Re: More "Back Of The Head" Banter

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/500fa6263430b77d/13e4324a017b91a4?#13e4324a017b91a4


JOHN KING SAID:

It is absolutely astonishing to me that you clearly do not yet
understand, thirteen months after I first told you, that I DO NOT
BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE FRONT EITHER.


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

I know full well that you DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A SHOT FROM THE
FRONT. I've known that fact about you since July 2011. [Tongue Twister
Alert! ---->] What makes you think that I think that you think there
was a shot from the front? I don't think I have ever suggested you
did.


JOHN KING SAID:

And you have, even once, given a plausible reason why all these
medical professionals were wrong about what they saw in the RIGHT REAR
of JFK's head?


DVP SAYS:

Oh, yes, I certainly have given a plausible explanation for that
occurrence, Mr. King. And it's the same explanation given by both
Vince Bugliosi and Michael Baden. You might not think it's "plausible"
at all, but given the circumstances and the truth that exists in the
autopsy photos and X-rays, I think the "pooling blood/brain" theory
makes the most sense. And I even presented this explanation (many
times) in our discussions last summer, including my last paragraph in
Part 16 of my "BOH" series at my site, which reads as follows:

"[The] Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head,
and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was
the only physical "hole" in his head." -- DVP; July 2011

In addition, I made my position regarding the "pooling blood" theory
very plain in one of my very first posts to you in July of
2011....this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2aa1a5fd8093cb04

And you obviously haven't read everything that I've written on this
subject (at least not very thoroughly), because you've accused me of
constantly claiming that I have said that the Parkland witnesses said
they saw a big hole at the "very back" of JFK's head (vs. using the
words "right rear"). And I'm sure it's true that on occasion I've
utilized those exact words ("very back")--which IS true, however, with
respect to some of the Parkland witnesses' claims, such as Dr. Dulany--
but FAR more often I use the words "right-rear" or "far-right-rear" to
describe where the Parkland witnesses placed the large wound.

In fact, just look at how many times I've used those precise words --
"right-rear" -- in the discussion I had with YOU in 2011 (below). I
used those words at least TEN times (count 'em for yourself), while I
utilized the words "very back" a total of ZERO times in this
discussion:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html


JOHN KING SAID:

My explanation doesn't include the ridiculous assertion that
approximately forty adults didn't know the difference between the part
of the head that is in front of the right ear and the part of the head
that is behind the right ear.


DVP:

~sigh~

Now I know you haven't paid any attention at all to what I wrote in
our discussion last year. For Pete sake, John, in my "BOH Part 16"
article above (which was our lengthiest session from last year if I'm
not mistaken, hence the reason why I archived that particular long
post at my site)--in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH--I talk about how I do
NOT believe in the "ridiculous" theory you just outlined above. Here's
exactly what I said on that matter:

"My theory about the Parkland witnesses has NEVER been that any
of them somehow mislabelled the area of JFK's head where they said
they saw the wound. I have a feeling that you still think I'm in the
"Jim Moore camp" with respect to this issue. But I'm certainly not.
But have you read Jim Moore's theory on this? He thinks all the
Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify the part of JFK's head that
contained the large exit wound, simply because Kennedy was lying on
his back in the emergency room." -- DVP; July 2011


JOHN KING SAID:

Sadly, you once again made the blithering mistake, with me of all
people, to still post your rebuttal to a frontal shot, which was
never, ever, ever what I was talking about.


DVP:

Are you of the opinion, John K., that ALL of the many parts in my
"BOH" series on my site are being directed solely at you and nobody
else? Why would you think such a thing?

And please point out to me where I have ever claimed that YOU,
specfically, were a conspiracy theorist or where I have stated that
you believe that any of JFK's wounds were caused by a frontal shot?
AFAIK, I have never made any such claim when addressing you.

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

[SaintlyOswald]

There were at least three shots from the front: two from Greer and one from the DPD detective standing on the bridge. Greer shot both Connally in the back and JFK somewhere, and Bridge Boy got Connally's wrist and JFK's throat or a chest wound we were never told about.

[Jason Burke]

On 9/21/2012 2:27 AM, SaintlyOswald wrote:
> There were at least three shots from the front: two from Greer and one from the DPD detective standing on the bridge. Greer shot both Connally in the back and JFK somewhere, and Bridge Boy got Connally's wrist and JFK's throat or a chest wound we were never told about.
>

You've got quite the knack for fan fiction!

[SaintlyOswald]

I've got the facts, and you will eventually agree, because it is true; Greer shot JFK and Connally.

[Sam McClung]

maybe greer and bridge boy were shooting at each other with cell phones?


so dcm intercedes with a shoe phone?

[Sam McClung]

with a cell phone?