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 Historical content remains viewable.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

REPLY TO DAVIO PEIN

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 9:25:15 AM1/13/08
to

You are one miserable piece of human trash, David.

You KNOW damned well, that image wasn't altered. It came straight from
mcadams website. And the reason even the others nutters in aaj won't
support you, is that it is way too easy for anyone to look at it and
zoom in to see EXACTLY what is they see in my video.

This is my AAJ response, which mcadams has been sitting on for almost
two days:


ROFLMAO!!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

There is the image, abrasion ring and all, straight out of my con artist
partner's website!

Zoom in on the image a bit, and you find a perfect match for what you
see in my video, minus some resolution deterioration caused by Youtube
compression.

Rather than make these ugly accusations, which you know are not true,
why don't you take a shot at explaining how that swollen ring around the
"dried blood", came to be?

And why don't you explain to us, why the ruler is clearly angled, to
measure that "dried blood" rather than your hole?


Robert Harris

In article
<5ed26506-08b0-43e7...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Why don't you look at my vids and see where I am coming from, rather
> >>> than have to keep guessing?" <<<
>
>
> I had a look at one of your videos (the one with the obviously
> "touched-up" autopsy picture of JFK's back, so that it looks like the
> lower defect on the back was more like a "bullet hole", which it
> wasn't....any idea who touched-up and drew in the "hole" on that
> version of the photo on your video, Bob? Just curious)....
>
> ....And your micro-analyzing the positioning of JBC in the limo is
> kind of laughable, since (as I've maintained and admitted for years)
> we can never know to the square inch on his jump seat he was situated
> at the exact moment that Bullet 399 was plowing through the men.
>
> You think you can micro-manage the "10-degree" angle from the TSBD
> down to a "2-degree" angle that you say leads perfectly back to Mr.
> Braden's lair in the Dal-Tex. Well, IMO, that's just more CTer wishful-
> thinking. (And I think you know that's what it is, too, Bob. Because
> such exactitude about the positioning of Connally is impossible to
> attain.
>
> I do, however, think Dale Myers has come the closest to perfection in
> that kind of "alignment" regard, via his exacting studies of the limo
> and the films and the body draft of the limo, etc.
>
> And Mr. Myers' analysis is perfect consistent (spot-on perfect in
> fact) with a sniper firing that SBT shot from Oswald's Sniper's-Nest
> window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository.
>
> And, lo and behold, coupled with such a computer-enhanced detailed
> analysis of the SBT and the Z-Film, what is found underneath that very
> window to which Myers has traced the SBT shot back to? --- Three spent
> rifle hulls.
>
> And how many shots were fired (according to over 76% of the
> earwitnesses)? Exactly three. No more. No less.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>
> That's pretty remarkable "3 Shots From The TSBD" stuff IF, in fact Bob
> Harris is correct and the SBT shot came from the Dal-Tex, don't you
> think?
>
>
> I find it amusing that people like Bob Harris can admit to the SBT
> being ALMOST 100% true...but not QUITE true.
>
> Bob's got a single bullet travelling through both Kennedy and Connally
> (like any rational person who has studied the sum total of all the
> evidence would have to realize did, in fact, occur on Nov. 22)....but
> Bob can't quite go the whole nine yards with the SBT.
>
> Instead of the WHOLE Warren Commission-endorsed AND HSCA-backed SBT
> being true, Bob has to place his own unique wrinkle into the theory
> and have the bullet coming from a different building (based on Bob's
> dreamed-up and wholly-unprovable notion that the right-to-left angle
> of the shot was only "2 degrees" and, therefore, must have come from
> somewhere other than the Depository's sixth floor.
>
> Bob Harris, of course, thinks he knows much more than the WC or the
> HSCA experts, who determined that the two victims in the limo WERE
> lined up properly to accept a single bullet from Oswald's gun in the
> TSBD.
>
>
> But Bob knows differently. He knows that it was only a "2-degree"
> right-to-left angle through the victims. Bob knows more than all of
> those pro-SBT guys.
>
> How does he know more? Beats me. Just because he says so I guess.
>
> A massive pile of evidence shows Robert Harris to be incorrect about
> his belief about the SBT shot coming from the Dal-Tex. But that won't
> stop him from dishing up that theory anyway.
>
>
>
> But I will say this for Bob -- At least he knows (as do I) that a
> single bullet went through both JFK & JBC at the same time on
> 11/22/63. He's a rare breed of CTer who will actually admit to that
> blatantly-obvious fact.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 10:10:29 AM1/13/08
to
I guess I'm forced to chase Bob Harris around the acj mulberry bush a
thousand times (and in several threads) before he reads these
replies....so I'll re-post them here (yet again)......

