and intact in the photo."

From: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/horne/Backes3.html

Here's a report of statements from Humes and other doctors where
Humes himself denies knowing what the 'little red spot' is:

"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts
to get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at
the top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded: “I
don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we
reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect
corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t know what
that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I just don’t know
what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance.”[362]
Similarly, Pierre Finck, has always insisted that the skull wound was
low in JFK’s skull."

From: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

> Bottom Line (again) -- The autopsy pictures and X-rays do not support
> the Parkland witnesses. Anyone saying the pictures and X-rays DO
> corroborate the Parkland people must be snorting some funny white
> stuff. Or they are currently residing in Rod Serling's eerie "Zone".
>

Actually, YOU don't support the Parkland witnesses, but the photos
fit perfectly. But their statements have ben of great help in finding
truth against al the wacky theories put forward to try and make the
'official' stoy more believable. Your interpretation of the photos
hugs the 'official' story close, but it's a false sense of security,
since your blankey is toxic.

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-20.html

I didn't look at that last link. I'm not surew I trust information
from your own private website. I like info fromll and sundry so that
they can more be trusted.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 3:35:32 PM2/2/12

to

On Feb 1, 11:11 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip repetitive stuff>

>
David Von Pein says:
> > Bottom Line (again) -- The autopsy pictures and X-rays do not support
> > the Parkland witnesses. Anyone saying the pictures and X-rays DO
> > corroborate the Parkland people must be snorting some funny white
> > stuff. Or they are currently residing in Rod Serling's eerie "Zone".
>

Chris Says:
> Actually, YOU don't support the Parkland witnesses, but the photos

> fit perfectly. But their statements have been of great help in finding
> truth against all the wacky theories you put forward to try and make the

> 'official' stoy more believable. Your interpretation of the photos
> hugs the 'official' story close, but it's a false sense of security,
> since your blankey is toxic.
>
> >http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-20.html
>

> I didn't look at that last link. I'm not sure I trust information
> from your own private website. I like info from all and sundry so that

> they can more be trusted.
>
> Chris

So I see that as soon as I said I didn't want to vist David's
website anymore, he ran away and had nothing more to say. After
advertising his 60 part series, and having us link over to his site
many, many times, and after running and hiding behind every gimmick he
could muster, and having nowhere to run, he finally runs away.

Many questions were put to David, few of which he was able to
answer, or even bothered to try. Reviewing the thread will show that
and the questions. But we shouldn't be irritated with him, as what
he has done has given us a complete history of what the LNTers will
try to do when approached with honest questions or honest answers.
All the little efforts to obfuscate information and selectively pick
evidence, or even make up evidence such as pretending that there was
some sort of 'frontal' wound on JFK. The word was used only once by
Capt. Humes, and he had used many other words and locations to
describe where he thought the entry wound was. All other personnel
(including Humes at some point) sdaid the wound was in the 'parietal'
area with some impingement with the occipital and pemporal too. That
means the top and back of the head touching on the lower back and
sides of the skull.

We know from our chat with David that he was 'rabid' about anyone
taking the testimony or drawings of the Parkland medically trained
personnel as important factual evidence. He stated clearly that they
were all mistaken, and in one case 'crazy'. He stated also that the
illegal autopsy at Bethesda was the only real and dependable
evidence. Again saying in effect, don't look at the Parkland
information. Why not? In actuality, the Parkland people told a
great deal from their recollections of actually seeing the body of JFK
and the location of the large wound in his head, some of them from as
close as 18 inches away. When we look carefully at the descriptions
of the head wound that they saw with their own eyes, they pointed out
a certain location on the head, and a certain size, with brain matter
oozing out. Seeing the brain matter gave them the information of the
size and location of the wound.

Uh-Oh! Then we look at the autopsy photos, X-rays and the drawings
(standard practice in autopsies) and statements of the autopsy
personnel and comparing them with the Parkland drawings and
statements, we find a really big discrepancy. We have our David to
thank for this revelation, since he pressed his beliefs and caused me
to go into the detail of the case and find the huge discrepancy.
Thank you David. That evidence is presented below.

Comparing the images and statements of the two hospital's personnel
we find that eerily the head wound has expanded to be much larger at
Bethesda, and the expansion was an increased area above the original
wound and on the right side. If we had not paid attention to the
Parkland drawings and statements as our David wanted, we would have
never seen the problem of the expanding wound. The expansion upward
would help to give the impression that a bulet came from behind and
above, because a low right-rear hole would look very strange for a
high rear shooting position.

Why would someone want to expand the head wound of a dead victim?
Well, if we listen to David Lifton, the body of a victim gives the
'Best Evidence', and much can be learned from it, especially if the
investigators are experienced. By changing the body in any way, one
might change the result of the investigations, especially the
directions of bullets. The head and brain have been used often in
such cases to determine the paths and directions of bullets, and by
modifying them the path and direction of the bullets might be
changed. The obvious next question is why would someone want to
change the path and direction of the bullets? The only reason I can
think of is that the real path and direction would say something very
different from the 'official' story.

Next, we might ask who did the expanding of the head wound, and
when and where. We might consider the plane where the body was stolen
to and flown off to Andrews AFB. The body was then in an ambulance
ride to Bethesda. Some wait time and then up to the room in which
they did the autopsy. A knowledgeable person might be able to
accomplish the expansion, if allowed near the body. That could only
be done by 'official' persons, who were around the body at all times.
Why steal the body against the direction of Texas authorities and a
Texas judge as well, who were telling them it was illegal to take the
body. In defiance of all of them including a judge, they stole the
body anyway. At that time, there was no federal crime to assassinate
the president, so there was no legal standing to steal the body.

No matter how we decide the deed was done, it's clear from the
evidence from Parkland compared to the evidence from Bethesda that the
head was messed with at some point between Parkland ER and the
Bethesda autopsy. The Parkland people had no prior knowledge that a
shooting victim would appear and be treated by them, and they were not
strongly beholden to anyone, which makes them good witnesses. In the
case of Bethesda, it was known at some point in advance that Bethesda
(and possibly even who) would do the autopsy, and all the personnel
there were military or semi-military and could easily be put under
orders by a superior, making them less solid as witnesses than the
Parkland personnel.

On top of al the problems with the body and the head wound, there
was also the problem of the entry wound we discussed. They couldn't
really locate on they could be sure of. Oh, they pointed out out,
then pointed another out, then argued about which was the right one,
they even spent time playing around with a 'little red spot', nut one
of the autopsy personnel made it clear that was exactly that, a
'little red spot'.

Here are 2 pages of statements and drawings, mostly from hospital
personnel, plus a few government agents:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Compare the drawings of Parkland peole to the Bethesda drawings
above.

An interesting set of articles on problems with the autopsy are
here:
http://www.history-matters.com/medcoverup.htm

Once at the above location, check out the center column for an
overview of the autpopsy and some problems with it, then go down the
right side column and check out the many separate topics related to
the autopsy.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 5:04:25 PM2/2/12

to

~yawn~

Wake me, Chris, when you find that big hole in the BOH in any of the
autopsy photos and X-rays. Because I'll definitely want to see those
pictures that show a great-big hole in the right-rear (occipital) area
of JFK's head. To date, of course, no such autopsy picture or X-ray
has surfaced that shows any such BOH hole. But maybe you (or Dr.
McClelland) can pull one out of your CT hat(s).

aeffects

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 5:43:29 PM2/2/12

to

On Feb 2, 9:04 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ~yawn~

ah-huh.... you're dancing sonny-boy, as you've been dancing since
Bugliosi's mega-flop Reclaiming History....

toots, no one, NO ONE believes a damn thing you have to say concerning
case evidence -- the Warren Commission Report is suspect, hence, not
reliable--about the only thing the WC got right was this: JFK was
assassinated on the streets of Dallas, TX., Nov 22nd 1963...

.john needs the old lone nut-SBT, varsity back in uniform....

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 2, 2012, 11:10:21 PM2/2/12

to

Oh poor David. Sour grapes again. David, you were told clearly
about the evidence of the hole in the X-ray and the other photos
(those that weren't lost for some reason). Not only did all of the
Parkland medically trained personnel identify the hole, but the photos
and X-ray were consistent with their drawings and statements. Tghis
was explained to you in deatial including giving you nursetry school
level instructions to find the plate of skull that was the one laid
back at Parkland and Bethesda. Go back and find it, if once again you
weren't listening.

And as you well know, all the Parkland and Bethesda personnel agree
on the hole in the head, and the approximate location of it based on
the photos and X-ray. Why so you keep pretending that you weren't
shown all this already? Only Humes seems to have given a few
different locations.

And for all your reliance on the autopsy photos,report and
statements, you might want to look into the writings at the link I
left above. I'll put it here again in case you missed. I'm sure
you'll really want to check it out.

An interesting set of articles on problems with the autopsy are
here:
http://www.history-matters.com/medcoverup.htm

Once at the above location, check out the center column for an

overview of the autopsy and some problems with it, then go down the

right side column and check out the many separate topics related to
the autopsy.

David, if you're able to clear up all the problems that doctor found
with the autopsy, let me know. We can go over it again until you
finally get it.

Chris

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 2:15:37 AM2/3/12

to

In article <680334b8-ec3d-4de2...@3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

Of course, the kook cannot point to the damage WRITTEN ABOUT AND DESCRIBED
PRECISELY in the autopsy report on the BOH photo.

