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 Historical content remains viewable.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

A look at the JFK headshot

6 views
Skip to first unread message

charles wallace

unread,
Jun 27, 2008, 9:04:05 PM6/27/08
to
The autopsy evidence can be left out of the search for what happened
because the single assassin folks can not even decide where the entry in
the back of the head is. Autopsy photos and X-rays appear to be
misleading and do not settle any issues.

We know from other evidence what probably happened. Looking at the
Zapruder film we know that an exit point was at the top of his head.
You can see debris going up in a straight line. No one seriously claims
this debris exit line is actually an entry line. We also know if this
line is extended through JFK's body it does not locate an entry point.
So there is deflection involved in this bullet's trajectory.

Another piece of evidence is that Mrs. Kennedy closed this flap which we
see that was opened up on the top of JFK 's head as shown in the
Zapruder film. But there was another large opening in the back of JFK's
head that could not be closed and is just partially shown in the
Zapruder film. We know it was there because every witness who claimed
to have seen JFK after the shooting stated they saw a very large hole
behind his right ear. We know this is an exit because bullets create
small entry holes and large exit holes.

Now we have two exit points and about half way in between would be the
temple area in front and near the top of his right ear. Curiously, this
point is the same point that we see in the Zapruder film where the head
opening flap ends. There are also a number of witnesses that claim JFK
was hit in the temple with a bullet.

If we take this point and form a line along the path that JFK moves
after this shot, we have a line when extended backwards leads to where a
mysterious figure called Black Dog Man is on the grassy knoll.

So it is reasonable to conclude that the Black Dog Man fired a shot from
the small retaining wall hitting JFK in the right temple. This bullet
apparently split into two large pieces and exited through the top front
and right rear locations of his head.

We have the murder of a President where no one in authority is looking
for who did it.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 27, 2008, 10:33:51 PM6/27/08
to

In a (lone) nutshell, the following two links provide ample evidence
to indicate these two things:

1.) The location of JFK's head exit wound (the right-front /
parietal).

and


2.) The direction from which the fatal head shot came (which was from
the rear, of course, due to the quick forward head snap that Charles
Wallace, amazingly, thinks was caused by a bullet from Black Dog Man
on the Knoll, which, of course, would be impossible). .....

THE ALMOST-ALWAYS-IGNORED VERIFIED X-RAY THAT PROVES JFK HAD NO LARGE
"BOH" WOUND AT ALL:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

THE FORWARD HEAD SNAP:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif

Walt

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 7:51:13 AM6/28/08
to
On 27 Jun, 21:33, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> In a (lone) nutshell, the following two links provide ample evidence
> to indicate these two things:
>
1.) The location of JFK's head exit wound (the right-front /
parietal).

If that's true.... Then why did Malcolm Kilduff point to his right
temple as the point of entry for the bullet? And why did EVERY
witness (30 +) who actually saw JFK's head wound use there right hand
with the fingers spread on the BACK of their head to demonstrate the
massive wound that they saw on JFK's head??

Pea Brain.....I think your lying.

>
> and
>
> 2.) The direction from which the fatal head shot came (which was from
> the rear, of course, due to the quick forward head snap that Charles
> Wallace, amazingly, thinks was caused by a bullet from Black Dog Man
> on the Knoll, which, of course, would be impossible). .....
>
> THE ALMOST-ALWAYS-IGNORED VERIFIED X-RAY THAT PROVES JFK HAD NO LARGE

> "BOH" WOUND AT ALL:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...

Gil Jesus

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 11:41:54 AM6/28/08
to
Walt:

One cannot expect those who are in denial to accept the truth.

Von Pinhead has only read one book on the assassination.

Perhaps he should have put the book down and watched some videos of
the witnesses who were THERE tell what they saw in their OWN words and
not the words that the lying Warren Commission attributed to them.

