The HSCA Lied - and No LNT'er has Dared to Explain Why!
Ben Holmes
The Trolls & LNT'ers have no explanation for the FACT that the HSCA simply lied
about the medical testimony. Nor should anyone hold their breath now and expect
any troll to present a refutation of this:
Copied from HistoryMatters - and slightly edited for clarity:
******************************************************************
The HSCA devoted considerable attention to resolving the conflict between the
autopsy photographs and the Dallas doctors. Summarizing its solution to the
paradox, the HSCA wrote, "Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence
findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital
doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so
consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their
recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In
disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people
present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy
corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs;
none had differing accounts ... it appears more probable that the observations
of the Parkland doctors are incorrect."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm
The HSCA said that its conclusion was supported by, "Staff interviews with
persons present at the autopsy." Unfortunately, none of those interviews were
released with the release of the report in 1979.
The above quote came from page 37 of the Forensic Pathology Panel's report,
(online cite given above) citing interviews with autopsy witnesses which were
purported to contradict the Dallas physicians. This assertion is completely
false - in fact, now-declassified interview records show, autopsy witnesses
generally corroborated the Dallas accounts.
Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA
misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as
well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland
witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews
reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a
rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect
in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. By falsely
representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately
portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they
had corroborated. Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review
Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no
national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years,
until 2028.
This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see
included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting
the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself
sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position. But
misstating and suppressing the nonsensitive assertions of its own witnesses was
not all the HSCA did to impeach witness accounts of a gaping rearward wound in
JFK's skull.
The HSCA also said it had validated compelling autopsy photographs that show no
defect where myriad credible witnesses, both in Dallas and in the morgue, say
they saw one. The images show a gaping wound in front of JFK’s right ear and
toward the top of the front of his skull. The back of the skull is virtually
pristine. The authenticated autopsy images gave the HSCA powerful ammunition to
shoot down witnesses who said JFK’s skull gaping skull wound was in the rear.
But the HSCA was apparently shooting blanks, a fact the HSCA apparently
preferred to leave hidden until the required declassification date in 2028.
For, whereas the HSCA boasted of the authenticity of JFK's autopsy photographs,
a new document reveals that in fact those images flunked a key HSCA
authentication test: the pictures failed a test intended to link them to the
camera in the Navy morgue that was supposed to have taken them. The images never
were, therefore, authenticated. Nor, apparently, will they ever be. The morgue
camera that the Navy sent to the HSCA for the tests disappeared sometime after
the examination.
**********************************************************
Taken from:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Gil Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Steve
> THE HSCA'S BIG LIE:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Why then have ALL medical panels to examine the autopsy materials ALL
agreed with the Warren Commission's findings of two shots strucking
the president from above and behind? The WC, the Clark Panel, the
Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA, and independent medical experts have
examined the autopsy materials and ALL have agreed with the WC's
findings and the HSCA's findings. Even, might I remind you, Dr. Cyril
Wecht, the lone crazy on the HSCA medical team admits openly time and
time again that there is NO EVIDENCE of any frontal shots striking the
President.
This is pretty tough for you conspiracy crazies to swallow isn't it?
Please compile a list of the medical experts that have examined the
autopsy materials and disagree with the official findings.
I would love to read their comments.
Gil Jesus
Steve
> This is about the HSCA, Stevie...stay on topic and watch the video....
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Hey dumbass, that's my point. Are you really that confused? If the
HSCA lied, then why did every other group of medical experts agree
with their lie, you moron? If they lied then you are obviously
implying that the truth is something different from what they said in
their conclusions. What was the lie that no medical expert has caught
yet. Or are YOU the only expert to catch their lie. I'm sorry if my
observation confused you, dumbass.
aeffects
you appear a little slow on the uptake there, troll..... Keep coming
back, helps your complexion, too!
tomnln
"Steve" <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d9f1e7e-c61d-4b8e...@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
You need to get up to Speed Steve;
The Autopyy Report was Phony.
The Autopsy Photos were Phony.
The Autopsy X-Rays were Phony.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
A Professional Hired/Paid by the ARRB ! ! !
Thanks for asking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1f88a62-e94d-4cbd...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> This is about the HSCA, Stevie...stay on topic and watch the video....
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
AND, THIS ONE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
A professional Hired/Paid by the ARRB.
tomnln
HiYa Steve;
You Really need to get up to speed;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
A Professional Hired/Paid by the ARRB.
Autopsy Report was Phony.
Autopsy Photos were Phony.
Autopsy X-Rays were Phony.
Thanks for asking.
For MORE, SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
May I ask if you have the Volumes from the...
Warren Commission (26)?
Church Committee (14)?
HSCA? (12)
Thank You in advance;
tomnln
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>This is about the HSCA, Stevie...stay on topic and watch the video....
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
If that's the same guy I just killfiled, he ran when I *first* brought this
topic up.
Undoubtedly, he's running again. Good video, Gil!
The text I quoted was co-written by Gary Aguilar.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 1, 1:45=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 1:08=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is about the HSCA, Stevie...stay on topic and watch the video....
>>
>>
>> Hey dumbass, that's my point. Are you really that confused? If the
>> HSCA lied,
There's no refutation possible. It's a plain, unadulterated and obvious lie. I
cited it.
This is why trolls and LNT'ers are forced to lie about it, or run from it.
>> then why did every other group of medical experts agree
>> with their lie, you moron?