I've asked repeatedly for anyone to show the damage that extended into the
occipital on the BOH photo - and nary a kook has even tried...

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 5:08:04 AM2/3/12

to

>>> "Not only did all of the Parkland medically trained personnel identify the hole, but the photos and X-ray were consistent with their drawings and statements." <<<

Dead wrong. There is no "hole" in the BOH in any of the autopsy photos
or X-rays. Period.

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 12:58:39 PM2/3/12

to

Ahh! Poor David, off the reservation again! I said they were
"consistent". There is a large hole impinging on the occiput but
you're not able to view it because it is right where Boswell (autopsy
personnel) said it was, behind the 'reflected' (hanging out and down)
scalp flap. The hole on the X-ray was pointed out to you in detail by
me leading you around the X-ray from the break in the skull at the
back lower area (occipital) hooking around and upward, thence back
left and down through the dim line. Circumscribing the piece of skull
that was flapped back while attached to the scalp flap. It would be
more clear if they hadn't canted the X-ray to the right and tilted the
skull to the right too. And don't tell me that the X-ray doesn't show
a break because all the pieces are together. The autopsy personnel
testified that there were scalp fragments that were not attached to
the body that were brought to them as they worked. Only one way for
the X-ray to be together and that's someone putting it together,
meaning they put together the part from the large hole too. What a
shame that so many key pieces of the evidence have been lost by the
government, like the brain, records, pictures, X-rays, etc.

Now we'll talk about the X-rays available to us, so use this link
to follow along:
http://jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

An impoortant item for you to ponder that we haven't touched upon
with the X-rays you keep waving around. Let's look at the X-rays
labelled as X_AP, X_AUT_1, and X_AUT_2. All 3 X-rays show a large
amount of bone missing from over the right eye. If that were the
truth, then the BE2 and BE3 photos would show the forehead and face
collapsed for lack of support of a skull. I wonder what caused that
anomaly? Maybe they stuffed his head with cotton or something to hold
up his face? Very strange.

You really want to get away from the Parkland crew, don't you?
Demeaning them, saying they were all mistaken, even crazy, choosing to
speak only of the Bethesda part of the saga. And yet they were the
first medically trained people to see JFK's head and the brain matter
hanging out (and where it was hanging out from) and the only people in
this whole affair that weren't responsible to the government is some
way. They were also an important clue to the modification of the body
between Parkland ER and the Bethesda autopsy, photos and X-rays. Very
important people and we would be doing them a disservice to forget
them or leave them out of any of our deliberations.

David, did you find the time to check out all the problems with the
autopsy that I gave you? Here's the link again:

http://www.history-matters.com/medcoverup.htm

If necessary I can list the problems described for you one-by-one
so you won't have to chase a link that's not on your website...what
say?

Waiting on you...

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 3, 2012, 1:30:23 PM2/3/12

to

>>> "David, did you find the time to check out all the problems with the autopsy that I gave you?" <<<

No. But nothing you have said can change the basic facts that are
illustrated in the autopsy photos, X-rays, autopsy report, and the
Zapruder Film.

And I'll repeat this quote again (just for the heck of it):

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- Jim Humes; 1967

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 12:46:16 AM2/4/12

to

On Feb 3, 8:30 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, did you find the time to check out all the problems with the autopsy that I gave you?" <<<
>
> No. But nothing you have said can change the basic facts that are
> illustrated in the autopsy photos, X-rays, autopsy report, and the
> Zapruder Film.
>

Ah! David, I'm glad you finally admitted that you haven't checked
evidence that would make your wacky theories look even more
ridiculous. By not looking into it , you've basically proven that
that you refuse to look at anything that will disprove your silly
theory. That way you can go on pretending, at least to yourself,
that you have some little bit of hope. Sorry I have to pop your
bubble.

> And I'll repeat this quote again (just for the heck of it):
>
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> right side of the President's head." -- Jim Humes; 1967

LOL! You mean David, you're repeating it because you have nothing
else to provide to help your wacky theories...:)

Let's have a look at that statement he made to Rather in 1967.
First, let's look at his summary for the 'official' autopsy report:
JAMES J. HUMES, MD: JFK's chief autopsy pathologist, he wrote the
autopsy summary which included the skull wound description, "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."

We've been here before. Parietal means top and rear of skull, and
temporal and occipital means side and far rear. That's way back and
on the right.

For the HSCA and WC it appears that they accepted the autopsy report
with the location mentioned above.

And then the 1967 statement in a video with Rather that was NOT part
of the famous autopsy that you set so much store by, he said "The exit

wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the
President's head."

Humes was the only person that ever said that, and he said it only
that once, and he never said it to any of the many commissions and
panels that reviewed the medical evidence of this case. David, don't
you feel foolish bringing up that old video you found with an
unofficial comment for the media? That 'front' thing was never part
of any 'official' review or testimony and was never considerd in any
'official' way.

Please say you have something material and cogent to try out.
Hopefully, even interesting.

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 8:10:57 AM2/4/12

to

>>> "Please say you have something material and cogent to try out." <<<

~sigh~

Okay, kook, how about this one from Dr. Baden (who is a person you
must certainly think is either a huge liar or you must think that he's
one of the biggest boobs and retards that has ever earned the right to
be called a "forensic pathologist"):

KENNETH KLEIN (HSCA) -- "Are those X-rays consistent with a bullet
having entered the President's head high on top of the head and passed
through?"

DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "Yes sir. .... The panel concluded, and all of
the radiologist consultants with whom the panel spoke with and met
with, all concluded that without question there is an entrance bullet
hole on the upper portion of the skull at the area I am pointing to
where the bone itself has been displaced, and that this corresponds
precisely with the point in the cowlick area on the overlying skin,
has the appearance of an entrance wound, that the track of the bullet
then proceeded from back to front and toward the right causing
extensive damage to the head. .... That higher perforation...is

unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly,

and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the

entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this
perforation in the upper scalp skin. .... It is the firm conclusion of
the panel members...there is no bullet perforation of entrance any
place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick."

[...]

DR. BADEN -- "This is a drawing prepared with the panel and Miss Dox
showing a side view of the President's skull and showing the point
that the panel agreed was the exit point for the gunshot wound that
entered the back of the head; this exit perforation is on the right
front side of the head of the President."

[...]

MR. KLEIN -- "Do the diagrams fairly and accurately represent the path
of the bullet which entered high on the back of the President's head
and exited from the right side of the head toward the front?"

DR. BADEN -- "Yes, sir."

[...]

DR. BADEN -- "...And the bullet path proceeding forward causing
extensive fractures of the skull bones on the right and then exiting
the right front area."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm

-----------------------

And Baden said this to author Vincent Bugliosi:

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

-----------------------

And there are also these observations made by the four-member Clark
Panel in 1968:

"The decedent's head was struck from behind [by] a single
projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the
midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The
projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving
a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to
explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it
emerged from the head.

"In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that there is no
evidence of projectile fragments in the left cerebral tissues or in
the right cerebral hemisphere below a horizontal plane passing through
the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull.

"Also, although the fractures of the calvarium extend to the
left of the midline and into the anterior and middle fossa of the
skull, no bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either
entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of
the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable
to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction
other than that described above. ....

"The decedent was wounded by two bullets, both of which entered
his body from behind. One bullet struck the back of the decedent's
head well above the external occipital protuberance. .... This bullet
fragmented after entering the cranium, one major piece of it passing
forward and laterally to produce an explosive fracture of the right
side of the skull as it emerged from the head.

"The absence of metallic fragments in the left cerebral
hemisphere or below the level of the frontal fossa on the right side
together with the absence of any holes in it, the skull to the left of
the midline or in its base and the absence of any penetrating injury
of the left hemisphere, eliminate with reasonable certainty the
possibility of a projectile having passed through the head in any
direction other than from back to front as described in preceding
sections of this report. ....

"Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays
taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two
bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the
base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other
of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side."
-- Clark Panel Report; 1968

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt

-----------------------

Allow me to emphasize the following portions of the Clark Panel report
quoted above:

"The decedent's head was struck from behind [by] a single
projectile."

"It [the "single projectile"] entered the occipital region 25 mm
to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital
protuberance."

"The projectile fragmented on entering the skull...explosively
fractur[ing] the RIGHT FRONTAL and parietal bones as it emerged from
the head." [DVP's emphasis.]

"No bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either
entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of
the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable
to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction
other than that described above."

"One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above
the external occipital protuberance."

"...Eliminate with reasonable certainty the possibility of a
projectile having passed through the head in any direction other than
from back to front."

"President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above
and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the
right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the
skull from behind and exploded its right side."

-------------------------

Let's now move on to Dr. Humes' HSCA testimony:

MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and
only one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did
enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those
three points, to the best of your knowledge?"

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Absolutely."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm

-------------------------

And I'll also add this comment from Dr. Finck's 1978 HSCA session:

DR. PIERRE A. FINCK -- "There were only two wound tracks, one in the
back and one exit, and the front of the throat that is wound track
number one and the second wound track was an entry in the back of the
head with a large exit on the top and right side of the head. Although
there had been rumors that shots came from the front, I did not see
any evidence on the dead body of President Kennedy of wounds of entry
in the front portions of the cadaver."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

-------------------------

In closing this post, it looks like a good time to repeat these
remarks:

"There's no missing skull bone at the back of the head. That's
the key and principal aspect here, and that's because the Parkland
people insisted there was a gaping HOLE in the right-rear of Kennedy's
head -- i.e., there was MISSING SKULL BONE at the BOH. And the X-ray
proves there wasn't.