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

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f92226e96c68fbb6

>>> "There is the image, abrasion ring and all, straight out of my con artist partner's website!" <<<

When comparing the darker image from McAdams' site with the Lancer
picture below it, there appears to be a difference in the outline of
the lower defect (which is, of course, positively NOT a bullet hole;
the HSCA confirmed that via the Dox drawing).....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

The difference I'm seeing in the margins of the defect (i.e., blood
splotch) is probably merely a photo anomaly, possibly due to the top
photo being zoomed in a little more than the Lancer (lighter) version
of the picture.

If it seemed like I was accusing Bob (Harris) of playing fast and
loose with the autopsy photo, I apologize to you Bob. I'm now thinking
it's most probably just photo anomalies of some kind between the two
images which are showing the same thing. And this is possibly how
CTers like Bob can theorize about the blood spot looking more like a
bullet "hole", because the darker, zoomed-in image shows a splotch
that could easily be mistaken for a "hole" in Kennedy's back.

But, as mentioned before....where does this argument take a CTer -- to
the notion that JFK was shot TWO times in the back instead of just
once?

We know that JFK wasn't shot twice in the back....and since the UPPER-
most defect on his back most certainly was determined to have the
undeniable characteristics of a bullet hole, we can be certain that
the upper defect IS, in fact, a bullet hole. Which, obviously, has to
mean that any lower "defect" seen on the President's back cannot
possibly ALSO be a bullet hole.

~Mark VII~


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

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4ce3bc5692539621


>>> "You are one miserable piece of human trash, David. You KNOW damned well, that image wasn't altered. It came straight from mcadams website." <<<


Gee, thanks Robert.

I'm getting roasted by Bobby even after I posted an apology half-a-day
ago via the post below (perhaps Bob didn't see this yet, and that's
why I'm a "piece of human trash", huh?)......

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f92226e96c68fbb6

So, now, Bob...perhaps you can answer my question:

Was JFK shot in the back TWICE on Nov. 22nd?

If not, your argument about the "lower defect" being a bullet hole has
to be wrong, now doesn't it? (That's because the TOP defect positively
has a discernible abrasion "collar" and all the characteristics of a
bullet hole.) .....


http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5A-CORRECT.jpg

And I still maintain that the lower blood stain on JFK's back in the
McAdams (darker) image below looks different than the two Lancer
images posted above. Maybe the darker image hasn't been "touched-up"
in some way, but it does look different. Period. The reason for the
difference? -- Beats me. ~shrug~ ....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg


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

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 2:19:15 PM1/13/08
to

Thank you David. I appreciate your apology, which was buried deeply in a
thread, so I did not see it right away.

But in the future, rather than spam an accusation over and over again,
in two different newsgroups, why not simply ask me first, where I got
the image that you had doubts about?

BTW, I generally go by Bob or Robert.


Robert Harris

In article
<1b71dc35-1ddc-4c95...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,


David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

YoHarvey

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 3:39:56 PM1/13/08
to
On Jan 13, 2:19 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you David. I appreciate your apology, which was buried deeply in a
> thread, so I did not see it right away.
>
> But in the future, rather than spam an accusation over and over again,
> in two different newsgroups, why not simply ask me first, where I got
> the image that you had doubts about?
>
> BTW, I generally go by Bob or Robert.
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <1b71dc35-1ddc-4c95-b64b-7fda4b3a0...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5A-CORRECT...

>
> > And I still maintain that the lower blood stain on JFK's back in the
> > McAdams (darker) image below looks different than the two Lancer
> > images posted above. Maybe the darker image hasn't been "touched-up"
> > in some way, but it does look different. Period. The reason for the
> > difference? -- Beats me. ~shrug~ ....
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> > ==================================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Harris, in your world of shadows and mirrors, NO evidence pointing to
LHO is REAL.

aeffects

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 4:57:40 PM1/13/08
to

hey Alice....