Quite simple, stupid. As Aguilar points out in the video you clearly didn't pay
any attention to - the "medical experts" weren't allowed to see or read the
actual testimony.
NONE of the investigations into the JFK murder were open to the public, those
people actually doing the staff work were even kept compartmentalized... which
prevented anyone from getting a good overview of the evidence.
>> If they lied then you are obviously
>> implying that the truth is something different from what they said in
>> their conclusions.
Even a moron can see that what the HSCA stated is not supported by their own
evidence.
But clearly, what is *beyond* the LNT'er & troll morons is any attempt at a
refutation of this simple fact.
Or an explanation of why the "truth" needs a lie to support it...
>> What was the lie that no medical expert has caught
>> yet.
Yep... moron. And here I thought I'd gone into sufficient detail to explain the
situation even to morons... guess I was wrong.
>> Or are YOU the only expert to catch their lie.
Who knows how many people caught it, when the ARRB released the documentation
that the HSCA tried to bury?
What is clear is that *YOU* can't refute it... and are forced to lie and run
away...
>> I'm sorry if my
>> observation confused you, dumbass.
>
>you appear a little slow on the uptake there, troll..... Keep coming
>back, helps your complexion, too!
"slow on the uptake?" Nah... there's really no excuse for lies like this - it's
simply dishonesty, plain and simple.
I killfile 'em and move on.
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <7de6603d-1086-405f-9db1-5b6cb7942...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
What a shock, Steve is ready to debate the little Sadam and he
killfiles him instead of debating him. Typical bullshit from Holmes.
He can't stand to have anyone debate with him that knows more then he
does and will no doubt prove him to be full of shit. Just like his
lady in yellow pants theory....he dropped that one and ran faster then
Healy runs after dirty needles.
The biggest coward on this board is Ben "Sadam" Holmes.
Gil Jesus
>�What was the lie that no medical expert has caught
> yet. �Or are YOU the only expert to catch their lie. �I'm sorry if my
> observation confused you, dumbass.
---------------------------------------------
Stevie
The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
No "group of medical experts" ever examined the testimony the medical
witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
The lie was revealed in documents released by the ARRB in the 90's.
Get up to speed, Stevie and watch the video.
You're making a fool of yourself.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Apr 1, 4:45=EF=BF=BDpm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>=EF=BF=BDWhat was the lie that no medical expert has caught
>> yet. =EF=BF=BDOr are YOU the only expert to catch their lie. =EF=BF=BDI'm=
> sorry if my
>> observation confused you, dumbass.
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Stevie
>
>The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
>
>No "group of medical experts" ever examined the testimony the medical
>witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
>other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
He simply lies. Tis that simple.
>The lie was revealed in documents released by the ARRB in the 90's.
>
>Get up to speed, Stevie and watch the video.
>
>You're making a fool of yourself.
What's new?
Sam Brown
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:gr2et...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <2ff64fe5-e177-43cf...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>>
>>On Apr 1, 4:45=EF=BF=BDpm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>=EF=BF=BDWhat was the lie that no medical expert has caught
>>> yet. =EF=BF=BDOr are YOU the only expert to catch their lie.
>>> =EF=BF=BDI'm=
>> sorry if my
>>> observation confused you, dumbass.
>>---------------------------------------------
>>
>>Stevie
>>
>>The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
>>
>>No "group of medical experts" ever examined the testimony the medical
>>witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
>>other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
>
>
> He simply lies. Tis that simple.
Did you get beaten up a lot as a kid Benny? Is that the reason for that
butch(?) moustache and the interest in judo?
aeffects
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gr2et...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Gil Jesus says...
>
> >>On Apr 1, 4:45=EF=BF=BDpm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>=EF=BF=BDWhat was the lie that no medical expert has caught
> >>> yet. =EF=BF=BDOr are YOU the only expert to catch their lie.
> >>> =EF=BF=BDI'm=
> >> sorry if my
> >>> observation confused you, dumbass.
> >>---------------------------------------------
>
> >>Stevie
>
> >>The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
>
> >>No "group of medical experts" ever examined the testimony the medical
> >>witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
> >>other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
>
> > He simply lies. Tis that simple.
>
> Did you get beaten up a lot as a kid Benny? Is that the reason for that
> butch(?) moustache and the interest in judo?
my goodness, our resident super lezzie is back, rumor has it she's
been thrown to the wolves by her surgeon muff diving lovah...... too
much man-in-the-boat, toots-e-roll? Ya gotta gird those shaved loins
and butch up dipshit especially if you want to make a dent in the
world of writing.
Take a look at Fast Eddy-many-chins-Cage for example, so get to work
flamer, you sound and look ridiculous in this place.... say, do you
know who JFK was, what is a Scottish scraggely, scruffy, tuna smelling
little winch like you, hiding out in Australia (but we really know its
Fresno, Ca.) doing showing your stupidity discussing a case about a
murdered US President? You graduate from (wait, attend, yeah that's
better, you shit-heads never finish anything) Marquette too?
Thanks ahead of time for you kind words, tuna-wench...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 4, 8:03=A0pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:gr2et...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
>> > <2ff64fe5-e177-43cf-b369-14a473177...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Gil Jesus says...
>>
>>
>> >>>=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDWhat was the lie that no medical expert has caught
>> >>> yet. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDOr are YOU the only expert to catch their lie.