"Moreover, it's my belief that the X-ray of the right side of
JFK's head proves that there was not nearly enough fracturing
(fragmentation) of the rear part of Kennedy's skull to permit the
Parkland witnesses to be correct about what they said they saw. ....

"The idea that a bullet crashed completely through Jack
Kennedy's right-rear skull and then just kind of pushed the scalp
aside (without doing a bit of damage to that scalp) is something that
doesn't make a bit of logical sense. If such damage was done to the
right-rear of JFK's skull, then surely the scalp on top of that skull
would have shown tell-tale signs of at least SOME damage too. And we
know it does not.

"Plus, Dr. Robert McClelland has always claimed that he was able
to peer straight DOWN into the massive blown-out area of JFK's head at
Parkland Hospital. But that notion is yet another weird aspect of
McClelland's account. Because I'm wondering how he could possibly have
been looking DOWN into a huge cavity that he said was located in the
BACK of Kennedy's head, even though we know that the President was
lying FACE-UP on the stretcher during the entire time Dr. McClelland
was in Trauma Room 1 with JFK? Seems very odd to me.

"And I wonder why that "looking down into the wound" aspect of
McClelland's story doesn't seem odd or contradictory to any of the
conspiracy theorists of the world. But, amazingly, it's not odd to
them at all. ....

"The autopsy photographs and X-rays are things that are written
in stone (so to speak), and those pictures aren't going to change--
ever. And they are providing a reasonable person with all the proof
necessary to conclude that President John F. Kennedy did not have a
large hole in the back part of his head after he was shot and killed
in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963." -- David Von Pein; January
28, 2012

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-18.html

Bud

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 9:00:42 AM2/4/12

to

On Feb 3, 7:46 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:30 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "David, did you find the time to check out all the problems with the autopsy that I gave you?" <<<
>
> > No. But nothing you have said can change the basic facts that are
> > illustrated in the autopsy photos, X-rays, autopsy report, and the
> > Zapruder Film.
>
> Ah! David, I'm glad you finally admitted that you haven't checked
> evidence that would make your wacky theories look even more
> ridiculous.

You retards cling to information that you think gives justification
to create wacky theories. On what grounds do you dismiss the evidence
that he is mentioning? It does have the advantage of being able to be
looked at.

> By not looking into it , you've basically proven that
> that you refuse to look at anything that will disprove your silly
> theory. That way you can go on pretending, at least to yourself,
> that you have some little bit of hope. Sorry I have to pop your
> bubble.

You think the Parkland witnesses gives you the green light to
believe stupid shit.

But lets try this. I say all the Parkland witnesses were coerced
into lying. By your standards I don`t have to show this, I only have
to say it.

> > And I'll repeat this quote again (just for the heck of it):
>
> > "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> > right side of the President's head." -- Jim Humes; 1967
>
> LOL! You mean David, you're repeating it because you have nothing
> else to provide to help your wacky theories...:)

It`s called citing an expert. You should try it.

> Let's have a look at that statement he made to Rather in 1967.
> First, let's look at his summary for the 'official' autopsy report:
> JAMES J. HUMES, MD: JFK's chief autopsy pathologist, he wrote the
> autopsy summary which included the skull wound description, "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."
>
> We've been here before. Parietal means top and rear of skull, and
> temporal and occipital means side and far rear.

No, it doesn`t.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/1127.htm

Likely he is talking about the flap you can see opening in the z-
film.

> That's way back and
> on the right.

Yah, the cracks in the bone of the skull extend to those regions.

> For the HSCA and WC it appears that they accepted the autopsy report
> with the location mentioned above.

The HSCA had experts looking at the evidence, not conspiracy
retards.

> And then the 1967 statement in a video with Rather that was NOT part
> of the famous autopsy that you set so much store by, he said "The exit
> wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the
> President's head."

Here he is talking about the exit. Two different wounds.

> Humes was the only person that ever said that, and he said it only
> that once, and he never said it to any of the many commissions and
> panels that reviewed the medical evidence of this case. David, don't
> you feel foolish bringing up that old video you found with an
> unofficial comment for the media? That 'front' thing was never part
> of any 'official' review or testimony and was never considerd in any
> 'official' way.
>
> Please say you have something material and cogent to try out.
> Hopefully, even interesting.

You aren`t interested in any information that doesn`t fuel your silly
fantasies.

> Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 12:42:23 PM2/4/12

to

On Feb 4, 4:00 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:46 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:30 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "David, did you find the time to check out all the problems with the autopsy that I gave you?" <<<
>
> > > No. But nothing you have said can change the basic facts that are
> > > illustrated in the autopsy photos, X-rays, autopsy report, and the
> > > Zapruder Film.
>
> > Ah! David, I'm glad you finally admitted that you haven't checked
> > evidence that would make your wacky theories look even more
> > ridiculous.
>
> You retards cling to information that you think gives justification
> to create wacky theories. On what grounds do you dismiss the evidence
> that he is mentioning? It does have the advantage of being able to be
> looked at.
>

All evidence presented to David has been real and factual
evidence, with the exception of occasional logic and common sense. I
don't deal in theories like David has been doing, and if you go along
with his wacky theories, he'll take you down into the mud with him.

> > By not looking into it , you've basically proven that
> > that you refuse to look at anything that will disprove your silly
> > theory. That way you can go on pretending, at least to yourself,
> > that you have some little bit of hope. Sorry I have to pop your
> > bubble.
>
> You think the Parkland witnesses gives you the green light to
> believe stupid shit.
>

Lordee! That doesn't seem to make much sense. Parkland witnesses
did not give me anything. They stated what they saw and drew pictures
for the record. We then can examine that record. What's your
problem? All their statements and drawings corroborate each other,
yet David wants us to ignore them, for obvious reason. The autopsy
was dealing with modified data and evidence, which was shown by
comparing the Parkland with the Bethesda data. Not his theories, but
DATA.

> But lets try this. I say all the Parkland witnesses were coerced
> into lying. By your standards I don`t have to show this, I only have
> to say it.
>

That's not my standard, and it makes no sense. David was the one
here that said that all the Parkland people were mistaken. He didn't
back that up with any proof, just stated it. So that fits your idea,
but that's David talking, not me. He discounts anything that goes
against his wacky theories. But you've described one of his methods.

> > > And I'll repeat this quote again (just for the heck of it):
>
> > > "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> > > right side of the President's head." -- Jim Humes; 1967
>
> > LOL! You mean David, you're repeating it because you have nothing
> > else to provide to help your wacky theories...:)
>
> It`s called citing an expert. You should try it.
>

Not much of an expert. He's impeaching himself. His testimony and
his writing of the autopsy report says clearly the large 'defect' was
in the parietal area extending into the temporal and the occipital.
That means top and back of the skull, and extending into the side and
far rear of the skull. Now in the quote, in an interview in 1967, he
pops up with 'front and right side'. What total baloney! He never
said that before or after that interview, and he never said that for
any official panel or commission. Maybe he was drunk or getting old
so he couldn't remember his own testimont and autopsy report.

> > Let's have a look at that statement he made to Rather in 1967.
> > First, let's look at his summary for the 'official' autopsy report:
> > JAMES J. HUMES, MD: JFK's chief autopsy pathologist, he wrote the
> > autopsy summary which included the skull wound description, "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."
>
> > We've been here before. Parietal means top and rear of skull, and
> > temporal and occipital means side and far rear.
>
> No, it doesn`t.
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/1127.htm
>

LOL! Yes, it does mean top and back and right and far back. I
don't know why you show me a picture of a baby's skull, and without
all the parts we're talking about, but try this picture of an adult
skull and see if it helps you out of David's quagmire:
http://tinyurl.com/6ucoha9

If you wake up and look carefully at that picture, you will see the
3 leftmost parts of the adult skull are the ones being named by Humes
in the autopsy report.

> Likely he is talking about the flap you can see opening in the z-
> film.
>

The flap is spoken about by the autopsy prosectors and is in the
photos we've all seen. I son't see your point.

> > That's way back and
> > on the right.
>
> Yah, the cracks in the bone of the skull extend to those regions.
>

Yep, they sure do. And it was stated by Humes that they did some
'reassembly' of the skull fragments for the X-ray picture.

> > For the HSCA and WC it appears that they accepted the autopsy report
> > with the location mentioned above.
>
> The HSCA had experts looking at the evidence, not conspiracy
> retards.
>

Well, I wouldn't say they did the job right. Being experts doesn't
mean you can't be intimidated or make mistakes. Try this little
article and you'll see the extent of the errors made by the HSCA and
the other panels and commissions too.

> > And then the 1967 statement in a video with Rather that was NOT part
> > of the famous autopsy that you set so much store by, he said "The exit
> > wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the
> > President's head."
>
> Here he is talking about the exit. Two different wounds.
>
> > Humes was the only person that ever said that, and he said it only
> > that once, and he never said it to any of the many commissions and
> > panels that reviewed the medical evidence of this case. David, don't
> > you feel foolish bringing up that old video you found with an
> > unofficial comment for the media? That 'front' thing was never part
> > of any 'official' review or testimony and was never considerd in any
> > 'official' way.
>
> > Please say you have something material and cogent to try out.
> > Hopefully, even interesting.
>
> You aren`t interested in any information that doesn`t fuel your silly
> fantasies.
>

Nope. Won't do. I'm an evidence guy. Wither you come up with
evidence, or you're just another DVP with wacky theories.