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
forbears any actual material fact.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 12:19:08 AM1/14/08
to
>>> "Thank you David. I appreciate your apology, which was buried deeply in a thread, so I did not see it right away." <<<

S'alright.

Now that that is behind us.....please answer my question that I've
asked you two or three times previously (sans a response from
you).....

Do you, Robert Harris, think that John Kennedy was shot in the back
TWO times on 11/22/63?

If the answer to the above inquiry is "No" (which I assume will be
your response), then since you think the LOWER artifact on Kennedy's
back is a bullet hole, how do you explain the presence of the UPPER
DEFECT on JFK's back, which is a defect that has the undeniable
characteristics of an "abrasion collar" and is a defect that was
determined by the HSCA to positively be a bullet hole?

I look forward to your response regarding this "bullet hole(s)"
matter.

Regards,
David Von Pein

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg

www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1

www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=kt8qtb3408&v=1


cdddraftsman

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 2:41:13 AM1/14/08
to

I wouldn't get too far into apology's with Robert Harris . Mag30th on
YouTube pretty much proved that Robert Harris has been doctoring
frames of the Z-film to support his spurious allegations of conspiracy
that he's trying to anamor all the kiddies there with . He's got his
low life ass kicked otta here before and he's looking to have it done
again :

mag30th wrote to me in a e-mail :

Re: Re: Cosmosity, LonelyNutter, bobharris77


Just an update, Bob has created a youtube account with the handle
"Mag3 (then the LETTER O instead of the number zero) and is posting
as through he is me.


I just thought Id give you the heads-up on that, I didnt want you to
see his posts and think I was slipping in the head or anything.


Here is his comment he posted and it is on his video titled Re:
Questions for Robert Harris's JFK assassination "theory":


mag3Oth


Hell, I ain't stoopid.I no there was a conspiracy. and ive been lying
my ass off about the assasinatiun.


I didnt do it fer money though i done it for sexual favers from tom
lowry. dam! it was good - even though I coudnt sit fer a week,
heehee.


I'm gonna have to keep attakin ya though, othewise no nookie for me,
heehee.


Sorry, harris I removed your answers and blocked ya cause none of my
friends can handle yer arguments anymore.


Maggie


end .......................................


Hope all's well.
Mag30th.


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


I hope this teaches Robert Harris a good lesson that he can't hope to
cope w/
the king of anti-conspiracy or his minions !


tl


Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 11:12:59 AM1/14/08
to

Ernest, I realize how mad you are that I blocked you in Youtube. But I
would have blocked anyone else, who posted a vulgar message like that.

Please keep the stuff about gay, anal sex in your own forums. In fact,
if you post a few messages, promising to stop doing that, I might even
decide to unblock you.

I think a lot of other Youtubers would as well.

Robert Harris

In article
<5021d755-e971-4adf...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

aeffects

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 11:14:15 AM1/14/08
to
On Jan 13, 11:41 pm, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> "Thank you David. I appreciate your apology, which was buried deeply in a thread, so I did not see it right away." <<<
>
> > S'alright.
>
> > Now that that is behind us.....please answer my question that I've
> > asked you two or three times previously (sans a response from
> > you).....
>
> > Do you, Robert Harris, think that John Kennedy was shot in the back
> > TWO times on 11/22/63?
>
> > If the answer to the above inquiry is "No" (which I assume will be
> > your response), then since you think the LOWER artifact on Kennedy's
> > back is a bullet hole, how do you explain the presence of the UPPER
> > DEFECT on JFK's back, which is a defect that has the undeniable
> > characteristics of an "abrasion collar" and is a defect that was
> > determined by the HSCA to positively be a bullet hole?
>
> > I look forward to your response regarding this "bullet hole(s)"
> > matter.
>
> > Regards,
> > David Von Pein

> I wouldn't get too far into apology's with Robert Harris . Mag30th on


> YouTube pretty much proved that Robert Harris has been doctoring
> frames of the Z-film to support his spurious allegations of conspiracy
> that he's trying to anamor all the kiddies there with . He's got his
> low life ass kicked otta here before and he's looking to have it done
> again

need we remind you....