>> >>> =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDI'm=3D
>> >> sorry if my
>> >>> observation confused you, dumbass.
>> >>---------------------------------------------
>>
>> >>Stevie
>>
>> >>The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
>>
>> >>No "group of medical experts" ever examined the testimony the medical
>> >>witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
>> >>other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
>>
>>
>> Did you get beaten up a lot as a kid Benny? Is that the reason for that
>> butch(?) moustache and the interest in judo?
Gee... and I thought Rob was my resident fan club president...
>my goodness, our resident super lezzie is back, rumor has it she's
>been thrown to the wolves by her surgeon muff diving lovah...... too
>much man-in-the-boat, toots-e-roll? Ya gotta gird those shaved loins
>and butch up dipshit especially if you want to make a dent in the
>world of writing.
>
>Take a look at Fast Eddy-many-chins-Cage for example, so get to work
>flamer, you sound and look ridiculous in this place.... say, do you
>know who JFK was, what is a Scottish scraggely, scruffy, tuna smelling
>little winch like you, hiding out in Australia (but we really know its
>Fresno, Ca.) doing showing your stupidity discussing a case about a
>murdered US President? You graduate from (wait, attend, yeah that's
>better, you shit-heads never finish anything) Marquette too?
>
>Thanks ahead of time for you kind words, tuna-wench...
>
>
>>
>>
>> >>The lie was revealed in documents released by the ARRB in the 90's.
>>
>> >>Get up to speed, Stevie and watch the video.
>>
>> >>You're making a fool of yourself.
>>
>> > What's new?
>>
>> > --
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
aeffects
> In article <389f8166-9b7e-46c3-ac28-c84544c75...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 4, 8:03=A0pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:gr2et...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> >> > In article
> >> > <2ff64fe5-e177-43cf-b369-14a473177...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> >>On Apr 1, 4:45=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDWhat was the lie that no medical expert has caught
> >> >>> yet. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDOr are YOU the only expert to catch their lie.
> >> >>> =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDI'm=3D
> >> >> sorry if my
> >> >>> observation confused you, dumbass.
> >> >>---------------------------------------------
>
> >> >>Stevie
>
> >> >>The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
>
> >> >>No "group of medical experts" ever examined the testimony the medical
> >> >>witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
> >> >>other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
>
> >> > He simply lies. =A0Tis that simple.
>
> >> Did you get beaten up a lot as a kid Benny? Is that the reason for that
> >> butch(?) moustache and the interest in judo?
>
> Gee... and I thought Rob was my resident fan club president...
I'm negotiating with my better-side, results seem to say, back to
business with the 45 questions (which I have) on Monday. :)
Your permission to post the series, including the header disclaimer
concerning acj trolls, is requested at this time. Unless of course
you'd prefer to do the posting(s)?
Sam Brown
Nah he thinks you're a slob too. Healey is the president and founding member
of your fan club. Depressed much judo boy? LOL
justm...@gmail.com
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <389f8166-9b7e-46c3-ac28-c84544c75...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
The lapdog asking permission from his idol to post his 45 questions
ROFLMAO. Go ahead and post them, they'll be ignorned just like they
have been 50 other times they've been posted. People respond but due
to Holme's killfilters, he can only see what Healy shows him. (And
thats probably a load of crap too about the killfilters). Can't you
just see the excititment in Healys typing? He's probably wet himself
over the idea of being honored with posting more garbage. LOL How
pathetic.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> The Trolls & LNT'ers have no explanation for the FACT that the HSCA simply lied
> about the medical testimony. Nor should anyone hold their breath now and expect
> any troll to present a refutation of this:
>
>
> Copied from HistoryMatters - and slightly edited for clarity:
> ******************************************************************
> The HSCA devoted considerable attention to resolving the conflict between the
> autopsy photographs and the Dallas doctors.
Note the dishonest wording. The kook automatically assumes what he
hasn`t proved, that there is a conflict. In order for there to be a
conflict, you`d need the Dallas doctors looking at the material and
saying what is shown could not be what they observed. Not the weasel
way the kooks try to get there.
> Summarizing its solution to the
> paradox,
More dishonest wording. Is it really a paradox?
> the HSCA wrote, "Critics of the Warren Commission�s medical evidence
> findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital
> doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so
> consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their
> recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In
> disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people
> present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy
> corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs;
> none had differing accounts ... it appears more probable that the observations
> of the Parkland doctors are incorrect."
This, of course, is true. Unless the Parkland doctors picked up
JFK`s head, and cleaned all the brain and gore from around the wound,
and located the wound, how could their observations be considered
valid?
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm
>
> The HSCA said that its conclusion was supported by, "Staff interviews with
> persons present at the autopsy." Unfortunately, none of those interviews were
> released with the release of the report in 1979.
>
>
> The above quote came from page 37 of the Forensic Pathology Panel's report,
> (online cite given above) citing interviews with autopsy witnesses which were
> purported to contradict the Dallas physicians. This assertion is completely
> false - in fact, now-declassified interview records show, autopsy witnesses
> generally corroborated the Dallas accounts.
Note the weasel word "generally".
> Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA
> misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as
> well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland
> witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews
> reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them.
Notice that the argument is totally changed. What the HSCA said "All
those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general
location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs:..."
