THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD (ONCE AGAIN)
David Von Pein
>>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
Answer: Never.
They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in
the RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and
RIGHT SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967
[Emphasis is DVP's]
>>> "...a photo that you're 100% absolutely positive...wasn't taken after some repair was done to the BOH scalp....even though that photo wasn't time-stamped and there is clear and convi[n]cing testimony that openings in the scalp were closed (in preparation for a possible open-casket funeral), with Humes assisting them, before the body left the morgue? Is that your compelling argument?" <<<
My "compelling argument" is derived from a combination of things, of
course--with all of the things in this "combination" being far more
convincing and DEFINITIVE than any of the witnesses who claimed they
saw a great-big hole at the back of JFK's head on November 22 (no
matter how many of these BOH witnesses there were).
And when viewed and examined IN TANDEM and in their totality, this
combination of things below is telling everyone with some common sense
(and at least one functioning eyeball) that there was not--and, in
fact, COULD NOT have been--a large hole in the back of President
Kennedy's head (in BOTH the SCALP and SKULL of Kennedy's head) after
he was shot in the head from behind by Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano bullet:
1.) This autopsy X-ray -- which certainly does not do the "BOH" crowd
any favors whatsoever....because it couldn't be more obvious, from
this X-ray picture alone, that JFK did not have any kind of a large
hole in the BACK of his head in the occipital region:
2.) This autopsy photograph -- which does not do the "BOH" crowd any
favors either. And the SCALP of the President's head is COMPLETELY
INTACT in this picture, too. Not a sign of damage. Nothing. And not a
sign of any stitches or "repair" work having been done to the rear
scalp of JFK can be detected either (but John Canal apparently can see
the repairs; but he's the only person on the planet who can,
evidently):
And since it couldn't be more obvious from the above photo of the back
of President Kennedy's head that the SCALP in the ENTIRE BACK of his
head was completely intact and totally undamaged....then the next
logical question to ask, of course, is -- How in the world would it
have been physically POSSIBLE for anyone at Parkland Hospital to have
seen a great-big, gaping hole in the back part of JFK's head if his
scalp looked like this (in two different photographs) during his
autopsy on the night of 11/22/63?:
Answer to that last question: It's not possible.
3.) The autopsy report, which doesn't help out the "BOH" theorists
very much either (unless the word "somewhat" can somehow be looked
upon by some theorists to mean that a huge hole was present ONLY in
the VERY BACK PART of Kennedy's head, which is the only alternative
the BOH theorists have with respect to this "somewhat" language that
appears in the autopsy report; because it couldn't be more obvious
that the report is describing a wound that was located on the RIGHT
SIDE of JFK's head, and not in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head):
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
4.) The three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), who all
signed the autopsy report which contained the words I just used in #3
above.
Not ONCE did any of the three autopsy surgeons talk about there being
a large gaping hole in the BACK of John F. Kennedy's head. Never. And
that's because: No such gaping "BOH" wound ever existed in the first
place.
So, naturally, the doctors never talked about a wound of "fantasy"
that was never present in President Kennedy's head to begin with.
A Humes Replay:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and
RIGHT SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967
[Emphasis is DVP's]
5.) The Zapruder Film -- which does not support any kind of a "BOH
wound" scenario at all, as we can easily see in digital clarity via
the following stabilized version of the film (which is not playing in
real time; it's been slowed down just a tad; but that really doesn't
matter here):
Add up #1 through #5 above. What do you get?
Do those things add up to the "BOH wound" witnesses being correct?
Or do they add up to the logical conclusion (via a combination of
photographs, X-rays, the Zapruder Film, the official autopsy report,
and the words of the autopsists) that President Kennedy did not have a
large hole in the back part of his head?
Amazingly, instead of opting for the latter choice, lone-assassin
believer John Canal has decided to choose the first answer shown
above.
And John will choose that first answer even though the second answer
is a conclusion that is firmly anchored by the weight of much better
and definitive evidence than the eyewitnesses who viewed JFK's head
wounds.
Go figure John Canal's logic on this matter.
I can't.
David Von Pein
November 15, 2008
=============================================
RELATED "BOH" STUFF:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
=============================================
lazu...@webtv.net
Groden's The Killng Of A President where do they all place their hands?
Hint: Occipital, I sure as hell don't need you or Marsh, to tell me your
opinion is better than theirs-professionals who were there. Jeff
David Von Pein
Zooooooooooom!!!! [Straight over Laz's head. He didn't even feel the
breeze.]
YoHarvey
> Zooooooooooom!!!! [Straight over Laz's head. He didn't even feel the
> breeze.]
He's endorsing Groden??????????????????????????? More proof the nuts
don't fall far from the tree.
aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "You change a BOH wound into a "huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge." YOU made that up." <<<
LOL.
The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
"huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses.
Hence, I used a synonym for "very large" -- "Huge".
Or do you think that John Canal would now like to pretend that Dr.
McClelland's drawing (showing an enormous--i.e., "huge"--hole in the
back of Kennedy's head is a fake drawing of some kind)?
And we all know that John C. believes McClelland's story about the BOH
wound....right?
In short: Mr. Canal is making up theories as he goes along....not
unlike most CTers, of course.
aeffects
the nuts didn't fall to far below your chin.... now off your knees,
there's lone nut trolls about...
David Von Pein
>>> "McAdams says my arguments are too arcane. Walker says I'm rude. Fiorentino says he's too busy. Durnavich and Mitch Todd quit posting entirely..and it goes on and on. Funny thing, though, none of them will explain the conflicts I present to them regarding the stupid cowlick entry or no-BOH-wound theories....it's just you who stubbornly "tries" to with your repetitive already-debunked-trio of so-called evidence, the Z-film, the lateral x-ray, and the BOH photo." <<<
LOL. John Canal thinks those three things have been "debunked" in some
way. That's a real howl!
Those three things being:
1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows no large-ish hole in the back of
JFK's head at any point on the film).
2.) The lateral X-ray of JFK (which shows no large BOH hole at all, of
course).
3.) The autopsy photo [actually TWO pictures in total, including the
back-wound photo] of the back of JFK's head (which, of course, shows
no large-ish BOH hole either).
The above three things, IN TANDEM, are proving that John's own theory
is incorrect. But he thinks that this IN-TANDEM evidence (which all
shows him to be wrong) has been "debunked" in some fashion.
But John C. doesn't think that any of these items have been "faked" or
"tampered with" either. So it's a strange belief that John possesses
here. Those three items are "debunked" in John's mind--but ONLY so far
as his own unique "LN/LG. BOH Wound" theory is concerned.
As Andy Taylor always used to mumble to himself on "The Andy Griffith
Show" in the early 1960s -- "Curious, curious, curious."
>>> "I just think you ought to ask yourself why you don't have a lot of active support for your high entry and no-BOH wound myths." <<<
Now I'm believing in "myths" with respect to these things. LOL
reprise!
In actuality, if you were to take a poll amongst LNers (here at these
forums or anywhere else), my guess would be that approximately 99% of
all of those LNers believe in just EXACTLY the same scenario that I
believe in. And that list of LNers certainly includes Vincent
Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Jim Moore, and several other LN
authors.
The reason for the lack of "active support" on these forums, John, is
pretty easy to figure out I think -- it's because those other LNers
(who certainly do not favor the theory that there was ANY kind of a
large-sized hole in the back of JFK's head) are just sick and tired of
following you and your silly theory around the mulberry bush, time and
time again.
Heck, I've gone around this same bush with you at least a half-a-dozen
times myself. But, then too, I probably have lots more time to peck
away on this keyboard than most other LNers have. After all, those
people most likely have what is called a "life". I don't. Hence, I
spend hours typing a lot of common-sense-filled stuff into my computer
that will be archived by Google Groups (it'll remain pretty much
ignored and unread; but it satisfies me to know that my writings are
archived somewhere in cyberland).
I'm sure we'll dance around that "BOH" bush a seventh time pretty
soon, John. Until then, try to keep this photo in the forefront of
your mind (if you can); and then ask yourself, honestly, if your LN/
BOH theory has even the slightest chance of being accepted by the
masses as the truth:
David Von Pein
November 18, 2008
aeffects
<snip the DVP aka DReitzes nonsense>
no advertising, troll...
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ace67...
>
> >>> "You change a BOH wound into a "huge" BOH wound. He never said "huge." YOU made that up." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> The Parkland Hospital witnesses said the wound was very large (IOW,
> "huge"). And John Canal believes the PH witnesses.
>
> Hence, I used a synonym for "very large" -- "Huge".
you pukes alter most evidence, testimony you touch, so we know, no
sweat Lying<---- Nutter prescribed second nature, carry on!
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ace67...
>
>
> When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
> Answer: Never.
Hey Dave, the "Clark Panel" said they were TOTALLY WRONG with the
location of the entry wound to the BOH, how do you explain this?
Was the entry wound at the EOP or the top of the head at the rear like
the "Clark Panel" said?
> They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in
> the RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
>
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and
> RIGHT SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967
> [Emphasis is DVP's]
Dave lies about the fact they listed the occiput as well as they said
the wound affected the POSTERIOR parietal, temporal and occipital
regions. (WCR, pp. 501-2)
Note it does NOT say anterior (frontal), but rather posterior
parietal, etc...meaning the wound was affecting the top and back of
the head.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 15, 8:54=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ace67...
>>
>ible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and O'Neil=
>l were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
>>
>> When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>>
>> Answer: Never.
>
>Hey Dave, the "Clark Panel" said they were TOTALLY WRONG with the
>location of the entry wound to the BOH, how do you explain this?
