Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 65)

12 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 12:27:44 PM7/27/08
to
ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 65):

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

BUGLIOSI, WECHT, AND THE SBT:
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/ec2aa3be4466f4d8


BUGLIOSI, BUSH, AND RFK JR.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af90bc9cebc00bdf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a75bfff5c35c69e

THE KNOLL VS. THE DEPOSITORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/15d54791625f23bd
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6a539b61a3ca9fa

OSWALD ON THE RADIO:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3403062-post.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25e3ffd75e3640fe

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/688cf6213047d086
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ffa438f589e6a103
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0c859bdd11788652
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e378547b32ddf502
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4630e46c29de88d


"LEGITIMATE" CONSPIRACY RESEARCHERS?:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3403617-post.html

KOOK TIME!:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/086a204dc4e25216
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3ec193d523c9f3e7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b91b3a2518e662a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/eb414641eff258dc
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac477cbad408acbd
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7adb68571250391f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9459c24314673914


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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 9, 2008, 7:52:12 PM8/9/08
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/bf322decd63127cd

TONY MARSH:

>>> "You did not set up a newsgroup for discussion." <<<

DVP:

Correct, I didn't. Discussion is not its purpose.


>>> "You set up a blog for ranting." <<<


Live with it. If you don't like my "announcement only" format -- tough
shit.

(Good to see this thread bumped though. Thanks.)

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2008, 8:28:05 PM8/9/08
to
On Aug 9, 4:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>
> TONY MARSH:
>
> >>> "You did not set up a newsgroup for discussion." <<<
>
> DVP:
>
> Correct, I didn't. Discussion is not its purpose.

PROPAGANDA is its purpose!!!

> >>> "You set up a blog for ranting." <<<
>
> Live with it. If you don't like my "announcement only" format -- tough
> shit.

When one lies constantly like Dave the last thing one wants is open
discussion.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 9, 2008, 8:38:31 PM8/9/08
to

>>> "When one lies constantly like Dave[,] the last thing one wants is open discussion." <<<


And this forum I'm posting on right now doesn't provide any "open
discussion", does it Rob-Kook?


(BTW, ever hear of a comma?)

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Aug 9, 2008, 9:52:29 PM8/9/08
to

It does, but you refrain from open discussion because you have NOTHING
but lies to go with so you avoid it like the plague.

Of course I have, it is what someone is in when they are brain dead
like you, right? :-) (drop a "M" for moron and you have a Coma - both
describe DVP to a T).

Sam Brown

unread,
Aug 10, 2008, 2:56:49 AM8/10/08
to

"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:ad425c58-1df6-4f85...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Oh dear, you explained your pathetic joke. You poor sad desperate little
thing.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 11, 2008, 9:46:02 PM8/11/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fb32307dab53862c

>>> "[Vincent Bugliosi was a] Fair prosecutor, not a great one really." <<<


LOL.

Yeah....in order for Vince to rise above the mediocre level of "fair",
he would have needed a perfect 106-0 record in the Los Angeles DA's
office, instead of just the "fair" slate of 105-1 that he did possess.

Right, John? ;)

Hilarious.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 12, 2008, 10:18:09 PM8/12/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6f3d9536a73fbc2a


>>> "Why, if the entry in the back of JFK's head was much more towards (or in) the cowlick than near the EOP, can a trail of tiny opacities be seen on the lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP with no such trail being seen at any other proposed entry site?" <<<


I guess John Canal can't tell "high" from "low" when looking at the
following pictures of the JFK head X-ray in question....because my
eyes are seeing a trail of tiny fragments (or "opacities", to use
John's all-time favorite word) that are HIGH inside John Kennedy's
cranium, not low....which is a fragment trail (either bone or metal or
both) that is perfectly consistent with a bullet entry wound near the
cowlick.

Two versions of the X-ray:


http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=8C1oQEYAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlLA_dHHU6KN7fyYW9zcABuaPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=V-M11iEAAAD-WmrudZu9D_CQhdtZqCavZtw7B9px38g4uqGeA8ahDEzfKN-m9S9niuHrq-IEXAE


http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=aReC60YAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlLA_dHHU6KN7fyYW9zcABuR1G2YFgxky44Khk5D7kFrYWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=V-M11iEAAAD-WmrudZu9D_CQhdtZqCavZtw7B9px38g4uqGeA8ahDEzfKN-m9S9niuHrq-IEXAE

Where is this supposed low-on-the-head "trail of tiny
opacities...extending anteriorly from near the EOP" on either version
of the lateral X-ray depicted in the photos linked above? Where? I see
no such trail of fragments/opacities.