So, what does the kook do? He changes the argument to one of "rear
defect" in order to call them liars. Do the autopsy witnesses say
there was no wound in the back of the head? Of course not.
> They not only described a
> rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect
> in the rear of Kennedy�s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. By falsely
> representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately
> portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they
> had corroborated.
I`m not seeing anything to contradict what the HSCA, that the
autopsy witnesses placed the wounds in conflict with the autopsy
photos. Examples?
> Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review
> Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no
> national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years,
> until 2028.
>
> This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence,
Again, the claim is that the information is contradictory. But I
haven`t seen it shown. Specifically, what person gave what information
that made what is shown in the autopsy photo impossible?
> which as we shall see
> included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting
> the HSCA�s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself
> sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA�s entire medical position. But
> misstating and suppressing the nonsensitive assertions of its own witnesses was
> not all the HSCA did to impeach witness accounts of a gaping rearward wound in
> JFK's skull.
>
> The HSCA also said it had validated compelling autopsy photographs that show no
> defect where myriad credible witnesses, both in Dallas and in the morgue, say
> they saw one. The images show a gaping wound in front of JFK�s right ear and
> toward the top of the front of his skull. The back of the skull is virtually
> pristine. The authenticated autopsy images gave the HSCA powerful ammunition to
> shoot down witnesses who said JFK�s skull gaping skull wound was in the rear.
> But the HSCA was apparently shooting blanks, a fact the HSCA apparently
> preferred to leave hidden until the required declassification date in 2028.
>
> For, whereas the HSCA boasted of the authenticity of JFK's autopsy photographs,
> a new document reveals that in fact those images flunked a key HSCA
> authentication test: the pictures failed a test intended to link them to the
> camera in the Navy morgue that was supposed to have taken them. The images never
> were, therefore, authenticated.
Is it a legal requirement to produce the camera that took the
photographs to have the photographs admitted into evidence?
Bud
> In article <7de6603d-1086-405f-9db1-5b6cb7942...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 1, 1:45=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 1:08=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > This is about the HSCA, Stevie...stay on topic and watch the video....
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd4PcJLdiZhM
>
> >> Hey dumbass, that's my point. Are you really that confused? If the
> >> HSCA lied,
>
> There's no refutation possible. It's a plain, unadulterated and obvious lie. I
> cited it.
You cited an article. The article doesn`t prove the premise. Have
Aguilar write his points in an article, where portions can be refuted
or contested. You can`t do that with a video.
> This is why trolls and LNT'ers are forced to lie about it, or run from it.
And kooks are left to claim it is something other than what it is.
> >> then why did every other group of medical experts agree
> >> with their lie, you moron?
>
> Quite simple, stupid. As Aguilar points out in the video you clearly didn't pay
> any attention to - the "medical experts" weren't allowed to see or read the
> actual testimony.
The medical witnesses weren`t conducting the investigation.
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Say, Toots, you don't have to request permission to do anything
from ol' Ben *Yellow Pants* Holmes anymore. The fellow is simply a
laughing stock since he ran like a cretin from further discussion of
his *Lady In Yellow Pants In Nix Film Equals Z Film Alteration* theory
over a year ago.
Remember how he had you make up a cock & bull story that you had a B/W
*galley proof* copy of the UPI book Four Days in a futile attempt to
support his nonsense? LOL! Even YOU must have been disgusted with
having to lie so blatantly on YP's behalf, eh Toots?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 4, 9:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <389f8166-9b7e-46c3-ac28-c84544c75...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 4, 8:03=3DA0pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:gr2et...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <2ff64fe5-e177-43cf-b369-14a473177...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Gil Jesus says...
>>
>rote:
>>
>> >> >>>=3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDWhat was the lie that no medical expert has ca=
>ught
>> >> >>> yet. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDOr are YOU the only expert to catch thei=
>r lie.
>> >> >>> =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDI'm=3D3D
>> >> >> sorry if my
>> >> >>> observation confused you, dumbass.
>> >> >>---------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >>Stevie
>>
>> >> >>The only "dumbass" is the one who refuses to watch the video.
>>
>l
>> >> >>witnesses gave the HSCA, so I don't know where you get that "every
>> >> >>other group of medical experts agree with their lie".
>>
>>
>> >> Did you get beaten up a lot as a kid Benny? Is that the reason for tha=
>t
>> >> butch(?) moustache and the interest in judo?
>>
>> Gee... and I thought Rob was my resident fan club president...
>
>I'm negotiating with my better-side, results seem to say, back to
>business with the 45 questions (which I have) on Monday. :)
>
>Your permission to post the series, including the header disclaimer
>concerning acj trolls, is requested at this time. Unless of course
>you'd prefer to do the posting(s)?
Absolutely! The evidence, and questions about that evidence is certainly not
owned by me, I have absolutely no hesitation in saying: "Go for it!"
Post it as often as the trolls hate it.
>> >my goodness, our resident super lezzie is back, rumor has it she's
>> >been thrown to the wolves by her surgeon muff diving lovah...... too
>> >much man-in-the-boat, toots-e-roll? Ya gotta gird those shaved loins
>> >and butch up dipshit especially if you want to make a dent in the
>> >world of writing.