A important note about the evidence of the X-rays and the photos
that are supposed to match each other; As it turns out, if you check
the X-rays that can stil be found, you can see a huge piece of missing
skull in the front of the head and over and behind the right eye.
When you look at the photos of the head of JFK, without the missing
skull, the head would collapse in that area and it would be obvious.
Why don't the X-rays and photos match? Are the X-rays of someone
else? Has something been fiddled with here?

>
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 2:30:48 PM2/4/12

to

On Feb 4, 3:10 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Please say you have something material and cogent to try out." <<<
>
> ~sigh~
>
> Okay, kook, how about this one from Dr. Baden (who is a person you
> must certainly think is either a huge liar or you must think that he's
> one of the biggest boobs and retards that has ever earned the right to
> be called a "forensic pathologist"):
>
I have no idea of his mental capacity, perhaps he has both problems?
All my references to photos and X-rays will be at this site:
http://jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

> KENNETH KLEIN (HSCA) -- "Are those X-rays consistent with a bullet
> having entered the President's head high on top of the head and passed
> through?"
>
> DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "Yes sir. .... The panel concluded, and all of
> the radiologist consultants with whom the panel spoke with and met
> with, all concluded that without question there is an entrance bullet
> hole on the upper portion of the skull at the area I am pointing to
> where the bone itself has been displaced, and that this corresponds
> precisely with the point in the cowlick area on the overlying skin,

LOL! He's referring to the 'little red spot'!! That's the only thing
at that location based on the autopsy photos! Humes testified that he
didn't know what that was (and he was there looking down at it), maybe
a spot of dried blood or something. We've seen the 'little red spot'
and it isn't anything of importance based on testimonyAlready we now
have evidence that either the speaker is an idiot or he's been told
what he is going to find.

> has the appearance of an entrance wound, that the track of the bullet
> then proceeded from back to front and toward the right causing
> extensive damage to the head. .... That higher perforation...is
> unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly,
> and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the
> entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this
> perforation in the upper scalp skin. .... It is the firm conclusion of
> the panel members...there is no bullet perforation of entrance any
> place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick."
>
And yet Humes and company said they saw one at the rear of the head
above the occipital protuberance! More baloney! But they have also
agreed that there is no other 'perforation' in the skull except the
'little red spot', which invalidates Humes and his idea.

> [...]
>
> DR. BADEN -- "This is a drawing prepared with the panel and Miss Dox
> showing a side view of the President's skull and showing the point
> that the panel agreed was the exit point for the gunshot wound that
> entered the back of the head; this exit perforation is on the right
> front side of the head of the President."
>
Spoken like a trooper! Confusion about the entry point, and now
confusion about the exit point. Humes and the official autopsy report
says the exit point was parietal, temporal and occipital. Top, rear
and side and far rear. Decided by the guys that did the autopsy and
made the report and SAW the body. And I wonder how big is a
'perforation'? LOL! There's supposed to be a huge hole for the exit.
A 'perforation' sounds like a bullet entrance wound. Can you picture
a 'perforation' 6 inches across? :))
>
> MR. KLEIN -- "Do the diagrams fairly and accurately represent the path
> of the bullet which entered high on the back of the President's head
> and exited from the right side of the head toward the front?"
>
> DR. BADEN -- "Yes, sir."
>
Completely dissecting Humes there who saw the body, like the
medically trained Parkland personnel...:) But giving the party line
as ordered.

> [...]
>
> DR. BADEN -- "...And the bullet path proceeding forward causing
> extensive fractures of the skull bones on the right and then exiting
> the right front area."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscabadn.htm
>
What a shame. We've seen the photos from the autopsy and there
isn't any exit wound in the head that is in 'front' of anything. Of
course, the skull in the X-rays shows that, but the X-rays don't match
the photos, so one of the other has to be eliminated and can't be
trusted. There may have been an effort to bring into play the
fragment of bone hinged forward from the right ear from one photo, but
if they swung it backward into place, it would be 'temporal' and not
'frontal'. That means the side, which ain't front.

> -----------------------
>
> And Baden said this to author Vincent Bugliosi:
>
> "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
> other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
> Michael Baden; January 8, 2000
>
I'm not interested in any quotes from Bugliosi. He has proven
himself a liar right here while reviewing testimony vs. his writing,
which didn't match.

> -----------------------
>
> And there are also these observations made by the four-member Clark
> Panel in 1968:
>
> "The decedent's head was struck from behind [by] a single
> projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the
> midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The
> projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving
> a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to
> explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it
> emerged from the head.
>
Wait! Wait! Wait! We just heard above that the entry was the
'little red spot'! Now it's entered the occiput? That's far low on
the back of the skull at the lower rear. And previously they said
there was NO other hole of entrance in the skull except the 'little
red spot' at the cowlick (spiral whorl). Now a hole has appeared?
How can we trust these people? They're just saying anything to
validate the 'official' story with no common or logic involved. Maybe
they think folks won't check them out carefully. On top of that,
there is also extreme doubt about the 'fine metallic debris. UIt was
found on one X-ray and not on others. One panel finally decided not
to depend on that 'debris' because of that.

> "In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that there is no
> evidence of projectile fragments in the left cerebral tissues or in
> the right cerebral hemisphere below a horizontal plane passing through
> the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull.
>
> "Also, although the fractures of the calvarium extend to the
> left of the midline and into the anterior and middle fossa of the
> skull, no bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either
> entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of
> the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable
> to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction
> other than that described above. ....
>
Considering all the silly postulations previously, I wouldn't depend
on that statement.

> "The decedent was wounded by two bullets, both of which entered
> his body from behind. One bullet struck the back of the decedent's
> head well above the external occipital protuberance. .... This bullet
> fragmented after entering the cranium, one major piece of it passing
> forward and laterally to produce an explosive fracture of the right
> side of the skull as it emerged from the head.
>
Given the position of JFK at the entry of the kill shot, if the
bullet had entered "well above the external protuberance" (back of
the head, behind the curve) and it exited on the "right side of the
skull", picturing that path would put the shooter on the opposite side
of Dealey Plaza, well away from the TSBD and far lower than the 6th
floor. Maybe they didn't have any spatial perception.

> "The absence of metallic fragments in the left cerebral
> hemisphere or below the level of the frontal fossa on the right side
> together with the absence of any holes in it, the skull to the left of
> the midline or in its base and the absence of any penetrating injury
> of the left hemisphere, eliminate with reasonable certainty the
> possibility of a projectile having passed through the head in any
> direction other than from back to front as described in preceding
> sections of this report. ....
>
Of course, we've left out 'from side to rear'...:)

> "Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays
> taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two
> bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the
> base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other
> of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side."
> -- Clark Panel Report; 1968
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
>
Given all the errors along the way, it's a surprise they could decide
anything.
> -----------------------
>
> Allow me to emphasize the following portions of the Clark Panel report
> quoted above:
>
> "The decedent's head was struck from behind [by] a single
> projectile."
>
> "It [the "single projectile"] entered the occipital region 25 mm
> to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital
> protuberance."
>
> "The projectile fragmented on entering the skull...explosively
> fractur[ing] the RIGHT FRONTAL and parietal bones as it emerged from
> the head." [DVP's emphasis.]
>
If that were true, and the X-rays show that a huge piece of skull
is missing there, then the head and right eye would have collapsed
into the head for lack of skull support! The brain was seen to be
less than half size by the time they got it out through the hole under
the scalp flap, so that couldn't support the forehead and face. And
of course, we've again got a confusion, since Humes says differently
about the exit wound in the 'official' autopsy report.

> "No bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either
> entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of
> the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable
> to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction
> other than that described above."
>
Sure it is...:)

> "One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above
> the external occipital protuberance."
>
> "...Eliminate with reasonable certainty the possibility of a
> projectile having passed through the head in any direction other than
> from back to front."
>
> "President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above
> and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the
> right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the
> skull from behind and exploded its right side."
>
Nice that all these statements are there, but what do they prove?
Who said them? Where is the text from? Cancel the bunch of 'em.

> -------------------------
>
> Let's now move on to Dr. Humes' HSCA testimony:
>
> MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and
> only one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did
> enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those
> three points, to the best of your knowledge?"
>
> DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Absolutely."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm
>
LOL! He's just contradicted his own autopsy report! Which said
top, rear and side and far rear...:)
> -------------------------
>
> And I'll also add this comment from Dr. Finck's 1978 HSCA session:
>
> DR. PIERRE A. FINCK -- "There were only two wound tracks, one in the
> back and one exit, and the front of the throat that is wound track
> number one and the second wound track was an entry in the back of the
> head with a large exit on the top and right side of the head. Although
> there had been rumors that shots came from the front, I did not see
> any evidence on the dead body of President Kennedy of wounds of entry
> in the front portions of the cadaver."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm
>
Nice, but other testimony said that the bullets were full jacketed,
and if they only hit his fleshy tissue, the bullet wouldn't deform and
would go straight through...in either direction. Front to back is
just as possible. From the throat through the body to the exit wound
in the back. If the bullet didn't hit anything solid, it could keep
it's spin and not tumble and make a bigger exit hole. The slightly
downward direction might have been actually level if JFK was slightly
hunched down, but he was up and waving to the crowds. so the shooter
might have been slightly elevated. The GK would be perfect for that
bullet path. The TSBD 6th floor is quite a stretch and the panels had
a lot of trouble trying to find a picture that didn't look too stupid
to show the path through the body. Like exhibit 388, for instance.