Lucky for him, I have those witnesses on video:

the brain wound was in the back of the head slightly to the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM

Wilson: bullet entered right front of skull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXkRO-zypo

The large back of the head wound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A

O'Donnell: Small wound in front, large wound in rear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XprQQrILI28

FBI man O'Neill: "large wound in right rear of skull"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q

Witnesses: "The back of his head blew off"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A

The Kilduff announcement:
Kilduff indicates bullet entered right front of skull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU

HSCA suppresses that ALL witnesses who saw the head wound described a
large exit wound in the back of the skull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM

Dennis David: Small entrance wound in front, large exit wound in rear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9LTOhTU84

The Head Wounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPOObPve3M

Of course, we should expect him to say that over 40 witnesses who saw
the exit wound at the rear of the skull ALL somehow got it wrong.

There's nothing else he CAN say.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 3:53:10 PM6/28/08
to
When you put the Parkland Personnel, with the Bethesda, & the closest
witnesses to the Presidential limo at z 313, including watching the film
itself, & the RR workers...it is overwhelming of at least one frontal
shot from The Grassy Knoll.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 4:53:47 PM6/28/08
to

>>> "It is overwhelming of at least one frontal shot from The Grassy Knoll." <<<


Best Evidence -- this photo:


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

Where's the BOH wound? Where?

It does not exist. And it never did.

Do you want to ignore this ironclad "NO BOH WOUND" proof forever? If
so, why?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 6:01:56 PM6/28/08
to

>>> "The fatal head wound came from the grassy knoll to the left front of the car, on the other side of the street. The trajectory and the bullet hole in the windshield testify to this." <<<


Nice new wrinkle there -- "left front". I.E., a location where we have
zero witnesses saying they heard any shots at all. Go figure.
(Silenced weapon, I suppose. That's always a useful thing to drag out
of the CT closet when none of the evidence supports a conspiracy-
tinged fantasy.)


And it's also too bad that every official investigation, investigator,
and pathologist looking into JFK's murder disagrees with your head-
shot assessment.

All of them are "official" liars, right? From H,B,&F....to the
WC....to the Clark Panel's 4 doctors....to the HSCA. Right?

Think again.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 6:14:17 PM6/28/08
to

>>> "That's the lateral head X-ray. What exactly do you think it proves?" <<<

That there is no large BOH wound in JFK's head (of course).

Duh.

Why are you asking this question, Tony? You know as well as I do that
there's no gaping BOH wound in the right-rear of JFK's cranium.

And the authenticated-by-the-HSCA X-ray, of course, proves beyond all
possible doubt that there was no large hole in the occipital region of
the head. There aren't even any cracks in the skull at the BOH that
would make John Canal happy. None.

If Dr. Boswell put "back in" any skull fragments prior to the X-rays
being taken (which would have been incredibly stupid in the first
place for him to want to do), it certainly wasn't IN THE OCCIPITAL
REGION...and this picture proves it (which is a picture that shows ALL
of the RIGHT-REAR area of JFK's head that the CTers think was
COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY by an assassin's bullet):


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

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 6:41:17 PM6/28/08
to


>>> "Bugliosi dare not debate me [Tony the Tiger] on the facts." <<<

As we all know, of course, "Marsh facts" are quite different from the
actual facts. Tony can't even admit there was a bullet entry hole in
the back of JFK's head.

So, if a "Bugliosi vs. Marsh" debate were to begin with that
particular argument being brought forth in front of the debate-
watching audience, Bugliosi would be home free from that point
forward. Because Marsh would be made to look so incredibly foolish
when he got up and said: "There was no hole at all in the back of
JFK's head; no entry hole and no exit hole either".

When you start out by trotting out that hunk of idiocy, then winning
the debate will certainly be an uphill struggle (to say the least).

But at least you'll be providing some laughs for the audience.

YoHarvey

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 6:48:33 PM6/28/08
to

One cannot expect those who are in denial to accept the truth.


Don't ya just love it when a vegetable, with no education such as
Jesus/Robcap attempts to sound intelligent? roflmao

tomnln

unread,
Jun 28, 2008, 6:59:08 PM6/28/08
to
WHO is Yo(Momma)Harvey?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm


"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e7d264d-7044-4a2c...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Gil Jesus

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 9:25:02 AM6/29/08
to
On Jun 28, 6:48�pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Don't ya just love it when a vegetable, with no education such as

> Jesus/Robcap attempts to sound intelligent? �roflmao-

Since you're still into slandering people, let's see who the
"vegetable with no education" REALLY is:

Who was it who claimed that the Oswald rifle had no scope when
found.?