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

> tl

Bud

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 6:55:36 PM1/14/08
to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Thank you David. I appreciate your apology, which was buried deeply in a thread, so I did not see it right away." <<<
>
> S'alright.
>
> Now that that is behind us.....please answer my question that I've
> asked you two or three times previously (sans a response from
> you).....
>
> Do you, Robert Harris, think that John Kennedy was shot in the back
> TWO times on 11/22/63?
>
> If the answer to the above inquiry is "No" (which I assume will be
> your response), then since you think the LOWER artifact on Kennedy's
> back is a bullet hole, how do you explain the presence of the UPPER
> DEFECT on JFK's back, which is a defect that has the undeniable
> characteristics of an "abrasion collar" and is a defect that was
> determined by the HSCA to positively be a bullet hole?
>
> I look forward to your response regarding this "bullet hole(s)"
> matter.

<snicker> I remember when Harris used to put that "There are no
questions an honest man will avoid" line after his name. I wonder
where this constant question ducking place him?

Another blatant example of his hypocricy was insisting DVP call him
"Bob" or "Robert", when he calls him "Davio Pein" in the header.

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 9:44:46 PM1/14/08
to
In article
<b32b891d-a6a0-4d1f...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Thank you David. I appreciate your apology, which was buried deeply in a
> >>> thread, so I did not see it right away." <<<
>
> S'alright.
>
> Now that that is behind us.....please answer my question that I've
> asked you two or three times previously (sans a response from
> you).....
>
> Do you, Robert Harris, think that John Kennedy was shot in the back
> TWO times on 11/22/63?
>
> If the answer to the above inquiry is "No" (which I assume will be
> your response), then since you think the LOWER artifact on Kennedy's
> back is a bullet hole, how do you explain the presence of the UPPER
> DEFECT on JFK's back, which is a defect that has the undeniable
> characteristics of an "abrasion collar" and is a defect that was
> determined by the HSCA to positively be a bullet hole?

David, there is nothing that even faintly resembles an abrasion collar
around the upper "defect". Nor does it even look like a bullet wound.

But there is a very clear outline surrounding the lower one, which is
either an abrasion collar or the result of the defect being probed by
the autopsists, using their fingers as well as instruments.

Now that I have answered your question, will you answer mine?

1. What is the cause of the apparent swelling that encircles the lower
defect?

2. Based on the angle of the ruler, which of the two are the autopsists
measuring?


Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 10:15:08 PM1/14/08
to
>>> "David, there is nothing that even faintly resembles an abrasion collar around the upper "defect". Nor does it even look like a bullet wound." <<<

You're out of your mind. That upper defect is positively a bullet
hole. Funny that the HSCA concluded that very thing too, huh?


>>> "But there is a very clear outline surrounding the lower one." <<<

Replay ---

You're out of your mind.


>>> "What is the cause of the apparent swelling that encircles the lower defect?" <<<


The cause? -- Your imagination. That's what.

>>> "Based on the angle of the ruler, which of the two are the autopsists measuring?" <<<


As I said previously, the ruler is useless/worthless. It's not really
measuring anything at all. It certainly isn't measuring the distance
from the mastoid. And it certainly isn't measuring anything associated
with the "lower defect", because that's nothing but a spot of blood,
and the HSCA agrees with me....

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/7a/Photo_hsca_ex_20.jpg

Robert Harris

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 11:09:44 PM1/14/08
to

Man, the nutters around here have REALLY gotten bitter over the last
year. I guess your mirror opposites have too though.

It is fascinating to observe this stuff, coming in after a long leave of
absence. How do you get this bitter and mean spirited?


Robert Harris

In article
<53c95fdb-f59e-4125...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 7:53:33 PM1/15/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cb255c3b8dcccd3a


>>> "David, I am a bit confused here." <<<


That's not surprising. ;)


>>> "Previously, you claimed that I altered the photo to make that spot look like a bullet wound." <<<


Nope. I never claimed that YOU altered anything. You're mistaken. I
was careful to never accuse YOU yourself of anything underhanded.
Better read my posts again regarding that subject. Here they are (for
easy-to-access reference):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c78ffa72b0b018fc

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/905483a397112f69

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f92226e96c68fbb6

>>> "Now you admit that the image is pristine, but you claim it doesn't even faintly resemble a bullet wound." <<<


Well, I can't be 100% perfect ALL the time, can I? After all, I'm only
human (as far as us lowly LNers go, that is). ;)


Amazingly, even the Master of Perfection (Vince Bugliosi) made several
innocent mistakes in his JFK book (and during his dozens of radio/TV
interviews since May 2007).