> -------------------------
>
> In closing this post, it looks like a good time to repeat these
> remarks:
>
> "There's no missing skull bone at the back of the head. That's
> the key and principal aspect here, and that's because the Parkland
> people insisted there was a gaping HOLE in the right-rear of Kennedy's
> head -- i.e., there was MISSING SKULL BONE at the BOH. And the X-ray
> proves there wasn't.
>
Whoops! David, stop making things up! You said that the X-ray
proves that there wasn't any missing skull fragments at the rear of
the skull, and I agreed in the past with that completely. However, I
made it clear for you that the skull flap (that Boswell spoke of and
described) was hanging down and back in some of the pictures and would
therefore cover the fragment of skull that was attached to it. As
Boswell said, when the flap was hanging down, you could see the large
hole in the skull, and when it was up, you couldn't. You have to
listen, but also use your head with this stuff.

> "Moreover, it's my belief that the X-ray of the right side of
> JFK's head proves that there was not nearly enough fracturing
> (fragmentation) of the rear part of Kennedy's skull to permit the
> Parkland witnesses to be correct about what they said they saw. ....
>
More baloney in an attempt to invalidate all Parkland medical
personnel, becasue what they saw was more honest to the case than what
happened at the autopsy. The Parkland information could easily make a
shooter from the front a solid possibility, so it had to be
discredited, just like David is trying (and failing ) to do.

> "The idea that a bullet crashed completely through Jack
> Kennedy's right-rear skull and then just kind of pushed the scalp
> aside (without doing a bit of damage to that scalp) is something that
> doesn't make a bit of logical sense. If such damage was done to the
> right-rear of JFK's skull, then surely the scalp on top of that skull
> would have shown tell-tale signs of at least SOME damage too. And we
> know it does not.
>
Absolutely false. Here we go again with attempts to confuse the
issue by pretending not to be able to understand a simple situation.
You tried this ploy a while back in the siscussion andit didn't work
then either. I will try to speak in junior level words of 2 syllables
or less this time. Dr. Boswell spoke of the flap and that it was
attached to the rest of the scalp, but was hanging down or could be
held up in it's more normal place. A bullet coming through the head
could (with great pressure from speed) push out the piece of skull
leaving it attached to the scalp and forcing the scalp to flop
backward and down, but be mainly intact. While the scalp is basically
undamaged, it has a tear partly around the hole in the skull spoken of
by the Parkland ER team, and described by Dr. Boswell. Now back to
normal multi-syllable words. I hope you were paying attention this
time. You're not worth explaining things to if you don't listen to
anything but your own voice.

> "Plus, Dr. Robert McClelland has always claimed that he was able
> to peer straight DOWN into the massive blown-out area of JFK's head at
> Parkland Hospital. But that notion is yet another weird aspect of
> McClelland's account. Because I'm wondering how he could possibly have
> been looking DOWN into a huge cavity that he said was located in the
> BACK of Kennedy's head, even though we know that the President was
> lying FACE-UP on the stretcher during the entire time Dr. McClelland
> was in Trauma Room 1 with JFK? Seems very odd to me.
>
Yes, I suspect the truth may look confusing to you, but I'm here to
help you through it. Do you think McClelland moved into a position at
the head and simply stood there rigid and unmoving? Do you think he
never moved a bit to one side or the other in doing his part with the
equipment? Just coming into the room would allow anyone to see the
hanging down of the skull flap and the brain matter hanging out,
pointing out the perimeter of the hole. And with brains coming out,
there had to be a hole, yes? So it's perfectly sensible for him to
see what he said (and all the other medical personnel agree with
him).

> "And I wonder why that "looking down into the wound" aspect of
> McClelland's story doesn't seem odd or contradictory to any of the
> conspiracy theorists of the world. But, amazingly, it's not odd to
> them at all. ....
>
Maybe they have the same ability that the average person has to see
that it could be done if he wasn't forced to stand rigidly in one
place. And how far back or forward was the head tilted while they
were working? No theory here, just common sense and evidence and
data. Just as easy to ask how the foolish HSCA panel made the
mistrake and thought a 'little red spot' that Humes said was nothing,
was actually the entry wound...:))

> "The autopsy photographs and X-rays are things that are written
> in stone (so to speak), and those pictures aren't going to change--
> ever. And they are providing a reasonable person with all the proof
> necessary to conclude that President John F. Kennedy did not have a
> large hole in the back part of his head after he was shot and killed
> in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963." -- David Von Pein; January
> 28, 2012
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-18.html

Indeed, so true that they won't ever change. So the falsities
embodied in them will always be there for us to look over and scoff
at. DVP has just tied himself to those X-rays and now will ignore any
evidence showing them to be false. But It's still our job to speak
the evidence and let him squirm.

As noted before, the X-rays (not just one of them) show a huge
piece of skull missing over the and behind the right eye. If those
were the right X-rays, trhen the photos of the head would show the
right forehead and eye collapsing into the head without support of the
skull. As also noted, there wasn't ewnough brain left to support the
forehead.

Now trhat we have waded through all this testimony and these panels
and commissions and such, even though I've provided a rebuttal to all
of it, there's an even better rebuttal to all panels and commissions
here:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

The above articles will demolish any scrap of belief in those
panels for the average person. The diehards are in there own world
and have some other reason for pursuing the covering up of the truth
from the American people.

Chris

Bud

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 2:50:57 PM2/4/12

to

On Feb 4, 7:42 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 4:00 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 7:46 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 8:30 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "David, did you find the time to check out all the problems with the autopsy that I gave you?" <<<
>
> > > > No. But nothing you have said can change the basic facts that are
> > > > illustrated in the autopsy photos, X-rays, autopsy report, and the
> > > > Zapruder Film.
>
> > > Ah! David, I'm glad you finally admitted that you haven't checked
> > > evidence that would make your wacky theories look even more
> > > ridiculous.
>
> > You retards cling to information that you think gives justification
> > to create wacky theories. On what grounds do you dismiss the evidence
> > that he is mentioning? It does have the advantage of being able to be
> > looked at.
>
> All evidence presented to David has been real and factual
> evidence, with the exception of occasional logic and common sense.

<snicker>

> I
> don't deal in theories like David has been doing, and if you go along
> with his wacky theories, he'll take you down into the mud with him.

The "wacky theory" that Kennedy was shot from behind? Where the
rifle that matched the fragments found in the limo was located. Where
people said they saw someone shooting? Where three spent shells were
found after many many witnesses attested to three shots? The "wacky
theories" attested to by one forensic expert after another?

> > > By not looking into it , you've basically proven that
> > > that you refuse to look at anything that will disprove your silly
> > > theory. That way you can go on pretending, at least to yourself,
> > > that you have some little bit of hope. Sorry I have to pop your
> > > bubble.
>
> > You think the Parkland witnesses gives you the green light to
> > believe stupid shit.
>
> Lordee! That doesn't seem to make much sense.

It does. It`s your approach to information that doesn`t.

> Parkland witnesses
> did not give me anything. They stated what they saw and drew pictures
> for the record. We then can examine that record.

And see that it is overruled by stronger, harder evidence.

> What's your
> problem? All their statements and drawings corroborate each other,
> yet David wants us to ignore them, for obvious reason.

They`re wrong.

> The autopsy
> was dealing with modified data and evidence, which was shown by
> comparing the Parkland with the Bethesda data.

Parkland wasn`t compiling "data" on the wounds, retard, that the
point. The autopsy does that.

And Kennedy`s physician was at both places and said the wounds were
the same both places.

> Not his theories, but
> DATA.

Witness supplied information is not "data", retard.

> > But lets try this. I say all the Parkland witnesses were coerced
> > into lying. By your standards I don`t have to show this, I only have
> > to say it.
>
> That's not my standard, and it makes no sense.

It is your standard, and it doesn`t make sense.

> David was the one
> here that said that all the Parkland people were mistaken.

Why aren`t you addressing what I said? The theory I advanced was
that all the Parkland witnesses were coerced into the information they
gave, probably by the conspiracy industry. My theory explains why so
many attested to a large wound in the back of Kennedy`s head.

> He didn't
> back that up with any proof, just stated it. So that fits your idea,
> but that's David talking, not me. He discounts anything that goes
> against his wacky theories. But you've described one of his methods.
>
> > > > And I'll repeat this quote again (just for the heck of it):
>
> > > > "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
> > > > right side of the President's head." -- Jim Humes; 1967
>
> > > LOL! You mean David, you're repeating it because you have nothing
> > > else to provide to help your wacky theories...:)
>
> > It`s called citing an expert. You should try it.
>
> Not much of an expert.

No, you are not. Other experts confirmed Hume`s assessment that
Kennedy was shot from the above rear, though.

> He's impeaching himself. His testimony and
> his writing of the autopsy report says clearly the large 'defect' was
> in the parietal area extending into the temporal and the occipital.
> That means top and back of the skull,

You keep saying this is what it means. Produce some support that
that is what it means.