>
>Was the entry wound at the EOP or the top of the head at the rear like
>the "Clark Panel" said?
>
>
>> They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in
>> the RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
Actually, the correct phrase is "Occipital-parietal". LNT'ers always have
troubles with the term "occipital."
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5785a215300dcad1
>>> "JFK's limo had only a couple of small drops of blood on it." <<<
Huh?? WTF??
>>> "Well, the actual shooter WAS photographed." <<<
Huh? Where? When? By whom?
Tony's imagining stuff again, I see.
>>> "But there IS a large exit on the left side of JFK's head." <<<
Huh? And WTF???!!
Tony must be imagining things (again).
>>> "The autopsy photos clearly show it [i.e., "a large exit on the left side of JFK's head"]..." <<<
Huh??
Oh, yes,.....
WTF????
>>> "and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show it [i.e., "a large exit on the left side of JFK's head"]." <<<
Huh?
Tony's imagining things (yet again).
>>> "We do have false reports from witnesses who said there was a wound on the left side of the head." <<<
Huh?
You just said there was "a large exit on the left side of JFK's head".
But now you're saying that the reports from any witnesses who might
have said that (which, in reality, are ZERO in number, AFAIK) are
"false reports"??
What a tangled mess of unsupportable nonsense Anthony Marsh has
hammered out in this post I'm responding to here.
Geeeeesh.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/74e10db30c2889b5
Virtually EVERY lone-assassin believer I have ever encountered (except
John Canal) believes that there was NO WOUND in the BACK of John
Kennedy's head except the one and only ENTRANCE wound in his head.
And, actually, that's pretty obvious to every LNer (except John
Canal). And, as stated a thousand times before, the biggest reason to
KNOW that this is true (i.e., there's NO WOUND in the BOH except the
small wound of entry) is the lateral autopsy X-ray of JFK's head.
John Canal couldn't work a "BOH" wound (which supports the Parkland
witnesses and some of the Bethesda witnesses) into this photo below if
his life depended on it. But that won't stop him from trying:
>>> "I'm off this silly merry-go-round." <<<
Me too. I think seven go-rounds is probably enough. (Although I liked
my "mulberry bush" verbiage better.) ;)
See ya,
David Von Pein
November 19, 2008
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/74e10db30c2889b5
>
> Virtually EVERY lone-assassin believer I have ever encountered (except
> John Canal) believes that there was NO WOUND in the BACK of John
> Kennedy's head except the one and only ENTRANCE wound in his head.
>
you don't know anyone, hon -- you don't exist, trust us!
<snip the DVP garbage>
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d2a57d97e78f04d3/d7411cce68eaee1f
>>> "What they DID show is that it's so much LN hooey, as several of us have said for years, that damage to the back of the head could only come from a shot to the front ... thus the LN at all cost argument against what was clearly seen and reported by Clint Hill from DP, Parkland personnel, and the autopsists .... the only 3 places/people in the universe to see JFK's head, up close and personal like, in the aftermath of the shooting." <<<
How did the PH people and Clint Hill see such a gaping wound at the
far-right-rear of JFK's head when we know the scalp of JFK looked like
this at the autopsy?:
....And how did those people see such a gaping BOH wound when we know
the head of JFK looks like this in the lateral X-ray?:
Shouldn't the two pictures above make ANYONE (CTer or LNer) want to re-
assess their position about advocating a big hole in the back of
Kennedy's head?
If it doesn't make you want to re-assess that viewpoint....why not?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:82452e15-aab3-416d...@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
awthr...@gmail.com
David Von Pein wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ace670f326c401ff/a8558276efcfbb60?hl=en&#a8558276efcfbb60
>
>
>
> >>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
>
> When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
> Answer: Never.
>
> They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in
> the RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:
>
>
> "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT
David, would you take a moment right now and touch the front part of
your head? Touch the front part above one of your eyes.
Next look at the post mortem photo of JFK and show us where on the
front part of JFK's head there is a wound.
Now look at the death stare photo and the frontal x-ray and tell us
where the front of the head injury is. For your convenience here are
some photos to peruse:
David Von Pein
If you can't tell from the photos and X-rays that the BACK of JFK's
head was totally intact, then you need an eyeball
transplant....because your current pair of orbs isn't working very
well at all.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7859d9bd4fbbac0b
>>> "1. Do you "honestly" think that [BOH autopsy] photo was taken even near to when the body was first received?" <<<
I have no way of knowing with 100% certainty.
But it would certainly appear, via Dr. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission
testimony, that several photographs (and most of the X-rays, per
Humes' comments below) were taken before the autopsy got underway:
"Some of these X-rays were taken before and some during the
examination which, also maintains for the photographs, which were made
as the need became apparent to make such. However, before the
postmortem examination was begun, anterior, posterior, and lateral X-
rays of the head, and of the torso were made, and identification type
photographs, I recall having been made of the full face of the late
President. A photograph showing the massive head wound with the large
defect that was associated with it. To my recollection all of these
were made before the proceedings began." -- DR. JAMES J. HUMES; WARREN
COMMISSION TESTIMONY; 1964
The above testimony doesn't specifically mention the "BOH" photo which
shows the entry wound in the cowlick area of the President's head, but
it's also obvious that Dr. Humes was relying on memory for a lot of
the things he said to the Commission, via phrases like "to my
recollection".
>>> "2. Do you think it's even remotely possible that, before the body was placed in the casket [at Bethesda], holes in the scalp were closed in preparation for an open-casket funeral?" <<<
There was no scalp repaired or sewn up in the BACK of President
Kennedy's head--at ANY time. And the reason for that is obvious--there
was NO NEED for any such repairing of the back part of Mr. Kennedy's
scalp, because the BACK of his head (scalp) was never damaged in the
first place.
The lateral X-ray proves that fact. The X-ray doesn't show the SCALP
of John Kennedy, that's true. But it shows us the underlying bone and
skull of the late President....and that bone and skull is not damaged
(or missing) at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head.
In short, John, this X-ray (which you agree is not a "fake") does not
and cannot support your theory about a large-ish "BOH" wound existing
in John Kennedy's skull (regardless of how you want to interpret Dr.
J. Thornton Boswell's 1996 ARRB testimony):
>>> "3. Do you "honestly" think that, if holes in the scalp were closed for an open-casket funeral, you, DVP, should be able to tell from the photo that repairs were done, e.g. the ends of sutures left hanging, flourescent [sic] colored sutures seen, holes not completely closed, scissors left hanging out from under the BOH scalp, empty tubes of Super-Glue carelessly left in the picture, etc.?" <<<
Yes. Absolutely.
I do, indeed, believe that if repairs had been made to JFK's scalp, we
would certainly be able to see evidence of those "repairs" in this
color autopsy photograph:
The above photo is a pretty good-quality color image, with good
lighting on the back of the President's head as it was being
photographed by Mr. Stringer. And the whole scalp of JFK seems to be
intact, undamaged, with no signs of any "suturing" or "sewing up". And
I don't see any Crazy Glue adhering to the scalp either (in case you
want to ask me that tongue-in-cheek question next, John C.). :)
Then again, come to think of it, maybe that can be your next
unsupportable theory about JFK's head wounds, John -- i.e., perhaps
the piece of dried brain tissue located at JFK's hairline in the above-
linked autopsy picture is REALLY a trace of something left behind by
the doctors after they sewed up the back of JFK's scalp. (Food for BOH
thought....eh, John?) :)
Oops...no, no. That last theory won't fly with John Canal....because
John Canal thinks that the white piece of dried brain matter at the
hairline of JFK is really an entry wound for Lee Oswald's 6.5mm.
bullet.
Sorry, I forgot about that silly theory for a moment, John. Forgive
me.
John actually thinks the dried brain tissue looks like a BULLET HOLE
(evidently). Go figure that.
Yes, I know that Humes and Finck, et al, said the very same thing.
They looked at the same photo of JFK and said that the white piece of
tissue was the entry hole. So, if you want to accuse me of berating
the autopsy surgeons one minute, while supporting their overall
conclusions the next minute -- go ahead. Because you'd be correct to
accuse me of that.
The autopsists who said that that hunk of white tissue was an entry
wound are just nuts (as far as that singular observation, that is).
And the reason we can know they were nuts with respect to that silly
observation is because the following statement exists in those same
doctors' November 1963 autopsy report:
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally
to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is
a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
So, unless the doctors (during the autopsy itself on 11/22/63)
literally couldn't tell the difference between "above the EOP" and
"below" the EOP, then their later observations about the white hunk of
tissue on JFK's neck being the entry wound are all but meaningless and
worthless. Because that white thing at the base of JFK's hairline is
certainly NOT located "above" the EOP on Kennedy's head.
>>> "4. If holes in the scalp were closed (with amazing professionalism, so one, even the LN's super sl[e]uth, DVP, would have a difficult time telling they were), "honestly", are you 100% positive that the BOH photo was taken BEFORE any such repair was done?" <<<
I'll refer you to my answer to question #2 above.
And it sounds to me like John Canal is playing a little shell game
here, as he seems to be trying (in a "back door" kind of fashion) to
get me to say that I think there WERE repairs performed on the totally-
intact BOH of John F. Kennedy on 11/22/63.
Because either way I choose to answer this carefully-worded #4
question of John's--with either a Yes or a No--I would be (in essence)
admitting that I agree with John that some kind of "BOH" repairs were
done to JFK's head at his autopsy.
Nice try, John. But, no thanks. I'm not biting. See my #2 answer
instead.