Baileynme-spiffy-YoHarvey wrote:

"The scope was NOT on the MC when it was found. It was laying
alongside the weapon."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e3aedb4b219289ad

But a photo of Lt. Day in the TSBD picking the rifle up by the strap
SHOWS the scope ATTACHED:

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1Lw8sYt--F*VUv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/

after making this jackassed statement, Ed (YoHarvey) decided that he'd
better quit whiole he was behind and not address the evidence or
testimony in the future.

I rest my case.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 6:38:52 PM6/29/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39343a769d2a59d0


>>> "So, anyway, when they wrote this what do you think they meant (my caps): "UPON REFLECTNG THE SCALP MULTIPLE COMPLETE FR[A]CTURE LINES ARE SEEN TO RADIATE FROM.....AND THE SMALLER WOUND AT THE OCCIPUT.....THESE RESULT IN THE PRODU[C]TION OF NUMEROUS FRAGMENTS....." " <<<

Let's take a look at the WHOLE paragraph from the autopsy report that
John Canal has chopped up and fined-tuned for his own "There Was
Definitely A Large BOH Wound" purposes:

"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are
seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the
smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and
direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in
the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few
millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter."


www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

John C. conveniently left out these words in his truncated version of
that paragraph:

"...the large defect at the vertex."


The autopsy report does NOT spell out anything at all about there
being loose skull "fragments" specifically at the location of "the
smaller wound at the occiput" [which was the entry hole for Oswald's
6.5mm bullet at the back of the head].

Humes, of course, initially mis-located the entry head wound as being
way down at JFK's hairline, for some silly reason. Humes then reversed
himself on this very-low entry location for the HSCA, but then
evidently reversed himself yet again years later and put the wound
back at the hairline location.

So, yes, Dr. James J. Humes is a strange person. No doubt about that.

But at least the HSCA's FPP was able to get the location of the head
entry wound correct -- it's certainly not the white spot at the
hairline (which looks nothing at all like a bullet hole, in any way,
shape, or form); the bullet hole is the red spot near the cowlick
here:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=b0_phEcAAACzXMUR5-PWJyUOKn1zbkCgW_M9HnSurVXIBqVV4qsKJ2G1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQigVbThTP8TDn4ugjKLpza8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q&gsc=RdqwERYAAAAqZ3boo9r9LWJRVcEudzeA1-8z8plR0DPnojN3bu4ndA


Back to this (complete) paragraph of the autopsy report for a moment
longer:


"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are
seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the
smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and
direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in
the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few
millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter."


The "numerous fragments" referred to do not have to be referring to
the "smaller wound at the occiput". The "numerous fragments" almost
certainly refer ONLY to the exit wound in the parietal (right-front-
top) area of the head.

John, why do you think that the words "these result in the production
of numerous fragments" in that paragraph HAVE to be referring to BOTH
the exit wound at the right-frontal portion of JFK's head AND the
entry-wound location at the "occiput" area of the head?


Tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the words printed in
that complete paragraph I supplied from the autopsy report
automatically indicates that some of these "numerous fragments" were
located in the occiput?

The first part of the paragraph in question is concerning "fracture
lines" at both the entry and exit location. The latter portion of the
paragraph deals with "fragments", but there's nothing there that
specifically says ANY of these "fragments" came from the occipital
area of the head (i.e., near the small entry wound).