> and extending into the side and
> far rear of the skull. Now in the quote, in an interview in 1967, he
> pops up with 'front and right side'. What total baloney! He never
> said that before or after that interview, and he never said that for
> any official panel or commission. Maybe he was drunk or getting old
> so he couldn't remember his own testimont and autopsy report.
>
> > > Let's have a look at that statement he made to Rather in 1967.
> > > First, let's look at his summary for the 'official' autopsy report:
> > > JAMES J. HUMES, MD: JFK's chief autopsy pathologist, he wrote the
> > > autopsy summary which included the skull wound description, "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."
>
> > > We've been here before. Parietal means top and rear of skull, and
> > > temporal and occipital means side and far rear.
>
> > No, it doesn`t.
>
> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/1127.htm
>
> LOL! Yes, it does mean top and back and right and far back. I
> don't know why you show me a picture of a baby's skull, and without
> all the parts we're talking about, but try this picture of an adult
> skull and see if it helps you out of David's quagmire:http://tinyurl.com/6ucoha9

Why the exploded view? Heres one dumbed down to your level...

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/skull.html

It shows that the Pariental extends all the way forward of the ears
to the temple area. Is this the back of the head? Is it Hume`s fault
you are ignorant about anatomy?

> If you wake up and look carefully at that picture, you will see the
> 3 leftmost parts of the adult skull are the ones being named by Humes
> in the autopsy report.

Chiefly in the Partiental. Right where you can see the flap open up
in Kennedy`s head in the z-film.

> > Likely he is talking about the flap you can see opening in the z-
> > film.
>
> The flap is spoken about by the autopsy prosectors and is in the
> photos we've all seen. I son't see your point.

In the Hume`s quote you cited he was talking about where the bullet
exited, he was talking about the flap.

> > > That's way back and
> > > on the right.
>
> > Yah, the cracks in the bone of the skull extend to those regions.
>
> Yep, they sure do. And it was stated by Humes that they did some
> 'reassembly' of the skull fragments for the X-ray picture.

Because that is what would tell them where the bullet entered and
exited, retard. A bunch of pieces laying around aren`t that useful.

> > > For the HSCA and WC it appears that they accepted the autopsy report
> > > with the location mentioned above.
>
> > The HSCA had experts looking at the evidence, not conspiracy
> > retards.
>
> Well, I wouldn't say they did the job right.

Of course not, they reaffirmed the autopsy that Kennedy was shot
from a higher elevation from the rear, and that is of no use to your
retard fantasies.

> Being experts doesn't
> mean you can't be intimidated or make mistakes.

Yah, they want to ruin their reputation and career to lie in a
report that will be widely published,examined, discussed and
scrutinized. These are free men, they can just not take the job. But
your ideas require you to reach for the fantastic time and time again.
Your infantile mind has created a government that can do anything at
any time, and make anyone say what it requires. Of course such an
ominpotent, all powerful, all knowing entity as that could have just
anticipated where Kennedy was going to be taken and "arranged" for the
doctors to say anything they required. In fact, they could have killed
Kennedy any number of easier ways with the snap of their fingers, have
an SS agent snap his neck and say he fell down some White House steps,
or poison him and just have the autopsy say he died of a heart attack.
Since your ideas require a government that can do anything, why did
they opt to kill Kennedy from the front and frame someone behind him?
Were they just showing off?

> Try this little
> article and you'll see the extent of the errors made by the HSCA and
> the other panels and commissions too.

Monday morning quarterbacking. Criticizing what was done doesn`t
help your ideas, you need to show a conspiracy. You see your dismal
failure to do this as encouraging.

> > > And then the 1967 statement in a video with Rather that was NOT part
> > > of the famous autopsy that you set so much store by, he said "The exit
> > > wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the
> > > President's head."
>
> > Here he is talking about the exit. Two different wounds.
>
> > > Humes was the only person that ever said that, and he said it only
> > > that once, and he never said it to any of the many commissions and
> > > panels that reviewed the medical evidence of this case. David, don't
> > > you feel foolish bringing up that old video you found with an
> > > unofficial comment for the media? That 'front' thing was never part
> > > of any 'official' review or testimony and was never considerd in any
> > > 'official' way.

>
> > > Please say you have something material and cogent to try out.

> > > Hopefully, even interesting.
>
> > You aren`t interested in any information that doesn`t fuel your silly
> > fantasies.
>
> Nope. Won't do. I'm an evidence guy.

No, you are a retard.

> Wither you come up with
> evidence, or you're just another DVP with wacky theories.

He has been citing the evidence, retard.

> A important note about the evidence of the X-rays and the photos
> that are supposed to match each other; As it turns out, if you check
> the X-rays that can stil be found, you can see a huge piece of missing
> skull in the front of the head and over and behind the right eye.
> When you look at the photos of the head of JFK, without the missing
> skull, the head would collapse in that area and it would be obvious.

Your expectations aren`t evidence, retard.

> Why don't the X-rays and photos match?

What expert says they don`t?

> Are the X-rays of someone
> else?

What expert says it isn`t?

> Has something been fiddled with here?

Just retards on the case.

>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 3:57:39 PM2/4/12

to

>>> "I don't deal in theories like David has been doing, and if you go along with his wacky theories, he'll take you down into the mud with him." <<<

What "wacky theories" do you keep insisting I'm making up?

Every investigation has indicated that THERE WAS NO HOLE IN THE BACK
OF JFK'S HEAD. You, OTOH, will still insist there was a big BOH hole,
even though none of the autopsy pics or the Z-Film show this.

You're an idiot.

>>> "DVP has just tied himself to those X-rays and now will ignore any evidence showing them to be false." <<<

So, now you want to say that the X-rays are "false" (i.e., fake)? Is
that correct? Last week you were arguing that the X-rays confirm your
"Big Hole In The BOH" claptrap.

Which is it -- Fake X-rays or legit X-rays?

>>> "But it's still our job to speak the evidence and let him squirm." <<<

You mean kooks like yourself, Gil Jesus, Rob Caprio, Ben Holmes, Sam
McClung, Jim DiEugenio, and Walt Cakebread? Is that the "our" you want
to be a part of?

Poor Chris.

Let me repeat a 2007 quote made by Gil Jesus (who just might be part
of the mob of kooks whom Chris believes are speaking the truth
regarding JFK's death):

"Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful
Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or
less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together
with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right
front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate
a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car. Let's
also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3 feet from
the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to have
carried a gun strapped to his ankle. Think about it." -- Gil Jesus;
07/15/07

Poor Chris. Unfortunately, he's on the same side of the kook fence as
a man who thinks it's possible that Governor Connally just might have
whipped out a pistol from an ankle holster and killed JFK. That's
gotta be kinda depressing.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 4:11:38 PM2/4/12

to

>>> "I'm not interested in any quotes from Bugliosi. He has proven himself a liar..." <<<

I didn't give you a quote from Bugliosi there. I provided a direct
quote from Dr. Baden. This quote:

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

Is it your contention that Bugliosi just made up that January 2000
Baden quote that appears in "Reclaiming History"? Vince just decided
to put those words into Baden's mouth? Is that it?

aeffects

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 5:41:46 PM2/4/12

to

On Feb 4, 7:57 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the composite troll-DavidVon Pein lunacy>

you appear exorcised laddie.... servicing those 150 blogs, 200
websites, 50,000+ USENET posts of yours finally getting to ya?

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:02:41 PM2/4/12

to

Hmm. Very interesting. I put a link in for folks to view showing
the many failures of the commissions and panels that overviewed the
autopsy and medical evidence, and it disappeared from the thread in
this post. It's OK though, I'll just put it back here. Wouldn't want
people to miss the show of the fumbling panels trying to force a
foregone conclusion...:)

------------- between the lines --------------
Now that we have waded through all this testimony and these panels

and commissions and such, even though I've provided a rebuttal to
all
of it, there's an even better rebuttal to all panels and commissions
here:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5I...

The above articles will demolish any scrap of belief in those
panels for the average person. The diehards are in there own world
and have some other reason for pursuing the covering up of the truth
from the American people.

Other useful links for the uninitiated are here. Compare the
drawings and statements between the Parkland medical team and then the
Bethesda autopsy team:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Erasing these is a childish act of those trying to cover information
that invalidates their arguments, but I have a copy of them and can
put them back easily now.
--------------------------------------------------------

Bud, I see now that you finally found a decent picture of an adult
skull. If you really are questioning the definition of parietal,
temporal and occipital, you're not helpless. Look it up like I did,
and if you find my usage to be wrong, post it with the proof.
Otherwise I have to assume you've got nothing much to discuss and just
want me to spin my wheels instead of embarassing David, who by now
must be your pal. And while we're on it, I looked through your almost
word by word complaints about my post and find nothing new that you
can't get answered from going through the thread David and I have been
using to discuss the case.

Good Luck,
Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:37:56 PM2/4/12

to

On Feb 4, 10:57 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I don't deal in theories like David has been doing, and if you go along with his wacky theories, he'll take you down into the mud with him." <<<
>
> What "wacky theories" do you keep insisting I'm making up?
>

David, Favid...that has al been explained to you many times. Try to
use your mind, these aren't hard questions or information.

> Every investigation has indicated that THERE WAS NO HOLE IN THE BACK
> OF JFK'S HEAD. You, OTOH, will still insist there was a big BOH hole,
> even though none of the autopsy pics or the Z-Film show this.

Over and over. You're not reading my replies to you on that
question you keep asking. If you don't like my answers, then get into
the detail and say why you think my answer isn't valid. Now, I'm
going to explain it to you all over again, as simply as I can. Try to
stay with me this time, and then reply with your questions or comments
after.