>>> "Lurkers, why do I have the feeling DVP's definition of "honestly" may be different than that of most? Just kidding, of course...and I'm not just saying that because I don't want this to get rejected." <<<
What "lurkers"? (Other than Gary Mack, that is.)
>>> "BONUS QUESTION: If that photo that you linked us to wasn't taken when the body was first received (we want to inter[r]upt this post at this time for a newsflash for DVP: the Bethesda witnesses said they saw a BOH wound when the body was first received), "super-honestly", can you even venture a guess for why a photo wasn't taken of the BOH when the body was first received (if ne[c]essary, use your imagination)?" <<<
The exact TIME when each photo was taken isn't overly important, IMO.
Nor, obviously, was that kind of strict "timeline" of photo-taking
super-important in the minds of Dr. Humes and the other autopsists.
Why would it be deemed critical by Humes, et al, for a picture to be
taken at the moment when JFK was first placed on the autopsy table?
For, whenever the pictures were taken on the night of 11/22/63, those
pictures were still pictures of the dead President Kennedy. And his
wounds LATE in the autopsy were STILL THE SAME WOUNDS that existed
EARLY in the autopsy. They didn't change. They weren't being
manipulated or moved around like a jigsaw puzzle to avoid the word
"conspiracy" (Lifton-esque style).
It's just silly beyond belief to think that Drs. Humes, Boswell, and
Finck would want to HIDE any information concerning the autopsy of the
President of the USA.
I know that a lot of people (including John Canal, an LNer) think that
my last sentence above is a lot of baloney. But I truly feel this way.
Because: As I've said in prior posts re. this subject, if John Kennedy
had really and truly been shot ONLY FROM BEHIND by the two bullets
that struck him in Dallas (which all the evidence indicates is
correct)....and the autopsy doctors really and truly KNEW that JFK
had, indeed, been struck in the head by only one bullet from
BEHIND....then why on this Earth would there have been any NEED
whatsoever to start "covering up" ANYTHING (or hiding anything) with
respect to this autopsy or the facts that were derived from it?
Given the above circumstances of positively only one bullet striking
John Kennedy's head FROM BEHIND, any such large-ish "BOH" damage to
JFK's head (if it had existed at all) could easily have been explained
by the autopsists as damage that was sustained as a result of the one
and only bullet that struck JFK from the rear.
How do I know this?
Because it would have been THE TRUTH. Plain and simple.
How did I hold up on the "honesty" scale, John? Did I pass your rigid
standards today? Or will I have to go stand in the corner and stare at
the BOH photo all day long as punishment?
Medium-sized regards,
David Von Pein
John Canal
>How did I hold up on the "honesty" scale, John? Did I pass your rigid
>standards today? Or will I have to go stand in the corner and stare at
>the BOH photo all day long as punishment?
I think you've honestly brainwashed yourself, probably from reading RH over and
over again and because you're (in your mind) the President of the Vince Bugliosi
fan club.
I'll explain why (on both groups) your answers are B/S whenever (how long does
it take?) your reply shows up on the other group.
John Canal
David Von Pein
Keep on ignoring the X-ray and the BOH photo and the Z-Film, John --
which, IN TANDEM, prove you are wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Looks like Mulberry Bush Round #8, huh?)
David Von Pein
>>> "I'll explain why (on both groups) your answers are B/S whenever your reply shows up on the other group." <<<
Will your crazy answers differ from the other 1,499 times you've
posted them, John?
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
Crazy answers---nice to see that this group brings out the frustration in you
over this stuff. Classy adjective you used there, David,--"crazy". Hmmm, Ok, so
just referring to one of my "crazy" conclusions--the low entry--let me say that
J. Fiorentino just informed me that Dr. Rahn agreed the entry was low.
So, Mr. Class act, that means, in the low entry camp we have myself, Barb,
Wiskey Joe, Sturdivan, Dr. Rahn, Dr. Zimmerman, and J. Hunt (who knows the
medical evidence thoroughly), not to mention that P. Seaton's work supports the
low entry conclusion.
Oh, the fact that, unless I missed or forgot one, there is not one single
witness (including the autopsy docs, of course), who saw the body, who said the
entry was in the cowlick.
Are we all "crazy"? If you want to lower yourself to say that, great--that's
very telling....but it doesn't speak too well for your good old power of
reasoning....IMHO.
I'll include this in my post on the other group so good folks like Dr. Rahn, can
read who thinks their conclusions on at least the entry are "crazy".
John Canal
awthr...@gmail.com
It's funny that you should mention eyeballs and orbs...
Although your subject heading refers to the back of the head, you've
got a quote from Humes who refers to the right and front of the head.
So I gave you a link for your convenience (these photos can be seen
from many sources). Please compare the second photo with the third
photo.
The second photo is the b&w death stare with JFK's forehead intact.
But the third photo shows massive destruction of the right forehead
down into the orbital bones, such that his eye, if it were still
there, would be sunken down.
The right forehead bone is missing, so there would be no prominent
forehead as is displayed in the death stare photo.
In other words, the two images contradict each other.
Please explain.
David Von Pein
>>> "I'll include this in my post on the other group so good folks like Dr. Rahn, can read who thinks their conclusions on at least the entry are "crazy"." <<<
Anybody who thinks that the white thing at JFK's hairline is an entry
hole for a bullet needs an eyecheck (and a reality check):
David Von Pein
>>> "But the third photo shows massive destruction of the right forehead down into the orbital bones, such that his eye, if it were still there, would be sunken down." <<<
Huh?
"If it were still there"????
I'll say it again...
Huh?
>>> "The right forehead bone is missing, so there would be no prominent forehead as is displayed in the death stare photo." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake...what a bunch of nonsense.
awthr...@gmail.com
On Nov 22, 12:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>"But the third photo shows massive destruction of the right forehead down into the orbital bones, such that his eye, if it were still there, would be sunken down." <<<
>
>Huh?
>
>"If it were still there"????
David, based on the bone destruction JFK's eye would either be blown
out or sunken into the skull ripped apart. But the death stare photo
shows JFK's eye looking fairly normal with no obvious injury. Thus the
x-ray and the photo are contradictory.
>
> I'll say it again...
>
> Huh?
>
> >>> "The right forehead bone is missing, so there would be no prominent forehead as is displayed in the death stare photo." <<<
>
> Oh, for Pete sake...what a bunch of nonsense.
David, do you see the right forehead bone, which would be white in
color, or do you see a black quadrant on the right side from his eye
on up to the top of his head?
In the death stare photo his right forehead is intact. In the x-ray,
it is anything but intact...it is gone. Please explain the
contradiction.
Or maybe you 'see' white in the black quadrant. Please let us know
what you see.
David Von Pein
"Awthraw" is full of nonsense, of course.
Nothing more need be said.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/30cb106a65199cea
In response to John Canal's lengthy batch of "BOH" nonsense linked
above:
I'll just re-state my belief (for the 1,239th time) that the two items
linked below (the lateral X-ray of the right side of JFK's head and
the BOH color autopsy photo) -- IN UNISON & IN TANDEM -- are hard,
photographic, PHYSICAL proof that Mr. John Canal is 100% wrong with
regard to his beliefs about where the wounds were located on the back
of President John F. Kennedy's head.
For, it must truly be a topsy-turvy world in which we live if anyone
with even one working eyeball can look at the two pictures below and
somehow come away with the notion that JFK had a large-ish-sized hole
in the back of his head AT ANY POINT IN TIME ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963:
Gil Jesus
VON PEIN, YOU'RE SO FULL OF SHIT I CAN SMELL IT FROM HERE. HERE'S AN
AUTOPSY PIC THAT SHOWS THAT THE REAR OF KENNEDY'S HEAD WAS NOT INTACT:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2JIsDgyC6WBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
NOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADMIT YOU'RE A LIAR OR IS THE PHOTO A FAKE ?
Gil Jesus
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ace67...
>
> >>> "So, your contention is that the PH and autopsy docs, as well as credible Bethesda witnesses such as Siebert [sic], Ebersole, Boyers, and O'Neill were ***ALL*** wrong about there being a BOH wound." <<<
>
> When did the autopsy doctors ever say there was a huge BOH wound?
>
> Answer: Never.
Yes they did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXkRO-zypo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeBnkdB9mis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XprQQrILI28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWtlkyCDRzU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9LTOhTU84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPOObPve3M
David Von Pein
LOL. Gil The Kook thinks that mess of a photo known as "F8" proves a
darn thing.
It's worthless. Totally worthless. Because you cannot possibly
determine what's "in" vs. "out" on that mess of a picture.
Naturally, the kooks think that F8 somehow (some way) trumps these 2
pictures, which are pictures that positively prove (in tandem) that
JFK did not--and could not--have had a great-big, gaping hole in the
back part of his cranium:
(BTW, Gil-Kook, have you been playing dirty pool at my YouTube channel
again? You can admit it. I'm pretty damn sure it's you. Would you like
to confess?)
awthr...@gmail.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/30cb1...
>
> In response to John Canal's lengthy batch of "BOH" nonsense linked
> above:
>
> I'll just re-state my belief (for the 1,239th time) that the two items
> linked below (the lateral X-ray of the right side of JFK's head and
> the BOH color autopsy photo) -- IN UNISON & IN TANDEM -- are hard,
> photographic, PHYSICAL proof that Mr. John Canal is 100% wrong with
> regard to his beliefs about where the wounds were located on the back
> of President John F. Kennedy's head.
>
> For, it must truly be a topsy-turvy world in which we live if anyone
> with even one working eyeball can look at the two pictures below and
> somehow come away with the notion that JFK had a large-ish-sized hole
> in the back of his head AT ANY POINT IN TIME ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963:
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
David, I'd like you to focus for a moment on the FOREHEAD...so far you
haven't.