Here's another look at the X-ray which proves (for all time) that
almost all conspiracy theorists (and John Canal) are incorrect with
respect to their assessment about the head wounds sustained by
President John F. Kennedy in 1963:


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


http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files?grid=1

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 9:15:00 PM6/29/08
to
Hey David- you don't believe Humes, Boswell and Finck anyway do you?
3Pathologists being 4 inches off on a headwound..they have no
credibilty, so if you throw away what they say and listen to all the
other medico's it's bon voyage warren report..No comprende?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 29, 2008, 10:22:25 PM6/29/08
to

>>> "Hey David--you don't believe Humes, Boswell and Finck anyway, do you? 3 Pathologists being 4 inches off on a head wound. They have no credibilty, so if you throw away what they say and listen to all the other medico's, it's bon voyage Warren Report." <<<

Am I required to toss in the trash EVERYTHING a given witness said,
just because I believe a portion of that witness' remarks and
observations are incorrect?*

In the case of H,B,&F -- Should I completely disregard the fact that
JFK was struck in the head by only one bullet (from behind) due to the
fact that I have a quibble with Humes' location for that one head
(entry) wound?

And I'd have to disregard a lot more than JUST Humes' account of where
the bullet hole was located, too. I'd have to disregard this:


http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html


And I'd have to disregard this (a picture deemed unaltered in any
manner by the HSCA):

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


And I'd have to disregard this picture too (a pic that shows no "large
BOH" wound in JFK's head whatsoever):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=C14rqEcAAACzXMUR5-PWJyUOKn1zbkCg3Rex9HVj6g3zyG8IoQXywWG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQigVbThTP8TDn4ugjKLpza8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q

And I'd have to disregard this WC determination:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

And I'd have to disregard this HSCA determination:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0039a.htm


And I'd also have to disregard the initial head movement I see here
too:


http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif

Should ALL of the above be tossed in the trash bin of history due to
the 4-inch discrepancy with regard to where Humes (et al) placed the
entry wound on the back of John Kennedy's cranium?


Seems to me I could use the "Throw out the baby with the bathwater"
analogy here.

Should we, indeed, toss out the infant because the LN bathwater is a
little bit murky with respect to the exact square inch on JFK's head
that a bullet entered the back of his head?

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

Footnote.....

* = Awaiting the following CT retort:

"Well, David, the same thing has to apply to CT-favoring
witnesses too. Should we CTers toss out everything that Roger D. Craig
said that leads a person to think "conspiracy" just because of one
tiny little lie from Craig's mouth about having seen the words "7.65
MAUSER" stamped on the barrel of the rifle found on the sixth floor?

"Or: Should the CTers toss away everything else that Jean Hill
said just because of one little bald-faced lie she decided to tell
years later about how she actually SAW a man firing a gun from the
Grassy Knoll and about how she SAW Jack Ruby running around Dealey
Plaza too?"

My response to such a counter-argument involving witnesses who told
PROVABLE LIES following the assassination would be:

Yes, we have good reason to throw out pretty much everything uttered
by people like Roger Craig and Jean Hill (and Jim Garrison, too, for
that matter)....and that's because they are PROVEN LIARS without a
doubt.

The same cannot be said in the "proven liar" regard when it comes to
Dr. James Joseph Humes, however.

Humes was not a "liar". He's a bit of a strange character, IMO, but he
is not a liar. But good luck to anyone who wants to try and prove that
he is/was a "liar".

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 1:25:53 AM6/30/08
to

JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "I told you the report said the BOH was fragmented....and it does." <<<


DVP SAID:


No it doesn't. You just interpret it that way.

>>> "So the radiating complete fractures extended from the large parietal wound and wound in the occiput but only the radiating complete fractures that extended from the large parietal wound resulted in fragments???? Is that how you read that?" <<<


Yes, of course.

Why?

Because the entry wound was small and rounded (like almost all entry
wounds are) and such an entry wound would not have caused the kind of
fragmentation that you want to believe extended from that small entry
hole.

Whereas, naturally, the exit wound is much larger and irregular,
causing massive fragmentation of the skull in the parietal area at the
right-front as the tumbling bullet exited Kennedy's head.

Why in the world would a small entry hole (made by a stable bullet)
have caused the kind of eggshell-like cracking and fragmenting of the
skull that you want to believe occurred near that very small entry
hole?