>>
>> >Take a look at Fast Eddy-many-chins-Cage for example, so get to work
>> >flamer, you sound and look ridiculous in this place.... say, do you
>> >know who JFK was, what is a Scottish scraggely, scruffy, tuna smelling
>> >little winch like you, hiding out in Australia (but we really know its
>> >Fresno, Ca.) doing showing your stupidity discussing a case about a
>> >murdered US President? You graduate from (wait, attend, yeah that's
>> >better, you shit-heads never finish anything) Marquette too?
>>
>> >Thanks ahead of time for you kind words, tuna-wench...
>>
>> >> >>The lie was revealed in documents released by the ARRB in the 90's.
>>
>> >> >>Get up to speed, Stevie and watch the video.
>>
>> >> >>You're making a fool of yourself.
>>
>> >> > What's new?
--
aeffects
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <389f8166-9b7e-46c3-ac28-c84544c75...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
ya look lovely with that skirt up around you neck, SKANK. But, alas,
no one is interested. You're damaged goods.
Do you know what the term "CITE" means?
Gil Jesus
> Please compile a list of the medical experts that have examined the
> autopsy materials and disagree with the official findings.
>
> I would love to read their comments.
Here's the list the HSCA suppressed and the ARRB released:
John Canal
Gil Jesus says...
Excuse me for butting in here.
Firstly, Steve, if you're calling the HSCA's conclusions the "official
findings", of course, all the "experts" for the Clark Panel, Rockefeller
Commission, and HSCA "signed off" on there being no back-of-the-head (BOH)
wound. But, IMHO, Aguilar, who is a friend of mine, is correct, the official
findings are wrong....there sure as hell was a BOH wound (besides the entry).
IMO, Dr. Fisher, started this idea about there being no BOH wound by refuting
what the autopsy report stated which was, in agreement with most of the Parkland
witnesses, that the large top/right/front wound extended into the occipital, or
BOH.
Fisher was looking at the photos of the BOH that show an undamaged scalp and the
lateral x-rays which show no bone missing. What he didn't realize about those
photos showing that undamaged BOH is that they were taken much later in the
autopsy and didn't reflect the true state of JFK's BOH when the body was first
received.
To throw off Fisher's understanding even further is that fact that some loose
pieces of rear skull that, while still adhered to the scalp, had been previously
dislodged in Dallas (creating gaps through which brain matter was exposed and
exuded out) were surely shoved back into place before the head x-rays were
taken. In fact Boswell testified to the ARRB that he did replace rear bone
before the x-rays.
Now, Fisher, being an icon in the world of forensic pathology, IMHO, was not
going to be refuted by either the Rockefeller Commission or HSCA experts.
That's the short version...and my opinion of why the HSCA's findings are wrong.
Let me be clear, however, and this is where Gary and I disagree, I'll bet my
last dime that the dislodged rear skull pieces were "collateral damage", if you
will, resulting from the bullet that LHO fired and entered near the EOP. Gary,
of course, thinks the BOH damage resulted from a frontal shot. I respect his
opinion, but frankly, strongly disagree with it.
I'm no wound-ballistics expert, but I believe more damage was done to the back
of the head than most would expect from a bullet "entering" there was because
the bullet deformed and deflected up as it penetrated the skull there. Whatever
the scientific reasons were, though, that's what happened and the autopsy docs'
findings confirm that.
Fisher was also dead wrong about the location of the entry when he refuted what
the autopsy report said and wrote that the bullet entered in the cowlick. And
just like with Fisher's no-BOH-wound finding, the experts who subsequently
opined on this [the entry location], to no one's surprise, parroted
him....."again", IMO, like I said before, because he was so highly credentialed.
Note that Fisher didn't use F8 which clearly shows the entry, not in the
cowlick, but--surprise, surprise--just where the autopsists said it was--near
the EOP.
John Canal
bigdog
> In article <07839401-e4c6-4a95-aed2-c24112525...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Why should anyone be surprised the HSCA lied. They were CTs. That's
what CTs do best.
David Von Pein
>>> "[Dr. Russell S.] Fisher [of the 1968 Clark Panel] was looking at the photos of the BOH that show an undamaged scalp and the lateral x-rays which show no bone missing. What he didn't realize about those photos showing that undamaged BOH is that they were taken much later in the autopsy and didn't reflect the true state of JFK's BOH when the body was first received." <<<
But what about this X-ray (below), which even you (John Canal) admit
was certainly taken BEFORE the scalp was reflected and BEFORE the
brain of JFK was removed from his head and BEFORE any loose skull
pieces would have had any chance to fall out of JFK's head?
And this X-ray (all by itself) proves beyond all possible reasonable
doubt that there was NO BIG "BOH" HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR OF JFK'S
HEAD:
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files?grid=1
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "[Dr. Russell S.] Fisher [of the 1968 Clark Panel] was looking at the p=
>hotos of the BOH that show an undamaged scalp and the lateral x-rays which =
>show no bone missing. What he didn't realize about those photos showing tha=
>t undamaged BOH is that they were taken much later in the autopsy and didn'=
>t reflect the true state of JFK's BOH when the body was first received." <<=
><
>
>But what about this X-ray (below), which even you (John Canal) admit
>was certainly taken BEFORE the scalp was reflected and BEFORE the
>brain of JFK was removed from his head and BEFORE any loose skull
>pieces would have had any chance to fall out of JFK's head?