The x-ray and the death stare photo contradict each other. Look at the
right upper quadrant. On the x-ray, it's black, meaning the bones are
missing in the area of the right forehead all the way down to the
right eye.
But the death stare photo contradicts that...JFK's right forehead is
still there, looking normal down to the right eye.
This isn't hard. Focus on the right FOREHEAD...the right FOREHEAD.
David Von Pein
"Awthraw" thought his stupid shit was so nice, he'd post it thrice.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/668d63b245f19ec6
>>> "Here's DVP on the other group proudly showing off his knowledge of the medical evidence once again: <Quote on> LOL. Gil The Kook thinks that mess of a photo known as "F8" proves a darn thing. It's worthless. Totally worthless. Because you cannot possibly determine what's "in" vs. "out" on that mess of a picture. Naturally, the kooks think that F8 somehow (some way) trumps these 2 pictures, which are pictures that positively prove (in tandem) that JFK did not--and could not--have had a great-big, gaping hole in the back part of his cranium... <Quote off> LOL! F8 wothless, totally worthless?????? David, it was only when Larry Sturdivan finally saw a good copy of F8 that he decided the entry was near the EOP. It was only after Dr. Zimmerman examined the original F8 that he became certain the entry was near the EOP." <<<
Good for Larry Sturdivan.
Good for Chad Zimmerman.
I'm happy that they were able to make ANY sense at all out of that
mess known as "F8". But I can't.
John, would you prefer that I just start telling lies about a picture
that I cannot decipher or interpret properly at all? Should I merely
PRETEND that I can tell exactly where the entry and exit holes are in
F8? And should I merely PRETEND that F8 is as clear as a bell to me,
and that I can distinguish "up" from "down" and "left" from "right"
when viewing that photograph?
Is that what I should do, instead of admitting that F8, in my opinion,
is a complete and utter mess and useless as evidence with respect to
the task of trying to decide where exactly the wounds were located on
John F. Kennedy's head?
No, thanks.
Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I'm stupid when it comes to the subject of
"F8". But I'm not going to start telling people that I can make 'head
or tail' out of F8....because I cannot.
If other people think they've sorted out the imagery seen in the F8
photo....great. I'm happy for them. But to me, it's a photograph that
can probably never be used as a definitive piece of physical evidence
in the JFK case, because of the built-in difficulties in properly
aligning, orienting, and accurately interpreting the things we're
seeing in this picture:
"F8":
www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/f8.jpg
I will add this, however -- Since it couldn't be any more obvious,
based on other (non-F8) evidence, that JFK was struck in the head by
only one bullet from BEHIND....this undeniable fact must mean, of
course, that the autopsy photograph designated as "F8" cannot possibly
show something that undermines or refutes this "Only One Bullet From
Behind Struck JFK's Head" ironclad conclusion. And this is true
regardless of whether anyone on the Earth can decipher F8 or not.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8e9a69e044bb8ab8
>>> "What is there for him [V. Bugliosi] to write a sequel about? How unconvincing RH was to a lot of people?" <<<
Perhaps it will merely be a reprint version of "Reclaiming History",
with these various (small) errors corrected in the newer version:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac345c6c5a9afaf2
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
After all, in a "book for the ages", which is what Mr. Bugliosi
definitely wants "RH" to represent, I'm guessing that Vince would want
to correct as many of the small mistakes which appear in the May 2007
first edition of "RH" as he can in any reprintings of the book.
Hopefully, if that's the case, VB will add some kind of clarifying
text that effectively eliminates the direct contradiction he implies
on Pages 423 and 424 of "RH".
Also --
From what I've been told by Steve Barber himself, Vince has said that
Steve's name would appear in the index of any future version (or
reprinting) of the book. Steve's name, for some inexplicable reason,
was omitted entirely from the book's 71-page index in the 2007 first
edition (even though Barber's name appears several times throughout
the book's endnotes on the CD-ROM).
awthr...@gmail.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/668d6...
David, I didn't ask you to look at F8. I asked you to compare the
"Death Stare" photo with the FRONTAL X-RAY photo. The x-ray has a dark
quadrant where the right forehead would be, which means no bone there.
The "DEATH STARE" photo shows an intact right forehead.
Please focus on just those two. Thank you. Rather than quoting someone
else, just give us your impression if you would about the discrepancy.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4ff487f8808490aa
I see we have yet another useless new thread started by "BOH John".
Geesh. How many do you need, John?
Also...
If Vincent Bugliosi comes out with a second version of RH and
completely reverses himself on the location of the entry wound on
JFK's head, then it looks like I'll have to add one more item to the
list of errors that appear in RH:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
Vince has stated on literally dozens of radio and TV interviews that
it's his belief that the entry wound on Kennedy's head was positively
located in the "upper right back of the head".
John Canal apparently actually thinks that Vince is suddenly going to
be willing to just throw away ALL THREE pieces of photographic proof
that are indicating where the head wounds were located -- the Z-Film,
the BOH photo, and the lateral X-ray. (Not to mention the autopsy
report, which states the wound was "above" the EOP, not below it.)
You're dreaming, John. Vince got it right in RH. If there's an "RH 2",
it will probably be merely to correct a few of the small errors that
appear in the first edition of RH, and to remove most of the contents
of page 423 (hopefully).
David Von Pein
"Awthraw",
There's no inconsistency between the X-rays and the "Death Stare"
picture.
The discrepancy only exists in the fevered minds of CTers like you,
i.e.: people who WANT a conspiracy.
Simple, isn't it?
(Are you now going to ask me for a 15th time to look at the forehead?)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4ff487f8808490aa
>>> "You might ought to wait until we see what VB says in RH-II, or even in his future letters to you (I presume you two have exchanged letters?), before posting there was no posibility the entry was low and there was no BOH wound." <<<
Why would I need Vince to tell me what I can easily see and determine
for myself?
Do you really think that I have to rely on ONLY what Vince B. says?
I'm a huge fan of VB's, yes. And RH is the best book ever written on
the JFK case, yes. (That's fairly obvious.) But I DO still have a mind
of my own. And I think I've demonstrated (amply) my willingness to
openly tackle several of VB's errors too. Or did you miss this?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1e9b408cd7375b18
>>> "I'm counting on VB getting it right and straightening this whole mess out in RH II." <<<
No "straightening out" is needed. VB's got it right in RH. That's
obvious from the autopsy photo and X-ray. The photo positively shows
the entry hole in the cowlick area, which couldn't be more obvious,
despite Dr. Humes' silly flip-flopping.
And the piece of white brain tissue in the BOH autopsy picture cannot
possibly be deemed to be "slightly above" the EOP, and we know that
Humes noted the location of the entry wound to be "slightly above" the
EOP in the autopsy report of November 1963. And his notes and the
autopsy report of Nov. '63 are certainly better evidence than his
remembrances many months (and years) later.
And the lateral X-ray positively proves that the kind of scenario you
(John Canal) are advocating is literally impossible....because the BOH
area of JFK's head (which you need to have torn apart) is totally
intact.
But John Canal would rather wrestle Occam to the ground, stomp on him
(and his Razor), and march to a different anti-Occam drummer.
A curious hobby, John. Almost as curious as the hobby engaged in by
the "Anybody But Oswald" kooks.
awthr...@gmail.com
> "Awthraw",
>
>There's no inconsistency between the X-rays and the "Death Stare"
>picture.
Your response is merely a conclusion, not an explanation. How is the
missing right forehead bone in the X-ray consistent with the death
stare photo?
BTW, I didn't say to look at "the X-rays." I asked you to compare the
FRONTAL X-ray to the death stare photo. Please try to focus.
>
> The discrepancy only exists in the fevered minds of CTers like you,
> i.e.: people who WANT a conspiracy.
>
> Simple, isn't it?
>
> (Are you now going to ask me for a 15th time to look at the forehead?)
I'm going to keep asking you for as long as it takes for you to focus
on the specific two images, and to explain how they are consistent
with each other.
To merely say, "They are consistent" or "there is no inconsistency"
does not provide any supporting argument...it's merely a conclusion.
So far you response is like saying there is no difference between
daylight and darkness, they are consistent.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5f02e8da31b634ad
>>> "BTW, he's [Vincent Bugliosi] planning on a sequel (is that the correct term, or is that just for movies?) to RH....RH2? I wonder if DVP has preordered his copies yet?" <<<
I was curious about the 11/23/08 remarks by John Canal quoted above,
so I decided to write an e-mail to Mr. Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary
Newton), asking her if she had any information about a possible second
version of "Reclaiming History" coming out in the future.
Here's Rosemary's 11/25/08 reply by return e-mail:
==================================================
Subj: Re: VB's "Reclaiming History" -- A Second Edition?
Date: 11/25/2008 12:02:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
Hi Dave,
Vince has never mentioned a sequel to his book "Reclaiming History."
So an educated guess on my part would be no. Presently, he's busy with
his latest book and doing a lot of traveling (like now) and
interviews. Once again, I must ask that because your knowledge on this
subject is remarkable, have you ever thought of writing a book on the
Kennedy assassination?
In any event, I'll ask Vince when I speak to him about a follow-up to
RH and your proposal.
Have a great Thanksgiving, Dave
Rosemary
==================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm going to keep asking you for as long as it takes for you to focus on the specific two images, and to explain how they are consistent with each other." <<<
They are consistent with each other because each of those items (the
"Death Stare" autopsy photo and the A-P X-ray) positively are:
1.) Images of JFK at his autopsy on 11/22/63.