Anyway, this photo/X-ray below proves you are wrong. And always will
prove that. It's not going anyplace (it's the X-ray that CTers and
certain LNers should be running from like crazy....and they usually
do, too):

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


Plus: The "low" entry location on JFK's head doesn't even equate (at
all) to the location of the massive fragmentation that you advocate.
Not even close to it:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=b0_phEcAAACzXMUR5-PWJyUOKn1zbkCgW_M9HnSurVXIBqVV4qsKJ2G1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQigVbThTP8TDn4ugjKLpza8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q&gsc=RdqwERYAAAAqZ3boo9r9LWJRVcEudzeA1-8z8plR0DPnojN3bu4ndA


How does this white spot located at the hairline (which is the entry
wound that you say caused the large BOH hole seen at Parkland) come
even close to lining up with the Parkland witnesses and their
individual recollections of a wound located much further RIGHT of that
white spot?

Face it, the Parkland witnesses saw the "pooling" effect and thought
it was a "hole". It wasn't.


>>> "IMO, Marsh makes more sense." <<<

Oh, dear. That remark cut....deep. Nice one. ;)

aeffects

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 2:29:11 AM6/30/08
to
there you go AGAIN, son..... quoting yourself quoting others..... has
your EGO no bounds?

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 4:37:17 AM6/30/08
to
On 30 Jun., 08:29, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> there you go AGAIN, son..... quoting yourself quoting others..... has
> your EGO no bounds?

Another poster fond of "quoting himself" is your hero Ben Holmes.
Unlike DVP, however, he doesn't have the decency to simply link to old
posts. You see, Ben likes to boast that no one has the guts to answer
his "45 questions," and linking to the old theads would make that lie
too painfully obvious, so he reposts instead...

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 30, 2008, 2:58:28 PM6/30/08
to
The clincher JFK was shot from the front if the ZFILM & the Dealey Plaza
Witnesses aren't enough, is the testimony of the medical personnel at
both Parkland and Bethesda.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 2:43:51 AM7/1/08
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ecbe4d8bbbdc1323?hl=en#

>>> "First, I'll post the complete paragraph about the radiating fractures and fragments from the autopsy report..." <<<


Never mind, I'll re-post it right now (to save you the trouble):


"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are
seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the
smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and
direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in
the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few

millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter." -- FROM JOHN F. KENNEDY'S
1963 AUTOPSY REPORT


www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

>>> "...and ask those posters who have a legal background to opine on whether they think the intention of the writer was to say that bone fragments resulted from JUST the fractures radiating from the parietal wound or from the parietal wound AND the small wound in the occipital." <<<


But before doing any opining on this matter, it'd be a good idea for
those doing the opining to take a good long look at this picture:

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

>>> "Then, if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that fragments resulted from ONLY the parietal wound, I'll admit I misinterpreted that paragraph and that the writer wasn't stating there were BOH fragments." <<<

Why on Earth would the random opinions of other people make you
willing to change your tune so abruptly on an issue that you've been
so adamant about for years now? That's crazy.

Along the same lines, if I could produce the opinions of many people
who think Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book is a great book and that VB
proves that there was no "BOH" wound in Kennedy's head, would that
"consensus" of opinion compel you to change your mind about your
current BOH arguments?

Approximately 75% of America believes that there was a conspiracy in
the murder of President Kennedy. But I'm certainly not going to switch
from the LN side to a CT one due to this ongoing "consensus" of public
opinion. Seems to me, via your "challenge" in this thread, you're
essentially (and loosely speaking) encouraging me to make that drastic
leap (since the "consensus" of opinion doesn't currently favor an
LNer's position).

>>> "Conversley [sic], if the consensus is that the writer [Humes] most likely meant that fragments resulted from the fractures radiating from BOTH the parietal and occipital wounds, you admit that the writer was stating there were occipital fragments." <<<


To use some of my earlier words written to you on this matter ---

Why on Earth would the random opinions of other people (who may not
even have a good deal of knowledge with regard to the subject at hand;
how would I know for sure?) suddenly want to make me immediately
reverse my own opinion on this matter?

>>> "If you can't agree to this challenge, in the interest of not wasting any more time, I don't think we have anything else to discuss." <<<


Gee, I actually thought you were through with my opinions a long time
ago. Suddenly I'm back in the fold again?? That's curious.