Even Babe Ruth and Ted Williams went 0-for-4 occasionally.


But in the final "upper-back wound photo" analysis -- The lower
splotch on JFK's back was determined to NOT be a bullet hole. The
larger, higher defect is the bullet hole, per the House Select
Committee on Assassinations.

www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

>>> "I guess you just thought I was one pretty crumby con artist eh?" <<<


I never said YOU were any kind of a "con artist". But I still wouldn't
put it past some CTers to "touch up" an existing copy of a photo and
try to peddle his/her handiwork as the real deal on the Internet. It'd
be a piece of cake to accomplish. (Not for me, though, but for others.
I wouldn't know how to "alter" anything.)

But certain things in some photos can look quite different, depending
on the quality of the image and the "zoomed" factor being employed.


http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/12149.jpg


>>> "Even Cdddraftsman's alter-ego...admitted in Youtube that he saw a "faint outline" encircling that wound." <<<

Good for him/(her).


>>> "What do you suppose got him so confused, David?" <<<

~shrug~

Hillary Clinton maybe? Or aliens? Michael Rennie? (Michael played
"Klaatu" in 1951's "The Day The Earth Stood Still"; his faithful
robot, "Gort", could have easily burned a fake hole in JFK's back with
his Death Ray...or altered a photograph.)

www.amazon.com/review/R2YT0SCXXEG5CZ


>>> "The upper location doesn't even faintly resemble a bullet wound." <<<


It somehow fooled the HSCA though. Go figure.

~another shrug~


>>> "David, this is not a subjective issue." <<<


Correct. It's not. And you're just plain wrong. Simple as that.

And the HSCA agrees with me. Why don't you go argue with Blakey &
Company about it? Shouldn't they know a little more about the wound
location than you (or I)....seeing as how they were assigned the task
of officially investigating the JFK case?

www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/7a/Photo_hsca_ex_20.jpg

>>> "So, why were the autopsists measuring the distance from the neck to a dried clot of blood??" <<<


How do you know WHAT they were measuring? Telepathy?

>>> "So they were perhaps using the ruler to squash an insect?" <<<


IMO, the ruler is probably there to provide some kind of measuring
"scale" (tool/device) within the image. But it surely isn't there to
measure the distance from the "body landmark" that the back wound WAS
measured from -- the Right Mastoid Process.


www.upstate.edu/cdb/grossanat/imgs/sklattp5.jpg

>>> "They were using that ruler to measure the distance from the base of the neck to the back wound." <<<


Then why did the autopsists OFFICIALLY measure the back wound from a
completely-different part of JFK's body (i.e., the mastoid process)?

Is there anything in the JFK literature/testimonies that indicates
that the ruler in the photo is there to "measure the distance from the
base of the neck to the back wound"?

If there is, I've never run across that documentation. Maybe Bob has.

Or maybe Bob's just guessing.


>>> "Robert Harris." <<<

David R. Von Pein
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 18, 2008, 1:51:30 AM1/18/08
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cb255c3b8dcccd3a


>>> "So you admit that some people can mistake a blood clot for a bullet hole. Guess that? That's what they did for the head wound." <<<

Sure, people sitting around in their parlor looking at 2-dimensional
PICTURES of the body of JFK might "mistake" a blood spot for a
"hole"....but the autopsists themselves (who had their hands on
Kennedy's body) sure aren't going to make such a goofball error.


For some inexplicable reason, Humes got the entry wound location on
JFK's head wrong. But he later corrected himself in front of the HSCA/
ARRB, didn't he?

Too late, right? (If you're a CTer.)

No "take backs" for Humes, et al. Right?