2.) Images that have not been altered in any way whatsoever (per the
HSCA's panel of photographic experts).
When adding #1 to #2 above, what is your best guess as to why it
appears that a chunk of JFK's right forehead is missing in the A-P X-
ray?
It MUST be something "sinister", right?
And then you can tell me that my #2 item listed above is all wrong.
Right?
awthr...@gmail.com
> >>> "I'm going to keep asking you for as long as it takes for you to focus on the specific two images, and to explain how they are consistent with each other." <<<
>
> They are consistent with each other because each of those items (the
> "Death Stare" autopsy photo and the A-P X-ray) positively are:
>
> 1.) Images of JFK at his autopsy on 11/22/63.
>
> 2.) Images that have not been altered in any way whatsoever (per the
> HSCA's panel of photographic experts).
>
> When adding #1 to #2 above, what is your best guess as to why it
> appears that a chunk of JFK's right forehead is missing in the A-P X-
> ray?
You still haven't answered the question I asked. Please explain the
discrepancy between the dark right upper quadrant of the A-P x-ray and
the normal looking right forehead in the Death stare photo.
David Von Pein
>>> "You still haven't answered the question I asked. Please explain the discrepancy between the dark right upper quadrant of the A-P x-ray and the normal looking right forehead in the Death stare photo." <<<
I can't.
Happy now?
awthr...@gmail.com
> >>> "You still haven't answered the question I asked. Please explain the discrepancy between the dark right upper quadrant of the A-P x-ray and the normal looking right forehead in the Death stare photo." <<<
>
> I can't.
Then you have no case.
The forensic evidence, which is best evidence, has blown up onto your
right forehead. From this day forward, whenever you try to post a
message here, you will always know that.
From now on you will know:
a) no bones to support the right forehead (A-F x-ray)
b) a normal forehead (Death stare)
Nothing else you say or write about the JFK murder will trump that
smoking gun discrepancy.
> Happy now?
What are you going to do with your free time now?
David Von Pein
>>> "Nothing else you say or write about the JFK murder will trump that smoking gun discrepancy." <<<
Yes it will. And quite easily so.
These two little items printed below do that trumping for me:
"...The deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot
wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles. .... The projectiles
were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the
deceased." -- VIA JFK'S OFFICIAL 1963 AUTOPSY REPORT
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; VOLUME 7; PAGE 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
The above two things destroy your "smoking gun" (which I can only
assume is meant to be a "smoking gun" of CONSPIRACY--i.e., a MULTI-GUN
conspiracy with respect to the way JFK met his death in 1963). Right?
Otherwise, what's your point?
>>> "What are you going to do with your free time now?" <<<
I've got a much better question for you:
How do you plan on sidestepping the two items I just posted above?
Maybe you'd better just ignore them both. Or, better still, just start
calling people "liars". That usually gets you kooks off the hook for
everything.
aeffects
my goodness David so 'n so is mighty dense.... ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
Of course, Gil's videos don't address my point at all. I asked:
"When did the AUTOPSY DOCTORS ever say there was a huge BOH
wound? Answer: Never."
Which is, of course, a true statement.
Gil's links to videos about non-autopsy doctors and other people
stating their beliefs about a BOH wound are not addressing my
question.
Why hasn't Gil come up with a video that has an autopsy doctor stating
that the big hole in JFK's head was in the back of the head?
Answer:
Because no such video or autopsist statement exists.
David Von Pein
DR. BOSWELL AND THE ARRB......
============================
I was looking over Dr. J. Thornton Boswell's February 1996 ARRB
testimony (or deposition), and jotted down these rather interesting
remarks made by Dr. Boswell:
DR. BOSWELL -- "The external examination was done first, and as soon
as the body had been examined, the photographer was brought in and
various photographs, external photographs, were taken, at which point
we then backed away and permitted the radiologist to X-ray the entire
body, and then we began further external examination and dissection
while awaiting the development of the X-ray film. Then the wounds of
entry and exit were studied preliminary to an examination of the
abdominal and thoracic cavity."
[DVP -- Sounds to me like the X-rays were likely taken BEFORE any
manipulation of President Kennedy's head was done by the autopsists.]
====================================
DR. BOSWELL -- "The bullet came in here, went through and exploded,
and bone was eviscerated, and the upper surface of that side of the
brain was missing."
JEREMY GUNN -- "During your answer you were pointing to parts of your
head, which, of course, wouldn't be reflected on the record. Could you
just describe in a general way--and we'll be more specific with this
later, but when you say that it entered here, you were pointing to--"
DR. BOSWELL -- "The back right side of his skull."
MR. GUNN -- "Near the hairline, would that be fair, or--?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No. It's up above that. Well, whose hairline?"
MR. GUNN -- "President Kennedy's."
DR. BOSWELL -- "He had hair cut about like mine, and it was right up
here: above his ear and toward the midline. And then the top of his
head was blown off. A 14-centimeter segment of it was blown off. And
it was on the right side of his brain that the brain was missing."
[DVP -- These words -- "ABOVE HIS EAR AND TOWARD THE MIDLINE" --
certainly suggest that Boswell is talking about the RED SPOT as the
entry hole in the autopsy photograph linked below.
In fact, those words ("above his ear and toward the midline") fit
perfectly with the "cowlick"/"red spot" entry seen in this picture.
Given those remarks by Boswell about the location of the entry wound,
what other piece of real estate on JFK's head could POSSIBLY be deemed
the "entry" point for a bullet in this photo?:]
====================================
MR. GUNN -- "Dr. Boswell, could you look at the top of page 4 of
Exhibit 3 that I have just handed to you where it says, "Situated in
the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters." Is that an accurate
description of where you understood the entrance wound to be at the
time of the autopsy, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above
the external occipital protuberance?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."
[DVP -- "ABOVE THE EXTERNAL OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE". Check. And wilco.
And confirmed by Dr. J. Thornton Boswell here in his ARRB testimony,
32+ years after he signed the autopsy report which said the very same
thing. Thank you, Doctor.]
====================================
MR. GUNN -- "Did you at any point ever change your mind about the
location of the entrance wound in the skull?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
[DVP -- Thank you, again, Doctor. This has to mean that the entry hole
for Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano bullet was located ABOVE the EOP on
John Kennedy's head--not below it (as some theorists seem to be
indicating, if they want to advance the idea that the white piece of
brain tissue near the hairline of the President is really a bullet
hole).]
====================================
DR. BOSWELL -- "Photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp
was pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And
then the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and
more or less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the
brain."
[DVP -- Via these words spoken by Dr. Boswell -- "AND THEN TO REMOVE
THE BRAIN" -- it sounds to me as if the brain would have still been
inside JFK's head when this picture was snapped by John Stringer,
contrary to the belief of many conspiracy theorists (and others):]
====================================
MR. GUNN -- "Was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed
during the time of the autopsy?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "No."
MR. GUNN -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."
[DVP -- Shouldn't the above comments by Dr. Boswell about the
cerebellum being completely intact and undamaged put to rest the
theories advanced by some people that portions of the cerebellum were
oozing out of President Kennedy's head at Parkland Memorial Hospital?]
awthr...@gmail.com
> >>> "Nothing else you say or write about the JFK murder will trump that smoking gun discrepancy." <<<
>
> Yes it will. And quite easily so.
>
> These two little items printed below do that trumping for me:
>
> "...The deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot
> wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles. .... The projectiles
> were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the
> deceased." -- VIA JFK'S OFFICIAL 1963 AUTOPSY REPORT
Your first point is a conclusion made in the autopsy report. My
question is directed AT the ACCURACY of that conclusion. In other
words, going beyond merely accepting the conclusion...otherwise we
wouldn't be discussing the JFK case for 45 years now would we?
Conclusions aren't evidence when the conclusion is under question. The
conclusion must then be supported by evidence.
> www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
>
> "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
> were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
> they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; VOLUME 7; PAGE 41
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> The above two things destroy your "smoking gun" (which I can only
> assume is meant to be a "smoking gun" of CONSPIRACY--i.e., a MULTI-GUN
> conspiracy with respect to the way JFK met his death in 1963). Right?
> Otherwise, what's your point?
>
> >>> "What are you going to do with your free time now?" <<<
>
> I've got a much better question for you:
>
> How do you plan on sidestepping the two items I just posted above?
David, there's a hole larger than JFK's forehead in your second item:
" "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-
rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and
that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; VOLUME 7; PAGE 41
I never said the photos were altered. If you wish, you might say that
the unaltered photos don't comport with each other. They disagree with
each other mightily, however. In fact, they disagree in a way that
makes them OPPOSITES of each other in the area of the RIGHT FOREHEAD.
One conclusion would be that there was TAMPERING of the evidence. Do
you have any other answer that would explain the opposite evidence
presented by the two photos?
>Maybe you'd better just ignore them both.
Actually, I'm doing the opposite of ignoring your two reference
points...I'm EXAMINING them, and under examination your answers have
failed to address the OPPOSITE evidence that is presented in the two
different photos.
>Or, better still, just start
>calling people "liars". That usually gets you kooks off the hook for
>everything.
You'd probably like that...it would get you off the hook if I did
that. But I'm leaving you on the hook.
aeffects
reel the troll in.... one can always can use *it* for bait...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5330266164583e2e
>>> "I never said the photos were altered. If you wish, you might say that the unaltered photos don't comport with each other. They disagree with each other mightily, however. In fact, they disagree in a way that makes them OPPOSITES of each other in the area of the RIGHT FOREHEAD. One conclusion would be that there was TAMPERING of the evidence. Do you have any other answer that would explain the opposite evidence presented by the two photos?" <<<
Conspiracy theorists think that if every last thing isn't explained to
their perfect satisfaction, it means that something suspicious or
shady was taking place with respect to JFK's body, and his autopsy,
and the wounds, and the bullets, and Oswald, and the guns, and the
cops....everything.