I myself don't say there was a hole in the BOH. I listened to the
medically trained personnel at Parkland and at Bethesda, and I'm
repeating what they said. They spoke of the 'right -rear' of the
head. The autopsy photos and X-rays agree with the personnel at both
institutions as well, as far as the BOH or the 'right-rear'. I have
taken you through the X-ray that you kept throwing up step by step to
show you where the BOH hole was, which fits the drawings that the
Parkland and Bethesda people drew. I did not point out at that time
how false that X-ray was based on the silly huge amount of skull
missing at the front of that skull behind and over the eye and
forehead. I was more concerned with showing you where the hole was
located before they 'reassembled' the skull for the picture. Now, if
you need further training in this simple task, the best I can
recommend is to go back through the thread and follow along the many
times I've had to take you through this stuff.

>
> You're an idiot.
>
LOL! You must be running out of intelligent things to say, if
that's all you can come up with. Perhjaps your training Bud to take
over for you? :)

> >>> "DVP has just tied himself to those X-rays and now will ignore any evidence showing them to be false." <<<
>
> So, now you want to say that the X-rays are "false" (i.e., fake)? Is
> that correct? Last week you were arguing that the X-rays confirm your
> "Big Hole In The BOH" claptrap.
>
> Which is it -- Fake X-rays or legit X-rays?
>

Welp, if you look at the rear of the skull, they prove the case for
the 'right-rear' hole in the skull, but if you look at the front of
the skull in the X-ray, either someone has manipulated the X-ray, or
it's someone else's X-ray. Note that the huge amount of missing skull
above and behind the forehead and right eye would leave the photos
looking ridiculous with the forehead and eye caved in with no support
behind them. And the testimony was that there was less than half a
brain after they got it out onto the table for pictures (through the
large hole), so the brain wasn't able to support the forehead either.
I would really be interested in you telling me the answer to that
problem.

> >>> "But it's still our job to speak the evidence and let him squirm." <<<
>
> You mean kooks like yourself, Gil Jesus, Rob Caprio, Ben Holmes, Sam
> McClung, Jim DiEugenio, and Walt Cakebread? Is that the "our" you want
> to be a part of?
>
> Poor Chris.
>

LOL! You list the people that don't believe as you do, and it's
such a large list next to the list of your few meager supporters, it's
almost sad.

> Let me repeat a 2007 quote made by Gil Jesus (who just might be part
> of the mob of kooks whom Chris believes are speaking the truth
> regarding JFK's death):
>
> "Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful
> Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or
> less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together
> with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right
> front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate
> a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car. Let's
> also not forget that Johnson's man Connally was less than 3 feet from
> the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to have
> carried a gun strapped to his ankle. Think about it." -- Gil Jesus;
> 07/15/07
>
> Poor Chris. Unfortunately, he's on the same side of the kook fence as
> a man who thinks it's possible that Governor Connally just might have
> whipped out a pistol from an ankle holster and killed JFK. That's
> gotta be kinda depressing.

Nope. It's a free country. Gil Jesus has as much right to peddle
his ideas as you do. It's not a black and white situation where you
have to be on oneside or the other, it's a wide spectrum of different
beliefs, ideas and interprtation of the evidence, including an
interpretation of human goals and agendas too.
-------------------------------
For new folks, check out these two pages and see the differences in
the statements abd drawings of the medical personnel at both places:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

It's also to follow along with us as we discuss the autopsy and the
many panels and commissiions that tried to force a conclusion form the
testimony.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm
------------------------------

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:45:06 PM2/4/12

to

David, please, please try to use your head. If Baden is being
quoted through Bugliosi, then I'm not interested. I believe that
Bubliosoi would use it improperly to make his point.

To answer you, was Baden in the ER at Parkland? Or at the autopsy
at Bethesda? Otherwise he is just getting his info from the same
place we are. The 'upper right part of the head' could cover a lot of
room, including the 'little red spot'. What position do you mean to
ask about?

Had you considered that at one point in the many investigations
Humes wasn't even sure where the entrance wound was, but he was sure
that it wasn't the 'little red spot'.

Let me know when you know where you want me to picture the entry
wound and I'll give you my answer.

Chris

Bud

unread,

Feb 4, 2012, 11:54:49 PM2/4/12

to

No, it didn`t. You are just a dope.

> It's OK though, I'll just put it back here. Wouldn't want
> people to miss the show of the fumbling panels trying to force a
> foregone conclusion...:)
>
> ------------- between the lines --------------
> Now that we have waded through all this testimony and these panels
> and commissions and such, even though I've provided a rebuttal to
> all
> of it, there's an even better rebuttal to all panels and commissions
> here:http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5I...

Some conspiracy retard has assembled a raft for other retards to
cling to in their desperate desire to believe a conspiracy took
Kennedy`s life.

> The above articles will demolish any scrap of belief in those
> panels for the average person. The diehards are in there own world
> and have some other reason for pursuing the covering up of the truth
> from the American people.
>
> Other useful links for the uninitiated are here. Compare the
> drawings and statements between the Parkland medical team and then the

> Bethesda autopsy team:http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

>
> Erasing these is a childish act of those trying to cover information
> that invalidates their arguments, but I have a copy of them and can
> put them back easily now.

I didn`t take them out, you idiot. Here is the original post I
responded to...

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c6b7ab3205b87729

Do you see those links in that post, paranoid retard?

> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bud, I see now that you finally found a decent picture of an adult
> skull. If you really are questioning the definition of parietal,
> temporal and occipital, you're not helpless.

I`m not questioning anything, I was correcting you misrepresentation
of "pariental" as being in the rear. The image I linked to showed you
are wrong, doesn`t it stupid?

> Look it up like I did,
> and if you find my usage to be wrong, post it with the proof.

No, idiot, you made the claim, you have to show support for it.

> Otherwise I have to assume you've got nothing much to discuss and just
> want me to spin my wheels instead of embarassing David, who by now
> must be your pal.

I just pop in on occasion to spank you for being a bad retard.

> And while we're on it, I looked through your almost
> word by word complaints about my post and find nothing new that you
> can't get answered from going through the thread David and I have been
> using to discuss the case.

I thought David was allowing you to enjoy being stupid too much. I
don`t think you enjoy give and take with me very much.

> Good Luck,
> Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 5:50:56 AM2/5/12

to

>>> "If Baden is being quoted through Bugliosi, then I'm not interested. I believe that Bubliosoi would use it improperly to make his point." <<<

We're not talking about a paraphrased statement. It was a direct quote
from Baden with quotation marks around it and a source date for the
telephone call (1/8/2000).

So, do you think Bugliosi just made up that quote attributed to Baden?

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 11:54:02 AM2/5/12

to

On Feb 4, 6:45 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "I'm not interested in any quotes from Bugliosi. He has proven himself a liar..." <<<
>
> > I didn't give you a quote from Bugliosi there. I provided a direct
> > quote from Dr. Baden. This quote:
>

I understood that, but he has used something someone said, and has
messed with it in the past (throat wound), and I don't trust him to do
it again.

> > "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
> > other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
> > Michael Baden; January 8, 2000
>
> > Is it your contention that Bugliosi just made up that January 2000
> > Baden quote that appears in "Reclaiming History"? Vince just decided
> > to put those words into Baden's mouth? Is that it?
>
> David, please, please try to use your head. If Baden is being
> quoted through Bugliosi, then I'm not interested. I believe that

> Bugliosi would use it improperly to make his point.

>
> To answer you, was Baden in the ER at Parkland? Or at the autopsy
> at Bethesda? Otherwise he is just getting his info from the same
> place we are. The 'upper right part of the head' could cover a lot of
> room, including the 'little red spot'. What position do you mean to
> ask about?
>
> Had you considered that at one point in the many investigations
> Humes wasn't even sure where the entrance wound was, but he was sure

> that it wasn't the 'little red spot'?

>
> Let me know when you know where you want me to picture the entry
> wound and I'll give you my answer.
>

You might want to deal with the questions I asked in this post now.

-------------------------------
For new folks, check out these two pages and see the differences in
the statements abd drawings of the medical personnel at both places:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

It's also to follow along with us as we discuss the autopsy and the
many panels and commissiions that tried to force a conclusion form
the
testimony.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5I...
------------------------------

Chris

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 12:15:30 PM2/5/12

to

> > Bethesda autopsy team:http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp...

>
> > Erasing these is a childish act of those trying to cover information
> > that invalidates their arguments, but I have a copy of them and can
> > put them back easily now.
>
> I didn`t take them out, you idiot. Here is the original post I
> responded to...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c6b7ab3205b87729
>
> Do you see those links in that post, paranoid retard?
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Bud, I see now that you finally found a decent picture of an adult
> > skull. If you really are questioning the definition of parietal,
> > temporal and occipital, you're not helpless.
>
> I`m not questioning anything, I was correcting you misrepresentation
> of "pariental" as being in the rear. The image I linked to showed you
> are wrong, doesn`t it stupid?
>
> > Look it up like I did,
> > and if you find my usage to be wrong, post it with the proof.
>
> No, idiot, you made the claim, you have to show support for it.
>

OK. Obviously you're too lazy, so lay there in front of your TV and
I'll take care of it. Here is the definition from:
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/parietal%20bone
-----
Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
parietal bone

▶noun a bone forming the central side and upper back part of each side
of the skull.
-----

As you can see, the parietal includes the side and 'upper back
part'. But any fool could look at the picture of the parietal as
described in medical pictures and see that the parietal includes the
top ,sides and back of the skull. Just look at the picture and stop
picking nits. The parietal clearly goes around to the back of the
skull and down to the occiput.
http://tinyurl.com/79o72n4

> I've got to assume you've got nothing much to discuss and just

> > want me to spin my wheels instead of embarassing David, who by now
> > must be your pal.
>
> I just pop in on occasion to spank you for being a bad retard.
>
> > And while we're on it, I looked through your almost
> > word by word complaints about my post and find nothing new that you
> > can't get answered from going through the thread David and I have been
> > using to discuss the case.
>
> I thought David was allowing you to enjoy being stupid too much. I
> don`t think you enjoy give and take with me very much.>

There's too much low class insults and whining complaints. Not
worth unsheathing the sword.