>
>And this X-ray (all by itself) proves beyond all possible reasonable
>doubt that there was NO BIG "BOH" HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR OF JFK'S
>HEAD:
>
>
>fFoMEYAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z97cGQJeFgRsN47JYTMM-GI6PlYm89YSDeyQ8tKODzyAoW=
>Ko62F5uyu956xNc8ZALZE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&gsc=3Dac0NFRYAAADD5PN3Bq99wj8t8x=
>wXNd-liZdYpI8bFqLfSPVWzjihew
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files?grid=3D1
How many hundred times to you have to be reminded--for it to sink into that
thick skull of yours--that Boswell, under oath, admitted putting pieces of rear
skull back BEFORE he x-rays.
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you pretty much don't believe anything the
autopsists said...but you do pretty much believe everything that those who never
saw the body said. Go figure!
And, BTW, you don't have to say that I "admitted" the x-ray was taken before the
scalp was reflected and brain removed bcause I've been saying that for the past
10 years, because it's obvious it was.....and I know the medical evidence pretty
well (unlike you)...so, where have you been?
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "And, BTW, you don't have to say that I "admitted" the x-ray was taken before the scalp was reflected and brain removed, because I've been saying that for the past 10 years, because it's obvious it was." <<<
But in our discussions you seemingly have contradicted yourself on
this issue regarding the lateral X-ray (the X-ray which shows not a
hint of BOH damage or fragmentation).....because in the past, you
(John Canal) have told me that you believe that a major reason why
that particular X-ray is showing an INTACT right-rear of JFK's head is
because Dr. Boswell said he put pieces of skull back into JFK's head
BEFORE THE X-RAY WAS TAKEN (which would have to also mean that the X-
ray was taken AFTER the scalp was peeled back from JFK's head).
You said this last year:
"You [DVP] are 100% certain that Boswell (or Humes) did not push
any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still adhered to the
scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken….even though
Boswell testified he did replace pieces of skull prior to some X-rays
or photos being taken?" -- John A. Canal; August 15, 2008
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc3153124dc666e1
But you now readily admit that the X-ray in question was certainly
taken PRIOR to Boswell's having any such opportunity to put pieces of
skull back into JFK's head -- i.e., the X-ray was certainly taken
BEFORE the scalp was reflected and BEFORE the brain was removed and
BEFORE Boswell saw any loose bone fall from JFK's head as a result of
the scalp-reflection activity.
So, which way do you want to go with this one, John? Do you want to
stick with your previous argument where you insist that the X-ray
shows what it shows (i.e., a completely-intact BOH) because Boswell
put bones back into the head BEFORE the X-ray was taken?
Or do you now want to go with your revised version (at least as far as
I have interpreted our discussions on this matter, which are
discussions that date back to late 2006 and early 2007), which has the
X-ray positively being taken prior to any scalp-reflection being done
and definitely BEFORE Dr. Boswell could have possibly replaced any
loose bone into the head of President Kennedy?
Or will you, John C., now contend that when you said this in August
2008....
"Push any previously out-of-place BOH skull pieces (still
adhered to the scalp) back into place before the X-rays were taken."
....What you really meant is that Dr. Boswell (or Dr. Humes) replaced
loose bone fragments back into place on JFK's head BEFORE THE SCALP
WAS EVER EVEN PEELED BACK?
In other words, via that scenario, Boswell and Humes could tell that
some loose chunks of JFK's skull were out of place on the back of his
head, even though the scalp had not yet been peeled back to expose the
BACK of JFK's head at all at that point in time and the President's
scalp was still COVERING those loose bone fragments?
So, the doctors (per that scenario of bone-replacing activity) would
have been pushing on the SCALP of JFK in order to put some loose skull
back into its proper place on JFK's head.
But if that's the case, then how would a person like John Canal
explain the 1996 ARRB testimony of Dr. Boswell shown below, wherein
he, in effect, states that the bone he replaced into the skull of JFK
had "fallen out" of Kennedy's head PRIOR to some X-rays or photos
being taken (and the "or" in there could be a key too, since Boswell
could be talking about ONLY "PHOTOGRAPHS" in this testimony)?
But if Boswell really meant that he replaced the bone before the
lateral (right side) X-ray was taken, it logically would also have to
mean that Boswell was replacing that bone PRIOR to the scalp being
reflected, which would mean, if common sense is to be our guide here,
that it would have been impossible for Boswell to have handled a piece
of loose bone from the VERY BACK of JFK's head at that particular
time, since the scalp needed to be peeled back off JFK's head in order
for Boswell to have had access to any pieces of bone that could have
"fallen out" of the BACK of his head.
Here's the 1996 testimony in question:
QUESTION -- "Were any skull fragments put back into place before
photographs or before X-rays?"
DR. J. THORNTON BOSWELL -- "I think before we took the--the ones that
came from Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate
them to the ones that were present. But I think all the others were
left intact."
QUESTION -- "So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out
at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph
or X-ray was taken?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "What size fragments and where did you place them at
the--?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that
10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I
think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that
diagram also were out at one time or another. But those were all put
back."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "And, BTW, you don't have to say that I "admitted" the x-ray was taken =
>before the scalp was reflected and brain removed, because I've been saying =
>that for the past 10 years, because it's obvious it was." <<<
>
>
>But in our discussions you seemingly have contradicted yourself on
I'm glad you said, "seemingly" contradicted....
I never said the scalp was reflected before Boswell put those pieces back.
And that makes no sense whatsoever anyway. If he'd reflected the scalp first
(before the x-rays) the pieces would have come out...and how would he have put
them back...super glue? Think man...here's what happened.