But that's an approach to take only if you never want to accept ANY of
the evidence (or very little of it anyway) as being firm proof of any
conclusion in a large double-murder case that has a lot of evidence
attached to it, like the JFK/Tippit case does. Because there are bound
to be discrepancies in the record...and even in some pictures and
films.
Take, for example, the "Chaney Isn't In The Right Position"
discrepancy in the Altgens and Zapruder images. Many CT-Kooks like to
look sideways at the Z-Film (or the Altgens picture) because of the
anomaly that appears in the Altgens photo regarding the position of
James Chaney's motorcycle....with some CTers actually favoring the
notion that this discrepancy is proof that the Z-Film is a fake. It's
just nonsense, of course. Those kooks fail to account for the
differing angles of the two images. Altgens' perspective is totally
different from that of Zapruder, and we're getting a look at that
different perspective in Altgens' picture, naturally.
But that's just one example of how the CTers of the world willingly
and anxiously jump all over a slight photographic anomaly (or a
seeming discrepancy) and then immediately run to their soapbox to
shout out that a picture or film MUST be a fraud, because they can't
interpret what they're seeing correctly.*
I think much the same thing applies to "awthraw's" argument about
JFK's "missing forehead". Via the autopsy photos, JFK's forehead
appears to be mostly intact and undamaged:
And since we know that both the pictures and the X-rays were taken
during JFK's autopsy...on the same night of 11/22/63...at just about
the same general time (give or take)...and since we know that NONE of
those photographic materials (pictures and X-rays) have been "monkeyed
around with" (i.e., they are unaltered pictures of the dead JFK
himself)...and since we know that all 3 autopsy doctors declared that
JFK was shot by just two bullets, both coming from behind...then what
other conclusion can a reasonable person reach with respect to the
death of President Kennedy, other than to conclude that he was struck
ONLY FROM BEHIND by two and only two bullets in Dealey Plaza?
I have no "official" explanation for the A-P X-ray. But since I know
that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes, I
can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
of John F. Kennedy -- even if I, myself, do not know what that
reasonable explanation is.
* = Along similar lines, I also can't make head nor tail out of the
"F8" autopsy photo (and I've admitted as much several times on this
newsgroup; that picture is a mess and is, IMO, totally worthless as
definitive evidence). But I've never once suggested that F8 was a
"fake" or that it has been "altered" in some way (even when kooks like
Gil Jesus prop up that very photo as "proof" that JFK was shot in the
head from the front).
I don't think for a minute that ANY of the official evidence is fake
in this case. IMO, that's just a stupid belief. It's merely a crutch
utilized by CTers who have got nothing else to use as ammunition to
combat the mile-high pile of "It Was Only Oswald" evidence in this
double-murder case.
Vincent Bugliosi (the LNer that conspiracy-happy kooks love to hate)
said it very well in his 2007 JFK book:
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; .... and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
"With respect to the [John F.] Kennedy assassination, once you
establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you
also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is
known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/37f957850c2eb282
>>> "We know that JFK's body didn't arrive at Bethesda with the entire rear scalp flopping around, right? Good, that means they reflected the scalp before the photo..." <<<
Yes. Correct. Very good. I'm glad you said that, John.
I'm glad you said that because those words above uttered by John Canal
(all by themselves) disprove his own "LN/BOH" theory -- because
there's no way in heaven that the Parkland witnesses could have
possibly seen a large-ish hole in the BACK of John F. Kennedy's head
unless "the entire rear scalp" HAD BEEN "flopping around" before the
body arrived at Bethesda.
And this is true because of the pristine condition of JFK's rear scalp
in this photograph below....
....Which is a photo that John Canal, incredibly, thinks shows JFK's
rear scalp after some pretty heavy suturing and sewing up of it was
done, in order to repair a good-sized wound at the far-right-rear of
the head, even though there isn't a hint of any such "repair" work
being done on the scalp of JFK.
And John's possible "quarter-sized" far-right-rear BOH wound theory is
just silly, too, because that size of a wound is not even close to
being big enough for John to start touting the praises and accuracy of
any of the Parkland Hospital witnesses. The Parkland people all said
they saw a huge wound at the right-rear of JFK's head--not just a
small-ish "quarter-sized" hole.
What the witnesses saw, of course, was probably the pooling of blood
and gore at the right-rear of Kennedy's head. But they certainly could
not have seen a large hole in that area, since the photos and X-rays
prove there was no such large hole in the BOH.
I think this quote of John Canal's is worthy of an instant replay:
"We know that JFK's body didn't arrive at Bethesda with the
entire rear scalp flopping around."
aeffects
hon, your questions are irrelevant. The testimony and evidence is
relevant!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Nov 26, 1:30=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Of course, Gil's videos don't address my point at all. I asked:
>>
>> "When did the AUTOPSY DOCTORS ever say there was a huge BOH
>> wound? Answer: Never."
>>
>> Which is, of course, a true statement.
This is why kooks like this are killfiled. That they can lie with such apparent
ease is amusing.
The autopsy report is quite explicit, it states that:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
No kook has yet been able to point to which part of the Occipital is *NOT*
located in the back of the head - indeed, a part of the Parietal is also located
in the "back of the head."
So DVP simply lied. Outright.
>> Gil's links to videos about non-autopsy doctors and other people
>> stating their beliefs about a BOH wound are not addressing my
>> question.
Your "question" is perfectly addressed by the testimony of the prosectors.
>> Why hasn't Gil come up with a video that has an autopsy doctor stating
>> that the big hole in JFK's head was in the back of the head?
>>
>> Answer:
>>
>> Because no such video or autopsist statement exists.
Again, simply an outright lie. Here's a snippet from Dr. Humes WC testimony:
Mr. Dulles: "Just one other question. Am I correct in assuming from what you
have said that this wound is entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have
been administered if the shot were fired from in front or the side of the
President: it had to be fired from behind the President?"
Commander Humes: "Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
Here's another cite from the HSCA:
"Regarding the head wound, DR. BOSWELL said the wound was fairly low in the back
of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said
that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included
a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"
(HSCA interview Purdy, Aug 17, 1977).
DVP is one of the more dishonest of the trolls - he's not ignorant of the
evidence, as so many others are, so he simply lies about it.
>hon, your questions are irrelevant. The testimony and evidence is
>relevant!
Yep... the fact that LNT'er trolls have to present these outright lies, time and
time again - despite the easy ability to present the truth - illustrates the
depths of their dishonesty.
aeffects
> In article <9ae1a6af-54b7-473f-8bed-b1c99a320...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Happy Thanksgiving Ben Holmes, wishes have been extended, from
quarters near and far...
David Von Pein
>>> "[Quoting Dr. James J.] Humes: "Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." " <<<
Oh, man, this is rich!
It's hilarious that Ben Holmes thinks Dr. Humes' "from behind / from
behind" double-speak is proof of some kind of a large wound being
present in the back of JFK's head. It's absolutely hilarious that
Holmes The Kook would even bring up this obvious misstatement by
Humes.
So, I guess, per his WC testimony, that Humes must have ACTUALLY
thought (per Ben Holmes The Kook) that BOTH the entry AND the exit
holes from the bullet that crashed into JFK's head were located on the
BACK of Kennedy's head.
Obviously, that is not what Dr. Humes meant to imply. But, to a kook,
if someone makes a slip of the tongue or has a comment he makes
misunderstood by someone (like Humes' remark above), there's no
reconciling that statement if you're a conspiracy-happy individual,
and there's no amending the statement into a coherent one, instead of
the somewhat-incoherent one that we find in the WC volumes. Right,
Benji?
Ben and I hashed out this "from behind/from behind" thing back in
2006, btw. Here's what I said then about the matter (and the common
sense that flows from this 2006 post still certainly applies 2.5 years
later):
=========================================
"I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a
bolt from heaven. However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his
multiple Govt. testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from
behind" remark was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was
simply a misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking
about WHERE THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the
President).
"Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly
meant to convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of
the exact words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says
verbatim TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF THE
KILLER in BOTH of his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks.
"A CT-kook wants to jump on this statement by Humes as something
odd or "conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks
here in the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring
up all the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and
evidence that
surrounds the JFK & Tippit murders?
"It's what CT-Kooks do best....i.e., muddy the waters, in order
to try to free guilty Presidential assassins." -- DVP; 06/30/2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e35691e2673d37a4
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/abf5149404857cba
=========================================
>>> "DVP is one of the more dishonest of the trolls - he's not ignorant of the evidence, as so many others are, so he simply lies about it." <<<
You'll have a very hard time proving that I have "lied" about a single
thing I have ever written re. the JFK murder case. And that's mainly
because it's never happened.
awthr...@gmail.com
chosen to jump the track and post his answer over here.
On Nov 27, 5:02 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5330266164583e2e
>
> >>> "I never said the photos were altered. If you wish, you might say that the unaltered photos don't comport with each other. They disagree with each other mightily, however. In fact, they disagree in a way that makes them OPPOSITES of each other in the area of the RIGHT FOREHEAD. One conclusion would be that there was TAMPERING of the evidence. Do you have any other answer that would explain the opposite evidence presented by the two photos?" <<<
>
>Conspiracy theorists think that if every last thing isn't explained to
>their perfect satisfaction, it means that something suspicious or
>shady was taking place with respect to JFK's body, and his autopsy,
>and the wounds, and the bullets, and Oswald, and the guns, and the
>cops....everything.