That whole entry-wound location issue is moot anyway, since it's been
verified via the SKULL BEVELLING that only one bullet struck JFK in
the head...and that bullet (regardless of its precise, to-the-square-
inch location on the head where it entered) entered at the BACK OF
KENNEDY'S SKULL, exiting at the right-front of the head.

Let 'em have their "4-inch" differential. How does that differential
CHANGE THE BASIC FACT OF -- "JFK WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY JUST ONE
BULLET, AND THAT BULLET CAME FROM BEHIND"?

Answer: It doesn't.

aeffects

unread,
Jan 18, 2008, 3:58:54 AM1/18/08
to
On Jan 17, 10:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cb255...

oh really?

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 1:41:51 AM1/19/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cb255c3b8dcccd3a/e411619629c5ae3d?#e411619629c5ae3d

>>> "They {autopsy docs} missed the throat wound." <<<

Because the trach obliterated it.


(More about the "stupidity" of this below.)


>>> "He {Humes} still reverted to the EOP entrance wound." <<<

So what?

There's still only ONE hole of entry in the head....and it's not in
the front. Period.

>>> "No, never, after all his {Evil Doctor Humey} lies." <<<


Name one provable "lie" from Humes' lips.

Not a "mistake". A "lie" please.

>>> "And no forgiveness either." <<<

I'm sure that Commander Humes is crushed by your lack of forgiveness.


>>> "There was no hole on the back of the head..." <<<


If you say it 25 more times, you qualify for a free copy of Mellen's
new Garrison-propping tome.

(I think maybe you could get Brian "Pyrotechnics Device" Andersen to
believe you though. Try him.)

>>> "It confirms their {HB&F} incompetence and calls into question everything they did." <<<


The main determinations of the autopsy weren't botched (i.e., "2
bullets hit JFK; both of them coming from above and behind")....but
the postmortem exam certainly could have been better, I'll grant you
that.

The biggest mistake (IMO) by Humes, et al, was the unbelievable
oversight/(stupidity) of NOT CALLING DR. PERRY in Dallas while Kennedy
was still on the slab at Bethesda.

Just...dumb.

Was Humes worried that he would wake up poor Dr. Perry and disturb his
slumber?

Humes admitted that he was deeply concerned about not finding any
bullets inside JFK's neck/back areas, and he suspected that the trach
might double as a bullet hole. But he just sits on his hands re. this
huge question mark until the next day (when the body's now out of his
control).

Unbelievable stupidity, IMO.

That's a bigger mistake than the "4-inch" gaffe, if you ask me.

YMMV.


>>> "So, the exact locations of wounds does not matter at all? Then why bother having an autopsy at all?" <<<


Most "reasonable" people can easily see that the three autopsists got
the "big ticket" stuff correct (regardless of the exact to-the-
millimeter location of certain wounds, which CTers would no doubt find
a reason to quibble about even if HB&F and the FPP had agreed 100% on
the exact locations of JFK's wounds).

The big-ticket (i.e., most important) stuff being:

1.) JFK was shot two times and only two times.

2.) JFK was shot from "above and behind" only.

3.) The bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat.


Most of the other stuff regarding the discrepancies of the exact
location of some of the wounds is secondary.

The discrepancies serve as a nice, 44-year-long parlor game to spark
CT vs. LN debate, but that's about it. Because that pesky SUM TOTAL of
evidence (including the imperfect autopsy) is telling a reasonable
individual that three shots were fired at JFK by Lee Oswald in the
TSBD, with two of those bullets striking President Kennedy, killing
him.


It would be nice if the discrepancies in the medical/autopsy record
did not exist...true. I cannot deny that. But even with those
discrepancies and disagreements in the record of this case, it's still
very possible to arrive a firm "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" solution to
the murder of JFK.*

* = Unless, that is, some people actually are of the opinion that Drs.
Humes, Boswell, and Finck were so utterly incompetent and inept and
stupid (all THREE of them!) that they really couldn't tell a blob of
"tissue" or a spot of "blood" from an actual "BULLET ENTRY HOLE" in
the BACK of President Kennedy's head during the autopsy on November
22, 1963.

Does anyone actually think the three doctors (ALL of them!) were truly
THAT incompetent?**

** = Oops...sorry...I forgot. Tony Marsh does, indeed, reside in such
a camp.

Go figure.

0 new messages