When the body was first received there were dislodged rear pieces of skull...BUT
THEY WERE STILL ADHERED TO THE SCALP. I've said countless times that Boswell
"smoothed" the scalp (with the attached/disloded pieces back into place. He
could have done that easily and quickly. Ater he did that the x-rays were taken.
Now, after the x-rays is when they reflected the scalp and those pieces came
out...all the way down to near the EOP....and they were never replaced in their
original positions....that's why F8 shows the rear skull missing all the way
down to the EOP and that's why Boswell testified that behind the scalp in the
BOH photos the skull is missing down to the base of the ear.
Got it now?
John Canal
[...]
David Von Pein
>>> "After the x-rays is when they reflected the scalp and those pieces came out...all the way down to near the EOP....and they were never replaced in their original positions....that's why F8 shows the rear skull missing all the way down to the EOP and that's why Boswell testified that behind the scalp in the BOH photos the skull is missing down to the base of the ear. Got it now?" <<<
Then, John, try explaining why Boswell answered "Yes" to the following
question in 1996:
QUESTION -- "Was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point
that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was
taken?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
Translation -- In order for John Canal's crazy theory to be correct
with respect to the above testimony, JFK's scalp must have already
been reflected in order for pieces of bone to have "fallen out" of the
VERY BACK PART of JFK's head (which is exactly what John Canal thinks
J. Thornton Boswell meant [i.e., the BACK PART of JFK's head] when
Boswell said "Yes" to that question).
Got it now?
John, you'd be better off theorizing that the lateral X-ray was taken
AFTER the scalp was reflected and after the brain was removed. Because
your current stance re. Boswell's replacing bone fragments into the
BACK PARTS of JFK's head BEFORE the lateral X-ray was taken is a
stance that is definitely situated on very thin ice (as Boswell's own
1996 ARRB testimony easily demonstrates).
In fact, it's a stance that is just flat-out illogical and pretty much
impossible.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>>>> "After the x-rays is when they reflected the scalp and those pieces cam=
>e out...all the way down to near the EOP....and they were never replaced in=
> their original positions....that's why F8 shows the rear skull missing all=
> the way down to the EOP and that's why Boswell testified that behind the s=
>calp in the BOH photos the skull is missing down to the base of the ear. Go=
>t it now?" <<<
>
>
>Then, John, try explaining why Boswell answered "Yes" to the following
>question in 1996:
>
>QUESTION -- "Was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point
>that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was
>taken?"
>
>BOSWELL -- "Yes."
>
>Translation -- In order for John Canal's crazy theory to be correct
>with respect to the above testimony, JFK's scalp must have already
>been reflected in order for pieces of bone to have "fallen out" of the
>VERY BACK PART of JFK's head (which is exactly what John Canal thinks
>J. Thornton Boswell meant [i.e., the BACK PART of JFK's head] when
>Boswell said "Yes" to that question).
What do you think is more likely, scenario 1 or 2 below?
1. Boswell meant that a dislodged piece was put back...how on earth was he going
to put a piece of skull back that had come completely out [fallen out]...before
the x-rays....that makes no sense whatsoever. Answer that please!
2. About 30 total (PH, Bethesda, and C. Hill) witnesses ncluding the autopsists
were wrong when they said they saw a BOH wound.
Answer that please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's what get me. You say the autopsists were wrong abut so many things they
said, but when you think you've foun one thing they said that seems to help your
argument, well then that's gospel.
David Von Pein
None of the autopsists ever ONCE said that there was the kind of large
BOH wound (or defect) in JFK's head that you have dreamed up for
yourself. Never.
And it's interesting that you partially believe in the "pooling blood
toward the back of the head" theory (as supported by Baden/
Bugliosi)....but instead of accepting the full Baden/VB version (which
includes no HOLE in the BOH, only "pooling"), you've decided to MERGE
the two things--you've got your invented BOH HOLE plus the "pooling"
theory.
Too bad that not a single piece of photographic evidence exists to
support your crazy BOH theory (which is incredible if your theory is
right, since JFK was photographed from many angles, including the X-
rays, which also fail to support your nonsense).
Of course, the fact the NONE of the photographic record (or the Clark
Panel or the HSCA) supports Canal's theories is no reason for Johnny
to abandon his fantasies.
Right, John?
David Von Pein
>>> "Boswell, under oath, admitted putting pieces of rear skull back BEFORE the x-rays." <<<
How would this even be POSSIBLE, unless the scalp was reflected BEFORE
the X-rays were taken?
Any bone fragments that Boswell put back into JFK's head BEFORE the X-
rays were taken couldn't have possibly come from the REAR of JFK's
head.
Even John Canal should be able to see why Boswell couldn't have
replaced REAR bone fragments BEFORE the lateral X-ray was taken
(unless John wants to now say the scalp was reflected BEFORE the
lateral X-ray was taken, which I do not believe was the case).
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>None of the autopsists ever ONCE said that there was the kind of large
>BOH wound (or defect) in JFK's head that you have dreamed up for
>yourself. Never.
That's a bold face lie.
The autopsy report says that the wound was chiefly parietal and extended
somewhat into the occipitla and temporal. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THOSE THREE BONES
CONNECT? hOW ABOUT BEHIND THE RIGHT EAR.
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE BOH PHOTOS? NO, OF COURSE NOT.....BECAUSE
THOSE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN LATER N THE NIGHT.