I've asked about one thing.
I didn't ask about the color of Jackie's shoes....I asked about an x-
ray that disagrees in massive way with a photo of JFK's face.
> But that's an approach to take only if you never want to accept ANY of
> the evidence (or very little of it anyway) as being firm proof of any
> conclusion in a large double-murder case that has a lot of evidence
> attached to it, like the JFK/Tippit case does. Because there are bound
> to be discrepancies in the record...and even in some pictures and
> films.
Okay, now you're wandering from JFK's forensic evidence to the Tippit
murder. Along along, I've asked you to focus, yet now you're doing
just the opposite.
> Take, for example, the "Chaney Isn't In The Right Position"
> discrepancy in the Altgens and Zapruder images. Many CT-Kooks like to
> look sideways at the Z-Film (or the Altgens picture) because of the
> anomaly that appears in the Altgens photo regarding the position of
> James Chaney's motorcycle....with some CTers actually favoring the
> notion that this discrepancy is proof that the Z-Film is a fake. It's
> just nonsense, of course. Those kooks fail to account for the
> differing angles of the two images. Altgens' perspective is totally
> different from that of Zapruder, and we're getting a look at that
> different perspective in Altgens' picture, naturally.
Focus, David. Focus.
> But that's just one example of how the CTers of the world willingly
> and anxiously jump all over a slight photographic anomaly
Are you saying the missing forehead bones in the A-P x-ray are "a
slight photographic anomaly?"
>(or a
> seeming discrepancy) and then immediately run to their soapbox to
> shout out that a picture or film MUST be a fraud, because they can't
> interpret what they're seeing correctly.*
To be clear once again, I did not say the photos are a fraud. I said
they DISAGREE with each other.
>
> I think much the same thing applies to "awthraw's" argument about
> JFK's "missing forehead".
This sounds like you are calling the missing forehead bones in the x-
ray "a slight photographic anomaly."
>Via the autopsy photos, JFK's forehead
> appears to be mostly intact and undamaged:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009a.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009b.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
>
> And since we know that both the pictures and the X-rays were taken
> during JFK's autopsy...on the same night of 11/22/63...at just about
> the same general time (give or take)...and since we know that NONE of
> those photographic materials (pictures and X-rays) have been "monkeyed
> around with" (i.e., they are unaltered pictures of the dead JFK
> himself)...and since we know that all 3 autopsy doctors declared that
> JFK was shot by just two bullets, both coming from behind...then what
> other conclusion can a reasonable person reach with respect to the
> death of President Kennedy, other than to conclude that he was struck
> ONLY FROM BEHIND by two and only two bullets in Dealey Plaza?
I haven't been discussing the direction of the bullets. Please try to
stay focused. I'm asking you about the huge damning differences
between the two photos.
> I have no "official" explanation for the A-P X-ray.
Aha. Now do you have any reasonable explanation for it?
>But since I know
>that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes,
Did you ever consider that the x-ray photo is real, but it's not an x-
ray of JFK? The x-ray photo is cut off so that no dental records could
be ascertained. (That's highly unusual...the missing dental images,
that is...you do realize that don't you?)
> can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
> conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
> discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
> of John F. Kennedy -- even if I, myself, do not know what that
> reasonable explanation is.
Aha, again. You don't have a reasonable explanation. But you obviously
recognize that the death stare photo and the x-ray photo are
completely divergent.
So at this point you don't have a solid basis for deciding from which
direction at least one of the shots were fired from, because the
underlying photographic evidence is utterly contradictory.
What is clear is that there has been either tampering with the
evidence or fraudulent evidence being presented, or both.
That fact changes EVERYTHING. So it's not a slight anomaly at all. For
some reason some of those who were responsible for the body or the
evidence were in cahoots with covering up what actually happened.
>
> * = Along similar lines, I also can't make head nor tail out of the
> "F8" autopsy photo (and I've admitted as much several times on this
> newsgroup; that picture is a mess and is, IMO, totally worthless as
> definitive evidence). But I've never once suggested that F8 was a
> "fake" or that it has been "altered" in some way (even when kooks like
> Gil Jesus prop up that very photo as "proof" that JFK was shot in the
> head from the front).
You're comparing apples and oranges. The F* photo is a confusing
photo. But the Death stare and the A-P x-ray photos are not confusing
as stand alone photos. Those two photos are only confusing when
COMPARED to each other.
> I don't think for a minute that ANY of the official evidence is fake
> in this case. IMO, that's just a stupid belief. It's merely a crutch
> utilized by CTers who have got nothing else to use as ammunition to
> combat the mile-high pile of "It Was Only Oswald" evidence in this
> double-murder case.
Again, I never said the photos were fake. They are real photos. They
aren't doctored. They just disagree...and disagree in a way that
changes EVERYTHING.
> Vincent Bugliosi (the LNer that conspiracy-happy kooks love to hate)
> said it very well in his 2007 JFK book:
>
> "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
> tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
> pieces of solid evidence; .... and insists that the failure to explain
> everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
The photos aren't slips of the tongue or a misunderstanding, David.
They are forensic evidence, making it the best evidence.
One cannot insist that Oswald acted alone when those responsible for
the best evidence have presented false evidence.
> "With respect to the [John F.] Kennedy assassination, once you
> establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you
> also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is
> known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
> discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
> have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
You have the task of proving that those who handled the forensic
evidence weren't guilty. Let me warn you in advance, that it is an
impossible task.
The divergent photos THAT LACK DENTAL RECORDS are just the beginning,
David. Do you get it? The lack of dental x-rays were intentional when
you understand that the photos, as presented, are part of a lie.
Ben Holmes
awthr...@gmail.com says...
>
>It's very odd...instead of David answering my thread directly, he's
>chosen to jump the track and post his answer over here.
DVP has always been a coward. His posting record demonstrates it. He simply
*can't* support his own words with the evidence, as he even admits to a degree
in this post.
>On Nov 27, 5:02=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5330266164583e2e
>>
>> >>> "I never said the photos were altered. If you wish, you might say tha=
>t the unaltered photos don't comport with each other. They disagree with ea=
>ch other mightily, however. In fact, they disagree in a way that makes them=
> OPPOSITES of each other in the area of the RIGHT FOREHEAD. One conclusion =
>would be that there was TAMPERING of the evidence. Do you have any other an=
>swer that would explain the opposite evidence presented by the two photos?"=
> <<<
>>
>>Conspiracy theorists think that if every last thing isn't explained to
>>their perfect satisfaction, it means that something suspicious or
>>shady was taking place with respect to JFK's body, and his autopsy,
>>and the wounds, and the bullets, and Oswald, and the guns, and the
>>cops....everything.
>
>I've asked about one thing.
>
>I didn't ask about the color of Jackie's shoes....I asked about an x-
>ray that disagrees in massive way with a photo of JFK's face.
The problem LNT'ers have, of course, is that a tremendous body of evidence in
this case has problems with it. The WC was forced to bury and ignore much of
what they knew, in order to come to their "conclusions."
>> But that's an approach to take only if you never want to accept ANY of
>> the evidence (or very little of it anyway) as being firm proof of any
>> conclusion in a large double-murder case that has a lot of evidence
>> attached to it, like the JFK/Tippit case does. Because there are bound
>> to be discrepancies in the record...and even in some pictures and
>> films.
>
>Okay, now you're wandering from JFK's forensic evidence to the Tippit
>murder. Along along, I've asked you to focus, yet now you're doing
>just the opposite.
It's the "look here, look there" defense. They *can't* focus on any one item,
because the very items that CT'ers bring up - they have *NO* answer for.
>> Take, for example, the "Chaney Isn't In The Right Position"
>> discrepancy in the Altgens and Zapruder images. Many CT-Kooks like to
>> look sideways at the Z-Film (or the Altgens picture) because of the
>> anomaly that appears in the Altgens photo regarding the position of
>> James Chaney's motorcycle....with some CTers actually favoring the
>> notion that this discrepancy is proof that the Z-Film is a fake.
It certainly contradicts the other films. There's no doubt whatsoever that
Chaney was looking at exactly what he describes he was looking at - JFK.
It's clear because the shadow of his motorcycle cannot *POSSIBLY* be over 20'
long at 12:30. Yet you can see it at the front of the limo.
>> It's just nonsense, of course. Those kooks fail to account for the
>> differing angles of the two images. Altgens' perspective is totally
>> different from that of Zapruder, and we're getting a look at that
>> different perspective in Altgens' picture, naturally.
>
>Focus, David. Focus.
He has no explanation for the contradictions of the Altgen's with the extant
Z-film or Nix film. None. "Differing angles" isn't going to get the job done,
nor is "wide angle perspective" going to do it.
Chaney is where he appears to be... tis that simple.
>> But that's just one example of how the CTers of the world willingly
>> and anxiously jump all over a slight photographic anomaly
>
>Are you saying the missing forehead bones in the A-P x-ray are "a
>slight photographic anomaly?"
>
>>(or a
>> seeming discrepancy) and then immediately run to their soapbox to
>> shout out that a picture or film MUST be a fraud, because they can't
>> interpret what they're seeing correctly.*
>
>To be clear once again, I did not say the photos are a fraud. I said
>they DISAGREE with each other.
I, on the other hand, *DO* agree that many of them have been fradulently
altered... you see, the *EVIDENCE* shows this.