So....should I get better eyeglasses? Or is the evidence being
misinterpreted and/or misrepresented by Mr. John Canal (and possibly
others as well)?

My surmise is this -- Mr. Canal is seeing things that aren't there
(once again). Just like he sees enough substantial cracks and
fractures in the far-right-rear portion of the dead President's skull
in the same above-linked X-ray to opine that a goodly-sized chunk of
that skull could have departed Mr. Kennedy's head and stuck to his
scalp during the autopsy, with that large chunk of skull then being re-
inserted into its proper place on JFK's head prior to that X-ray photo
being taken.

Well, as the saying goes....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps, in this instance, invisible fracture lines and impossible-to-
see "opacities" near the EOP are in the eye of the beholder as well.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 11:45:09 AM8/13/08
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4e7d62bb156092f6


>>> "I'm going to ask VB [Vincent Bugliosi] to show some mercy and not let his fans continue to be publicly embarrassed trying to defend ridiculous conclusions like the cowlick entry....and, a[c]cordingly, make a written statement saying, at the very least, he acknowledges there is a strong possibility the autopsy docs were correct [on the entry]....if not a probability that they were [correct]." <<<

John Canal, via his correspondence with Vincent Bugliosi, apparently
thinks that VB is suddenly going to change his tune about the location
of the head entry wound (which would be a direct contradiction of his
own conclusions that are revealed on Pages 394 to 396 of VB's "magnum
opus" and "book for the ages", "RECLAIMING HISTORY"), even though the
autopsy picture of the back of JFK's head and the autopsy report (in
TANDEM) are undeniable PROOF that the entry-wound location on the back
of John Kennedy's head was near the cowlick....i.e., the red spot seen
in this photograph, high on the President's head:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=fPZJTkgAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlB2E-APlVPaX4CTTc8Hs3NBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=sJTSDhYAAABwvU7TlVi7Mwa86yoeNme9mhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w

The autopsy report provides the "in tandem with the photo" proof via
these emphasized words that were written in November 1963 (my emphasis
added):

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally
to the right and SLIGHTLY ABOVE the external occipital protuberance is
a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm."


Here's a direct quotation from Mr. Bugliosi's book, which is a quote
that Mr. Canal is hoping that Vince will completely reverse (along
with multiple other related quotes in the book that are connected with
this "head entry wound" topic on Pages 394-396, plus the endnotes as
well), since the idea of a cowlick-area entry is so "ridiculous" (per
Mr. Canal):


"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show
that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull,
but they show a bullet track (deposit of small metal fragments as the
bullet proceeded forward) "only in the upper portion of the skull" [a
quote from Dr. Michael Baden's HSCA testimony]." -- VINCENT T.
BUGLIOSI; PAGE 395 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 11:54:17 AM8/13/08
to
On Aug 12, 10:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6f3d9...

>
> >>> "Why, if the entry in the back of JFK's head was much more towards (or in) the cowlick than near the EOP, can a trail of tiny opacities be seen on the lateral X-ray extending anteriorly from near the EOP with no such trail being seen at any other proposed entry site?" <<<
>
> I guess John Canal can't tell "high" from "low" when looking at the
> following pictures of the JFK head X-ray in question....because my
> eyes are seeing a trail of tiny fragments (or "opacities", to use
> John's all-time favorite word) that are HIGH inside John Kennedy's
> cranium, not low....which is a fragment trail (either bone or metal or
> both) that is perfectly consistent with a bullet entry wound near the
> cowlick.
>
> Two versions of the X-ray:
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...

>
> Where is this supposed low-on-the-head "trail of tiny
> opacities...extending anteriorly from near the EOP" on either version
> of the lateral X-ray depicted in the photos linked above? Where? I see
> no such trail of fragments/opacities.
>
> So....should I get better eyeglasses? Or is the evidence being
> misinterpreted and/or misrepresented by Mr. John Canal (and possibly
> others as well)?
>
> My surmise is this -- Mr. Canal is seeing things that aren't there
> (once again). Just like he sees enough substantial cracks and
> fractures in the far-right-rear portion of the dead President's skull
> in the same above-linked X-ray to opine that a goodly-sized chunk of
> that skull could have departed Mr. Kennedy's head and stuck to his
> scalp during the autopsy, with that large chunk of skull then being re-
> inserted into its proper place on JFK's head prior to that X-ray photo
> being taken.
>
> Well, as the saying goes....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> Perhaps, in this instance, invisible fracture lines and impossible-to-
> see "opacities" near the EOP are in the eye of the beholder as well.