-------------
Now that we have waded through all this testimony and these
panels
and commissions and such, even though I've provided a rebuttal to
all of it, there's an even better rebuttal to all panels and
commissions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5I...

> The above articles will demolish any scrap of belief in those
> panels for the average person. The diehards are in there own world
> and have some other reason for pursuing the covering up of the truth
> from the American people.

> Other useful links for the uninitiated are here. Compare the
> drawings and statements between the Parkland medical team and then the
> Bethesda autopsy team:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp...
----------------------

Chris

Bud

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 12:16:33 PM2/5/12

to

On Feb 5, 6:54 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 6:45 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Feb 4, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "I'm not interested in any quotes from Bugliosi. He has proven himself a liar..." <<<
>
> > > I didn't give you a quote from Bugliosi there. I provided a direct
> > > quote from Dr. Baden. This quote:
>
> I understood that, but he has used something someone said, and has
> messed with it in the past (throat wound), and I don't trust him to do
> it again.

Retards will use any excuse to disregard information they don`t
like.

> > > "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
> > > other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." --
> > > Michael Baden; January 8, 2000
>
> > > Is it your contention that Bugliosi just made up that January 2000
> > > Baden quote that appears in "Reclaiming History"? Vince just decided
> > > to put those words into Baden's mouth? Is that it?
>
> > David, please, please try to use your head. If Baden is being
> > quoted through Bugliosi, then I'm not interested. I believe that
> > Bugliosi would use it improperly to make his point.
>
> > To answer you, was Baden in the ER at Parkland? Or at the autopsy
> > at Bethesda? Otherwise he is just getting his info from the same
> > place we are. The 'upper right part of the head' could cover a lot of
> > room, including the 'little red spot'. What position do you mean to
> > ask about?
>
> > Had you considered that at one point in the many investigations
> > Humes wasn't even sure where the entrance wound was, but he was sure
> > that it wasn't the 'little red spot'?
>
> > Let me know when you know where you want me to picture the entry
> > wound and I'll give you my answer.
>
> You might want to deal with the questions I asked in this post now.
>
> -------------------------------
> For new folks, check out these two pages and see the differences in
> the statements abd drawings of the medical personnel at both places:
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htmhttp://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

It might help if your read the accompanying articles on Seaton`s
site instead of just looking at the pictures. You might actually learn
something.

> It's also to follow along with us as we discuss the autopsy and the
> many panels and commissiions that tried to force a conclusion form
> the
> testimony.http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5I...

And it might help if we put this discussion into the proper context.
Retards have been desperately looking for justifications for the
stupid things they want to believe everywhere in this case. They think
they see these justifications everywhere they look, but it is only
their bias and desperation to believe that Kennedy was killed by a
conspiracy that fuels all this activity with predictable results,
nothing more. But consider this, not one of these retards became a
conspiracy kook because they looked at the medical evidence and it
didn`t add up. Not one. The motivating force to scrutinize the medical
evidence was bias and desperation to find justifications for their
fantasies. So that is what they found, at least to their
satisfaction.

> ------------------------------
>
> Chris
>
> Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 12:32:26 PM2/5/12

to

On Feb 5, 12:50 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If Baden is being quoted through Bugliosi, then I'm not interested. I believe that Bubliosi would use it improperly to make his point." <<<

>
> We're not talking about a paraphrased statement. It was a direct quote
> from Baden with quotation marks around it and a source date for the
> telephone call (1/8/2000).
>
> So, do you think Bugliosi just made up that quote attributed to Baden?

David, please use your head. I've asked that of you many times. I
said I don't trust Bugliosi, and partly because I've seen him mess
with quotes to do with the throat wound that when I went and found the
original text, he had gotten it wrong (in his own favor). I'm not
interested in anything that comes through Bugliosi. But to help you
out I had made a number of comments on the statement purported to be
from Baden. You haven't answered a single one. You're just going to
hang here on Bugliosi like he was a long lost brother.

I'll put the quote here for you followed by my questions and
comments

:
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head."
--
Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

Here are my questions: Was Baden present at the Parkland ER? Was
Baden present at the Bethesda autopsy? If not, then he is getting his
information from the same place we are. Statements, photos, X-rays
and common sense. Is he talking about the 'litte red spot'? Just
where is he talking about on the 'upper right' part of the head? Is
he referring to the 'little red spot'? Or lower? More to the right?
Where in the photos is what he's talking about. What kind of
statement is that with no real measurement of where it is?

Now if you can answer questions for a change, I can comment on the
answers, if you like.

-------------------------------
For new folks, check out these two pages and see the differences in

the statements and drawings of the medical personnel at both places:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

You can also to follow along with us as we discuss the autopsy and
the
many panels and commissions that tried to force a conclusion form the

bigdog

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 1:58:16 PM2/5/12

to

The number of photos and x-rays that were leaked to the public are
just a small fraction of the total number taken the night of the
autopsy. The HSCA forensic panel had access to all of them and any
observation Baden has been based on the sum total of all that
information that was available to him and the rest of the members of
the panel.

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 5, 2012, 10:36:13 PM2/5/12

to

> the panel.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

bigdog,
Wrong. Here's some info you may not have had:
"Horne feels that Humes and Boswell were at two brain exams. The first
Monday, the 25th of November, before the funeral. This was the real
brain. It was serially sectioned, and Dr. Finck was not there.
Stringer took photographs of the brain sections. They are not in the
Archives. Those photographs are missing."
From: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/horne/Backes3.html

Here's some more info:
"The single bullet theory is the tip of a rotten iceberg of false and
misleading statements, missing photographs, missing tissue slides and
a missing brain, lack of a chain of custody for nearly all key
evidence, a huge number of actual witnesses whose statements don't fit
the "hard" evidence, and findings reached in contradiction to known
facts."
From: http://www.history-matters.com/medcoverup.htm

John Stringer the official photographer at the autopsy had taken
many pictures that he later looked over and pointed out to one of the
commissions that photos were missing that he had taken in the set they
showed him. Not a phony 'national security' excuse.

Chris

Message has been deleted

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 6, 2012, 10:59:57 PM2/6/12

to

> Chris- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmm. It appears that our little David Von P. has gone missing.
Etiher the heat was too grewat and he ran away, or we might be in luck
and he is only getting a much needed rest from being wrassled around
unmercifully...Perhaps he will be back if we all applaud for him...:)

---------------
Here are 2 pages of statements and drawings, mostly from hospital
personnel, plus a few government agents:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Compare the drawings of Parkland peole to the Bethesda drawings
above.

An interesting set of articles on problems with the autopsy are
here:
http://www.history-matters.com/medcoverup.htm

Once at the above location, check out the center column for an
overview of the autpopsy and some problems with it, then go down the
right side column and check out the many separate topics related to
the autopsy.
-----------------

Chris

Bud

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 7:33:17 AM2/7/12

to

While you are waiting for that to happen you can spend the time
constructively and apologize for your claim that I removed links in my
response to you.

> ---------------
> Here are 2 pages of statements and drawings, mostly from hospital
> personnel, plus a few government agents:
>

> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 7, 2012, 11:50:14 AM2/7/12

to

> >http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htmhttp...

>
> > Compare the drawings of Parkland peole to the Bethesda drawings
> > above.
>
> > An interesting set of articles on problems with the autopsy are
> > here:http://www.history-matters.com/medcoverup.htm
>
> > Once at the above location, check out the center column for an
> > overview of the autpopsy and some problems with it, then go down the
> > right side column and check out the many separate topics related to
> > the autopsy.
> > -----------------
>

> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Bud, fair enough, they were in the one just before your post, and
missing in your post. What else would I think? If you didn't do it,
then I apologize.

Daaaaviiid! Where are youuuuuu? You have questions awaiting you
on a subject that you opened yourself! Better you run away after a
cool exit line...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 10:21:18 PM2/8/12

to

This is terrible! There was so much more embarassing of David Von
P. to do, and he's gone from the forum. Shucks!

---------------
Here are 2 pages of statements and drawings, mostly from hospital
personnel, plus a few government agents:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 8, 2012, 11:36:49 PM2/8/12

to

Chris,

There's really no sense in talking to you any further about JFK's head
wounds. You think there was a big hole in the back of President
Kennedy's head. I know there wasn't. And the autopsy photos and X-rays
prove I am correct on this matter (regardless of how many drawings you
can produce from the Parkland witnesses).

~Mark VII~

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 12:16:59 PM2/9/12

to

Aww...David, you think that I rely only on drawings of all the
medically trained personnel of both institutions? Nope. I also rely
on the X-rays and photos which back up the drawings. When people see
the explanation of those photos and X-rays (even the reassembled ones)
they are going to wonder what in the world you're talking about on
your site, especially when my own site comes out explaining all your
games using my name...:)

It's odd that you copped out when there were questions on the table
that you had asked me. I answered them and you had no comment...why
not take a last shot, eh? Before you go back to your hawking your
site...:)