It really takes very little intelligence to look at the "white patch" on the
side X-ray - and understand what Mantik found in the optical density
measurements there - and compare it to where over 40 eyewitnesses (and the
autopsy report) put the wound - and put two and two together.
>> I think much the same thing applies to "awthraw's" argument about
>> JFK's "missing forehead".
>
>This sounds like you are calling the missing forehead bones in the x-
>ray "a slight photographic anomaly."
>
>>Via the autopsy photos, JFK's forehead
>> appears to be mostly intact and undamaged:
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009a.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009b.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
>>
>> And since we know that both the pictures and the X-rays were taken
>> during JFK's autopsy...on the same night of 11/22/63...at just about
>> the same general time (give or take)...and since we know that NONE of
>> those photographic materials (pictures and X-rays) have been "monkeyed
>> around with" (i.e., they are unaltered pictures of the dead JFK
>> himself)...and since we know that all 3 autopsy doctors declared that
>> JFK was shot by just two bullets, both coming from behind...
Yet these three doctors also asserted that they knew nothing of the frontal
entry to the neck - and certainly never dissected it.
>> then what
>> other conclusion can a reasonable person reach with respect to the
>> death of President Kennedy, other than to conclude that he was struck
>> ONLY FROM BEHIND by two and only two bullets in Dealey Plaza?
>
>I haven't been discussing the direction of the bullets. Please try to
>stay focused. I'm asking you about the huge damning differences
>between the two photos.
>
>> I have no "official" explanation for the A-P X-ray.
>
>Aha. Now do you have any reasonable explanation for it?
Of course he doesn't... he *CAN'T*.
There really is none - other than forgery.
>>But since I know
>>that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes,
A wee bit of circular reasoning - "I know that the WCR is right, and that Oswald
is the sole killer - so the photographs and X-rays must be authentic."
>Did you ever consider that the x-ray photo is real, but it's not an x-
>ray of JFK? The x-ray photo is cut off so that no dental records could
>be ascertained. (That's highly unusual...the missing dental images,
>that is...you do realize that don't you?)
They *have* been seen by some, I'm under the impression that Mantik has seen the
entirety of the X-rays - I'd imagine that he's competent enough to examine teeth
in X-rays.
It *is* a mystery that needs explaining for why the HSCA refused to allow any
one person to view both at the same time.
Of course, we *KNOW* that the HSCA simply lied about some of the medical
evidence - so I'm not confident that any reason would be innocent.
>> can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
>> conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
>> discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
>> of John F. Kennedy -- even if I, myself, do not know what that
>> reasonable explanation is.
I have 50 questions related to evidence that DVP can't provide
"non-conspiratorial" explanations for - so his admission that he can't provide a
non-conspiratorial answer in just the one case here is a huge understatement.
>Aha, again. You don't have a reasonable explanation. But you obviously
>recognize that the death stare photo and the x-ray photo are
>completely divergent.
Tis difficult to get a troll to so admit. Congrats...
>So at this point you don't have a solid basis for deciding from which
>direction at least one of the shots were fired from, because the
>underlying photographic evidence is utterly contradictory.
In which case, the *LEGAL* standard would be to go with the eyewitnesses -
indeed, the legal system refuses to place photography above eyewitness testimony
UNLESS the photograph has been corroborated by an eyewitness - the courts
certainly recognize the ease with which photographs can be altered.
>What is clear is that there has been either tampering with the
>evidence or fraudulent evidence being presented, or both.
I would argue both.
>That fact changes EVERYTHING. So it's not a slight anomaly at all. For
>some reason some of those who were responsible for the body or the
>evidence were in cahoots with covering up what actually happened.
The evidence has *always* been a problem for the LNT'ers... that's why only the
trolls are left on this forum - they've all moved to the censored group where
their lies can't be pointed out.
>> * =3D Along similar lines, I also can't make head nor tail out of the
>> "F8" autopsy photo (and I've admitted as much several times on this
>> newsgroup; that picture is a mess and is, IMO, totally worthless as
>> definitive evidence).
Only, of course, because the natural way to orient it, so that it's corroborated
by all the medical eyewitnesses, is to view F8 as if from behind the head. But
this makes nonsense of the other fabrications involved, which have been trying
desperately to move the damage *UP* - to be consistent with the TSBD.
Far too many people can figure out where a round would almost certainly exit if
it entered near the EOP from the 6th floor a hundred yards away.
>> But I've never once suggested that F8 was a
>> "fake" or that it has been "altered" in some way (even when kooks like
>> Gil Jesus prop up that very photo as "proof" that JFK was shot in the
>> head from the front).
>
>You're comparing apples and oranges. The F* photo is a confusing
>photo. But the Death stare and the A-P x-ray photos are not confusing
>as stand alone photos. Those two photos are only confusing when
>COMPARED to each other.
You are, of course, trying to pin down jello.
>> I don't think for a minute that ANY of the official evidence is fake
>> in this case. IMO, that's just a stupid belief. It's merely a crutch
>> utilized by CTers who have got nothing else to use as ammunition to
>> combat the mile-high pile of "It Was Only Oswald" evidence in this
>> double-murder case.
>
>Again, I never said the photos were fake. They are real photos. They
>aren't doctored. They just disagree...and disagree in a way that
>changes EVERYTHING.
I *DO* say much of the evidence is fake... and I do so not because I dislike a
particular piece of evidence - BUT BECAUSE IT IS CONTRADICTED BY OTHER EVIDENCE.
DVP is bemused by this.
>> Vincent Bugliosi (the LNer that conspiracy-happy kooks love to hate)
>> said it very well in his 2007 JFK book:
Is this the same Bugliosi who, although *PROVABLY* aware of the 16 smoking guns,
was completely unable to respond to them in his massive tome?
And are you the troll who lied and said that he had?
>> "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
>> tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
>> pieces of solid evidence; .... and insists that the failure to explain
>> everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
>
>The photos aren't slips of the tongue or a misunderstanding, David.
>They are forensic evidence, making it the best evidence.
>
>One cannot insist that Oswald acted alone when those responsible for
>the best evidence have presented false evidence.
And since the photographs & X-rays never left Government control - DVP is in for
a world of hurt should he try to argue anything *OTHER* than that any alteration
& forgery was done at the behest of those in government.
>> "With respect to the [John F.] Kennedy assassination, once you
>> establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
Circular reasoning again... "Oswald is guilty, because of all this evidence that
has no chain of custody, and conflicts with other evidence. But the evidence
must be good because we know that Oswald is guilty. We know Oswald is guilty
because of all this evidence that has no chain of custody..."
The moment you realize that so *much* of the evidence in this case can't stand
up to the light of day - is when you have to go back to any evidence that CANNOT
HAVE BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY - and that's the eyewitness statements documented
during those first hours, days, and weeks following the assassination - and
*that* body of evidence overwhelmingly points to a conspiracy to murder JFK.
>> then you
>> also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is
>> known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
>> discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
>> have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
A fairly stupid statement from a supposedly intelligent man.
>You have the task of proving that those who handled the forensic
>evidence weren't guilty. Let me warn you in advance, that it is an
>impossible task.
>
>The divergent photos THAT LACK DENTAL RECORDS are just the beginning,
>David. Do you get it? The lack of dental x-rays were intentional when
>you understand that the photos, as presented, are part of a lie.
It's beyond dispute that the HSCA lied about the evidence... it's also clear,
although not as dramatic, that the WC lied about the evidence - why are lies
needed to support the truth?
aeffects
> >>> "[Quoting Dr. James J.] Humes: "Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." " <<<
>
> Oh, man, this is rich!
>
> It's hilarious that Ben Holmes thinks Dr. Humes' "from behind / from
> behind" double-speak is proof of some kind of a large wound being
> present in the back of JFK's head. It's absolutely hilarious that
> Holmes The Kook would even bring up this obvious misstatement by
> Humes.
>
> So, I guess, per his WC testimony, that Humes must have ACTUALLY
> thought (per Ben Holmes The Kook) that BOTH the entry AND the exit
> holes from the bullet that crashed into JFK's head were located on the
> BACK of Kennedy's head.
>
> Obviously, that is not what Dr. Humes meant to imply. But, to a kook,
> if someone makes a slip of the tongue or has a comment he makes
> misunderstood by someone (like Humes' remark above), there's no
> reconciling that statement if you're a conspiracy-happy individual,
> and there's no amending the statement into a coherent one, instead of
> the somewhat-incoherent one that we find in the WC volumes. Right,
> Benji?
typical Lone Nut dodge... spin then run
> Ben and I hashed out this "from behind/from behind" thing back in
> 2006, btw. Here's what I said then about the matter (and the common
> sense that flows from this 2006 post still certainly applies 2.5 years
> later):
>
nobody gives a shit what you said then, or now...why? You're opinion
and spin is irrelevant...why?.... The WCR, evidence, testimony and
exhibits remain the same, son.... all the Lone Nut wishin and a hopin
won't change that -- you're stuck with it -- ENJOY...
You've nothing left but Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks and HBO and of
course .john...
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <84fad5db-fb26-4dd6-9699-20fda8d65...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> awthraw...@gmail.com says...
Not really *at* the front. Protruding from behind the limo's right
front fender:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
In this 2005 thread, Jerry Logan makes Ben's position look really bad:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/410b23db0af39c46
Ben's gut feeling turns out to be no match for Jerry's thoughtful
analysis of the geometry involved (supported by neat line-of-sight
diagrams). After a while, Ben resorts to his all-too-familiar tactic
of spraying his opponent with insults, but Jerry (much to his credit)
doesn't take the bait.
PS: In 2008, Ben introduces his *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory in
another (failed) attempt to prove Z film alteration...