Why did none of the people who actually saw JFK put the entry wound in
the cowlick area? What is the red spot in the photos of JFK's head
(rear portion)? Almost everyone said it was NOT an entry wound. How
can "experts" who never saw the body in person know where the entry
wound was when it differs with everyone who actually saw the body?

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 12:03:35 PM8/13/08
to

Rob apparently must think that the whitish piece of brain tissue
(located at the hairline in the photo below) is located ABOVE the
level of the EOP on JFK's cranium. Right, Rob-Kook? Because if the
white hunk of 'something' at the hairline isn't the entry wound...and
neither is the red spot near the cowlick...then where's the entry
wound (as described by EITHER the autopsists or the HSCA)?:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=fPZJTkgAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlB2E-APlVPaX4CTTc8Hs3NBZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=sJTSDhYAAABwvU7TlVi7Mwa86yoeNme9mhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w


There's only one reasonable conclusion to this head-wound mystery
(given the totality of all the evidence). The red spot is the entry
wound for Lee Oswald's Carcano bullet.

But CT-Kooks, as always, are too entrenched in the controversy of the
matter (and in their perpetual belief in a "plot" to kill the
President), that they can't reach any "reasonable" conclusion.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 12:14:09 PM8/13/08
to
On Aug 13, 12:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob apparently must think that the whitish piece of brain tissue
> (located at the hairline in the photo below) is located ABOVE the
> level of the EOP on JFK's cranium. Right, Rob-Kook? Because if the
> white hunk of 'something' at the hairline isn't the entry wound...and
> neither is the red spot near the cowlick...then where's the entry
> wound (as described by EITHER the autopsists or the HSCA)?:


Don't worry about what I think, explain why the autoposy prosectors
said the entry wound was at the hairline and they said the red spot
was of an unknown origin. All the people present do NOT remember the
red spot on the back of JFK's head.

> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...


>
> There's only one reasonable conclusion to this head-wound mystery
> (given the totality of all the evidence). The red spot is the entry
> wound for Lee Oswald's Carcano bullet.

That is your biased opinion, but it is NOT what anyone who saw the
body of JFK has said (Parkland, Bethesda and mortician staff) as they
do NOT remember a red spot at the time of the autopsy. Only Finck
would go along with the malarky of the wound being at the cowlick but
he did it half-heartedly. The red spot was added later to make the
sagging SBT seem possible in the late 1970s.


> But CT-Kooks, as always, are too entrenched in the controversy of the
> matter (and in their perpetual belief in a "plot" to kill the
> President), that they can't reach any "reasonable" conclusion.

So I guess all the doctors and nurses at Parkland are "CT kooks",
right? I guess the whole medical staff at Bethesda that participated
in the autopsy are "CT kooks", right? I guess JFK's personal
physician was a "CT kook", right? I guess the whole group who took
photographs at the autopsy were "CT kooks", right? I guess the whole
mortician staff were "CT kooks", right? They must be according to
your biased view as NONE of them remember a wound at the cowlick
location. Explain how none of them can remember a wound there but a
panel of doctors limited to photographs can see one there.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 3:27:51 AM8/14/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f6b1ae19eec98121

John Canal, who has "no time" to discuss these matters any further btw
(per his recent statement), is going to manage to get that right-rear
scalp of JFK's to rip apart no matter how much fantasizing he's got to
do in order to accomplish that impossible task.

But, no matter how much John C. wants a disruption in JFK's scalp, the
autopsy photo below is going to prove him wrong every time.

And John needs a PRETTY DOGGONE GOOD-SIZED TEAR/RIP in that scalp too,
in order for the Parkland witnesses to be correct about there being a
large hole visible in JFK's head in the occipital/right-rear area.