Also, Humes said he saw a severely lacerated flocculus which would have been
impossible if there weren't any BOH wound.
Again, no one would expect that all the witnesses described the wound the
same....except you, I guess.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
[...]
DVP spews out:
>Even John Canal should be able to see why Boswell couldn't have
>replaced REAR bone fragments BEFORE the lateral X-ray was taken
>(unless John wants to now say the scalp was reflected BEFORE the
>lateral X-ray was taken, which I do not believe was the case).
Hey genius, read this:
Q. What size fragments and where did yu place them at the--
A. .......And I think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of
that diagram......those were all put back.
Now, if you'll look at the diagram of the head on his descriptive sheet you'll
see three skull pices that are drawn so that they extend back into the
occipital...undoubtedly those are the ones he was talking about, re. "base of
that diagram".
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>>"The autopsy report says that the wound was chiefly parietal and extended
>
>Yes. I know it. So what?
>
>
>But the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in NO
>WAY comes even close to the kind of massive wound that you, John C.,
>really need to have present in JFK's head. Not even close.
Don't start misrepresenting what I say...AGAIN! I never said it was a massive
wound. and yes they understated the extent of the wound in the autopsy
report....but they did describe a BOH wound (unless you don't think the
occipital s p/o the BOH), didn't they?
Now for Humes to say that he saw p/o the cerebellum lacerated, that means the
opening had to have extended down to the EOP area.
Also, Boswell testified the bone was missing down to the base of the ear...that
tells you how far back the wound extended.
David Von Pein
>>> "The autopsy report says that the wound was chiefly parietal and extended somewhat into the occipital and temporal." <<<
Yes. I know it. So what?
But the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in NO
WAY comes even close to the kind of massive wound that you, John C.,
really need to have present in JFK's head. Not even close.
The fact that you think that those ambiguous words in the autopsy
report DO indicate the kind of major "blow out" that was described by
the Parkland witnesses is a real mystery.
Would you like to now "understate" the PH witnesses' observations
again, John, to merge with your theory which has a BOH wound in
Kennedy's head that is KINDA LARGE, BUT NOT TOO LARGE?
IOW -- Canal gets to decide what size the wound will be in the back of
President Kennedy's head.
And yet John Canal ALSO believes that Dr. George Burkley "ordered"
Humes to NOT place in the autopsy report anything about the
"occipital" damage or the BOH wounds that John has invented for
himself (or at least Burkley supposedly said to "understate" the BOH
injuries).
But why didn't Burkley go whole-hog and "order" Humes to eliminate ALL
"occipital" references from the AR? What was Burkley doing...just
being nice to CTers like John Canal when he (and Humes) decided it was
okay to leave a little tidbit of the full truth in the AR for people
to latch onto at a later date?
The silly stuff that Canal believes is simply amazing.
John Canal
>>>>somewhat into the occipital and temporal." <<<
>
>Yes. I know it. So what?
>
>
>But the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in NO
>WAY comes even close to the kind of massive wound that you, John C.,
>really need to have present in JFK's head. Not even close.
Don't start misrepresenting what I say...AGAIN! I never said it was a massive
David Von Pein
>>> "I never said it was a massive wound." <<<
Yeah, but regardless of whether you have stated it directly or not,
you definitely NEED a large BOH hole to be there (or else the PH
witnesses are wrong and a major portion of your BOH theory goes down
the drain).
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "I never said it was a massive wound." <<<
>
>Yeah, but regardless of whether you have stated it directly or not,
>you definitely NEED a large BOH hole
Just don't represent what I've said, that's all.
David Von Pein
>>> "Just don't represent what I've said, that's all." <<<
Should I misrepresent the above post, where you meant to say
"misrepresent", but said "represent" instead?
BTW, whether you SAY it or not, you NEED a great-big hole in the right-
rear of Kennedy's cranium for your theory to take flight.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
What an ass...you're telling me what I need? How about Barb and Paul...do they
need a great big hole?
Earth to idiot, all of the witnesses didn't say there was a great big
hole....remember one said it was only the size of a quarter?
David Von Pein
>>> "Earth to idiot, all of the witnesses didn't say there was a great big hole....remember one said it was only the size of a quarter?" <<<
You've got to be kidding? Virtually all of the PH witnesses said there
was a huge, GAPING deficit (hole!) in the Right-Rear of JFK's head --
which MUST have included the outer SCALP too (if those people are to
be believed).
And we KNOW from the multiple photos and X-rays that they were NOT
correct....because the "unaltered" photos/X-rays show NO SUCH BOH
DAMAGE.
How many more times around the Mulberry Bush shall we go on this, Mr.
Canal? 27? Or just 16?
David Von Pein
>>> "How about Barb and Paul...do they need a great big hole?" <<<
Who cares? They've got ZERO holes in the BOH (except the cowlick
entry, of course). And you've got ZERO Large BOH holes too. So it's
really a moot point altogether.
BTW, I don't think Paul Seaton agrees with all of your crazy BOH
theory. He told me last week that he wasn't disputing the condition of
"JFK's hair" in the BOH photos -- i.e., Paul thinks the "hair" is in
perfect, undamaged condition in the right-rear BOH. And if he thinks
the HAIR is perfect, but the SCALP just under that hair is mutilated
in some way---well, then, I think that'd be one really strange theory
there.