Looks to me like my post yesterday about the autopsy report put some
'worry wrinkles' on John Canal's forehead.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 3:00:21 AM7/1/08
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ecbe4d8bbbdc1323

>>> "The autopsy report stated that **COMPLETE** fractures radiated..." <<<

Nope. You left something out again -- the word "lines".

The AR says "complete fracture lines" -- not "complete fractures".

Makes a difference if you ask me (which you're not going to, of
course).


Keep re-defining the Report and other things too. You'll eventually be
able to get the autopsy report (and the doctors) to say exactly what
you're so desperate to believe -- i.e., that a large BOH wound really
existed in JFK's head and that the autopsists were all liars.*

* = But they were only liars occasionally (like when they left out a
bunch of stuff in their own 11/24/63 autopsy report). But they told
the truth at other times (in testimony given after the assassination).
When they decided to tell the truth, they must have just FORGOTTEN
about the "cover-up" (to avoid WW3) that they were engaged in back in
'63, huh? Otherwise, why would we have EVER gotten any "truth" out of
the bastards?

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 3:32:31 AM7/1/08
to
May I add the interviews with the medical people throughout the years
when they could talk freely.

aeffects

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 4:43:28 AM7/1/08
to

the Nutters sink everytime this is posted... VonPein will post all the
requisite nonsense to avoid the obvious.... He does dance better these
day's... perhaps after the drubbing VB's Reclaiming History took he
got a little religion.... after all, attempting to sell a
reconstituted WCR, didn't fool a soul....

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 5:54:53 AM7/1/08
to
The good David said" after all, attempting to sell a reconstituted WCR
didn't fool a soul" . Other than Vince P., I don't think Bugliosi's book
convinced anyone on the ct side-maybe Gary Mack, but he's been lone nut
city in every interview for a long time. Stu Wexler seemed to think
Bugliosi's book was even handed-which is idiotic..the only fucking thing
that may have been objective in da Bug's work was ODIO,but, that's about
it...anyone with some knowledge about this case and can still feel more
than their wallet should be upset by Bugliosi and his book. Laz

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 10:57:59 AM7/1/08
to
In article <fd4cdab2-e2e5-4549...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

Well, that's not quite true... Vince Palamara claims that it fooled him...

aeffects

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 3:10:30 PM7/1/08
to
On Jul 1, 7:57 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <fd4cdab2-e2e5-4549-a1f0-6d2ebcb12...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

LMAO!

aeffects

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 3:12:10 PM7/1/08
to

ya know Laz, I forgot all about Vince Palamara...(must of made quite
an impression on me, LMAO!)

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 1, 2008, 8:52:46 PM7/1/08
to


>>> "Attempting to sell a reconstituted WCR didn't fool a soul. Other than Vince P." <<<

You'd better re-think that one, because it looks like Vincent Palamara
is on his way back to your CT camp (just like I thought he might be,
in the wake of observing Mr. Palamara's continuing pro-CT comments at
Amazon and YouTube).


Vince P. said this on June 30, 2008:


"I'll tell you this: a good many fellow researchers are doing
their very best to "UNconvince" me of my regard for Bugliosi's
book...and it is starting to have an effect. As I alluded to before,
the back-of-the-head witnesses and the Sylvia Odio incident still
trouble me.

"Bugliosi's book just totally caught me off guard---I did not
expect such a well-written, LENGTHY indictment of Oswald that was so
all-encompassing (I kept a legal pad of all the areas I wanted him to
cover...and, to my astonishment, between the text and the disc, he
did). I may already be heading for the Anthony Summers/ Tink Thompson
"agnostic" viewpoint, so that is progress from my adamant reversal.
LOL. /s/ Vince [Palamara]"


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13049&view=findpost&p=148736


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


"Vincent Palamara doesn't seem to know which side of the fence
he's on. .... He seems to be trying his darndest to play the entire
field and to have it both ways. By reading some of his reviews for
both anti-CT and pro-CT material, it would appear that Mr. Palamara
believes in a unique "No Conspiracy Conspiracy" with respect to the
death of John F. Kennedy." -- DVP; June 17, 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66ceef57607ad041


0 new messages