But, instead, what do we find in both of the BOH photos taken at
Bethesda? A scalp that's completely intact! Completely! Go figure:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=EOD8b0gAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlafx3shNiGy1ajRHabqpiKxZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=yCoWYBYAAAC8OVOUfuH25lOk5H3oXh5Emhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=7ovYMUgAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlafx3shNiGy1ajRHabqpiKwoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=yCoWYBYAAAC8OVOUfuH25lOk5H3oXh5Emhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w


RE: The location of the entry wound on President Kennedy's head......

"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show
that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull,
but they show a bullet track (deposit of small metal fragments as the
bullet proceeded forward) "only in the upper portion of the skull" [a

quote from Dr. Baden's HSCA testimony]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 395
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1

aeffects

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 4:11:09 AM8/14/08
to
On Aug 14, 12:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<nothing AGAIN....>

no rest for the wicked Davey.... Say, how is Vinnie daBug? You get
that script assistants job on the Hanks-HBO gig yet?

Remember, join the union, son (this is the big boys world) lest the
entire production is shut down....

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 12:57:56 PM8/14/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4e7d62bb156092f6


>>> "He [Vince Bugliosi] did say in his letter back to me after he had briefly looked over the material I sent him that he doubted he'd be changing anything he wrote in RH. That said, when he reads just how someone who is arguably his no. 1 fan keeps embarrassing himself trying to futilely defend one of his [VB's] conclusions, he may reconsider, just to throw "numero uno" a rope, so to speak---anyway, I thought it was worth a try. I mailed him my cover letter and your highly-intellectual contribution to this debate today." <<<


LOL.

Somehow John Canal thinks I'm "embarrassing" myself by pointing out
the absurdities of his impossible-to-prove (albeit, quite unique)
"Large BOH/LN" combo theory.

That's a howl.

And evidently I'm supposed to be "embarrassed" (somehow) by AGREEING
WITH the following words which appear in Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book:


"Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show
that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull,

but they show a bullet track..."only in the upper portion of the
skull" [a quote from Dr. Baden]." -- VB; Page 395 of "RH"


And I'm also, per Mr. Canal, supposed to be in need of a
"rope" (lifeline), to be thrown my way by Mr. Bugliosi....even though
I'm in 100% AGREEMENT with VB's position regarding the location of the
entry wound on the back of JFK's head.

That's weird, John. Really weird.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 1:24:47 PM8/14/08
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4e7d62bb156092f6

>>> " "SLIGHTLY ABOVE" IS four inches?" <<<

Do you think the white piece of brain tissue at the hairline, then, is
"above" the EOP?

My main point (in a previous forum post) re. the autopsy photo and the
autopsy report being "in tandem" proof that the cowlick area was the
location of the entry hole for Oswald's bullet was:

The autopsy docs knew the entry wound was ABOVE the EOP. And the ONLY
possible mark/object on the back of JFK's head that could even
remotely be considered a "hole" for a bullet's entry is the red spot
in the autopsy photo....which is certainly "above" the EOP, as the AR
indicates.

The "slightly" remark is "slightly" off, however...I'll readily admit
that. But, maybe Humes DID consider that (approx.) 4 inches of
physical space between the EOP and the entry wound to be only
"slightly above" the EOP.

Actually, quite obviously Dr. Humes, in November of 1963, DID consider
that amount of physical space between the wound and the EOP to be only
"slightly above" the EOP. Otherwise, he wouldn't have placed those
words in the final autopsy report at all.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 3:48:54 PM8/14/08
to
On Aug 14, 10:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4e7d6...

Why was a CIA agent accessing the photos (especially the one of the
back of JFK's head) in the HSCA safe? Michael Griffith's summation is
short and to the point:

"A security representative from the CIA, Regis Blahut, was detained
and polygraphed for opening an HSCA safe and for handling at least one
autopsy photograph without permission. Only after failing three
polygraph tests did Blahut finally admit he had handled the autopsy
photo. Though Blahut's illegal action was attributed to "curiosity,"
Blahut later blurted to a reporter "There are other things involved
that are detrimental to other things." The CIA fired Blahut as a
result of the incident, but the matter was not investigated further."

I'm sure you won't explain this suspicious behavior just like you
neglected to responded to my last post.

Mr. Blahurt worked in a seperate room from the safe that contained the
photos and had NO authority to enter the safe. He left his
fingerprints behind and this is how they traced the disturbance to him
as someone had not locked the safe for him to enter it. In typical
CIA fashion he tried to deny the deed initially, but when told they
had his fingerprints he then reluctantly admitted it but said it was
"just curiousity" on his part. The Congress was supposed to
investigate the matter but of course did nothing.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 4:26:07 PM8/14/08
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f6b1ae19eec98121

>>> "You do know from your extensive research that the holes in JFK's scalp were closed up in preparation for a possible open-casket funeral, right?...and that Humes assisted the morticians until the body left the morgue, right? I guess not." <<<

LOL.

John Canal thinks that this picture:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=n5zZCEgAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZl36wh34F5bEupGyvyD3ACohZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=3KNSHRYAAADgsWlna0q53OgYguH5wSK9mhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w

...and this picture:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=FgrzgEgAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZl36wh34F5bEupGyvyD3ACogoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=3KNSHRYAAADgsWlna0q53OgYguH5wSK9mhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w

...are depicting a scalp on JFK's head that was torn WIDE OPEN at the
right-rear portion of the head by the effects of Lee Oswald's bullet a
few hours earlier, and yet that same scalp looks the way it does in
the above two photographs (i.e., COMPLETELY INTACT, sans a single
indication of any stitches/sutures, and sans any visual indication
whatsoever of any damage having been done to JFK's scalp in the area
where John Canal thinks there was a huge, gaping open wound).

Incredible, John. Just incredible.


And what's even more incredible is the fact that (coincidentally, and
luckily--for John's theory) the lateral autopsy X-ray miraculously
ALSO shows the same kind of "NO DAMAGE AT ALL IN THE FAR-RIGHT-REAR OF
JFK'S HEAD" situation (i.e., no visible fracture lines where
considerable fracture lines and fragmenting of the skull MUST really
be located [in the far-right-rear of the occipital], if John Canal is
to be believed, and if any of the Parkland "BOH Wound" witnesses are
to be believed as well):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011b.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?gda=0FbdnkYAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZl36wh34F5bEupGyvyD3ACoqPlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoWKo62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=3KNSHRYAAADgsWlna0q53OgYguH5wSK9mhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w


I'd like to know the mere ODDS of having BOTH of those visual pieces
of evidence (the autopsy photo and the lateral X-ray) supporting the
conclusion of "No Large BOH Wound" and yet still having John Canal's
incredible BOH/LN theory being a truism?

Any idea what the odds would be that BOTH of those visual autopsy aids
we have to guide us would BOTH be providing misleading and, in effect,
incorrect information regarding the true nature of President Kennedy's
head wounds?

My guess is: those odds are pretty tiny.


>>> "If the force of the bullet was powerful enough to fragment the rear of his skull, don't you think it may also have torn the rear scalp?" <<<

And then the massively-damaged and ripped-wide-open scalp was sewn up
with such perfection and skill before the photos were taken that the
pictures show no signs of that bullet damage whatsoever....right,
John?

(The more this silliness is discussed, the more comical it gets.)


>>> "Now, for about the fifth time, would you kindly explain that aforementioned trail from near the EOP (and lack of such a trail at the high site)?" <<<

That explanation isn't needed here at all.

Why?

Because your silly BOH/LN Combo Theory is moribund without any such
explanation about the "opacities" seen in JFK's X-rays.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 14, 2008, 4:46:37 PM8/14/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4e7d62bb156092f6/602aa6091e29cea3?hl=en%C9%9Aaa6091e29cea3

>>> "The tiny fragments [seen in JFK's lateral head X-ray] are embedded in the brain, not floating in mid air." <<<


Good point, Tony.

BTW, Tony, a question for you.....

Since you're of the opinion that there wasn't any wound at all in the
back of JFK's head (no entry or exit wound), I'm just curious to know
this....

What do you think the purpose of taking this photograph was?:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=fceqhkgAAAAh32ITidhpwQvhn-QK5rZlqcTjZAwrd2jgiQjHNh9h8RZ5oknr4PK9NRubH_RFRg6DH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=igacuxYAAAA79yAZCCS8UWKZ2CdC6hqLmhq3OCvxISHb3sTvjohh3w


Did the autopsy doctors merely want a photograph of the back of JFK's
head (with a ruler held up next to the red spot near the cowlick),
even though there really wasn't ANY wound in the back of the head at
all to photograph?

Was Mr. Stringer just wasting film there? Or what?

What possible purpose does that picture serve (with a measuring device
being held up next to the red spot) if it wasn't to document a wound
on John Kennedy's cranium?

0 new messages