BOH
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/09d3237127128b8a
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ac5fdb5cf996d6f1
BARB J. WROTE:
>>> "None of what you've posted {i.e., quotes from Vincent Bugliosi} has ANYthing to do with that {BOH wound} issue at all." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Sure it does. You just THINK it doesn't (for some reason).
It has relevance to this subject at hand, of course, because Vince is
saying in those several passages I quoted (quite obviously) that he
(VB) is of the belief that THERE WAS NO LARGE 'BOH' WOUND ON THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD--PERIOD! None. It wasn't there. It never existed. And
the Parkland witnesses ALL (somehow) managed to mislocate and/or
misrepresent the true location of WHERE THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WAS.
I hate LNer Jim Moore's crazy interpretation, however, which is an
interpretation that Bugliosi actually gives PARTIAL credence to in
VB's "RH" book (but, in the final analysis, Vince defers mainly to
Michael Baden's "pooling blood/gore" explanation).
And I was certainly pleased to see VB give more weight to Baden's
scenario than he did Moore's seemingly-crazy theory. Moore, in his
book, claims that ALL of the Parkland people, incredibly, actually
somehow mis-identified the physical portion of JFK's head where Moore
says the witnesses really DID think they saw the wound (even though
several of those witnesses later were photographed placing their hands
over their own FAR-RIGHT-REAR, and even CENTER-REAR, portions of their
heads to demonstrate where they still thought the wound was that they
saw), with no mention (oddly) of anyone seeing the large FRONT-RIGHT-
TOP wound that we KNOW was there, with every Parkland and Bethesda
witness, instead, claiming there was just ONE large wound (somewhere)
in JFK's head.
And that "Only One Large Wound" fact could be a key to this enduring
and never-ending mystery. Because, does anyone know of anybody at PH
or Bethesda who said this: "There was a big hole in the back of JFK's
head AND another pretty good-sized hole on the right-front portion of
his head too"?
I sure know of no such witness.
Anyway, those "Hands On Their Heads" pictures of the "BOH" witnesses
probably came out well after Mr. Moore's 1990 book was published; so
he probably was unaware of those "hands-on" demonstrations when he was
writing his very thin and non-detailed JFK book, which is a book that
is laughably subtitled "The Definitive Book On The Kennedy
Assassination".
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
For clarification re. Moore's posture on this (and I'm quite certain I
understand it correctly via his book "Conspiracy Of One").....Moore
isn't saying the same thing that Baden and Bugliosi are saying is the
best explanation for the BOH wound witnesses.
That is, Mr. Moore doesn't say anything in his book about the
witnesses being confused by the "pooling" of blood and gore and brains
(etc.) which gravity was naturally forcing toward the BACK of John
Kennedy's head as he was lying in a prone position on his stretcher.
Moore, instead is saying (and to my astonishment actually, and I
cannot believe VB could even say ONE kind word about this nonsense in
his own book) that the PH witnesses themselves really thought they saw
the large hole in JFK's head at the RIGHT-FRONTAL area (where we know
it was, per authenticated autopsy photos and the never-wavering
testimony of all three autopsy doctors; and, IMO, Dr. Boswell's ARRB
Deposition doesn't discount or erase his and the other doctors'
overall testimony, because I still claim Boswell's ARRB comments on
the matter are quite a bit ambiguous and non-exacting in nature;
~~reaches for smelling salts to revive John Canal, because he can't
believe I just wrote the last sentence, because he thinks I'm 100%
wrong about my last remarks~~).....
....but those PH witnesses, incredibly, ALL were somehow disoriented
about JFK's head anatomy simply because he was LYING DOWN....and
therefore all the witnesses, per Jim Moore, mis-labelled the true
location of the RIGHT-FRONT wound that they REALLY were seeing,
stating that it was, instead, at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head.
Here's exactly what Mr. Moore said in this regard (in case anybody
cares):
"The explanation for this {head wound} discrepancy is so simple few
will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy
in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might
have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the
right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of
the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of "Conspiracy Of
One" (c.1990)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae3d600e8e571fa6
I'm sorry Jim....but that's just crazy. I think I'll stick with the
"blood/gore pooling to the right-rear" theory.
Anyhow.....Vince Bugliosi (who studied the assassination evidence for
over 20 years before publishing his book) is obviously saying, via the
quotes I previously provided in a post linked above, that he is of the
opinion (after studying all of this evidence for many years) that
there was NO LARGE, GAPING WOUND AT ALL IN THE BACK OF JOHN KENNEDY'S
HEAD.
And the following VB quote positively indicates that Vince is of the
very firm opinion that there was no large BOH wound at all:
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit
wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide
better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and
beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's
emphasis.] -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
Z328:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z328.jpg
~~~~~~
Yes, I'm a huge VB fan, and yes, I think he has written the new "JFK
Bible" in "Reclaiming History". But I don't always agree with
everything Vince says about the case (there are SBT timeline
differences and "first-shot" disagreements and some others)....but in
this "BOH" matter, I do have a hard time disagreeing with Vince,
especially after he has so obviously studied this whole assassination
case in great depth in order to publish his "Book For The Ages".
Vince wanted (quite obviously) as few mistakes as humanly possible in
such an important publication; and I know he wanted to cover as many
of the never-ending controversies as possible too. And I think he did
that. Although, as far as I can recall, VB does not get into Boswell's
ARRB testimony in his book. That could, indeed, be considered an
oversight on Vincent's part.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
But it's also possible that VB did read all of Boswell's comments to
the ARRB and was still not convinced that any type of large "BOH"
wound existed on the President's head.
But, again, I find it hard to argue with Mr. Bugliosi's final "No BOH
Hole" analysis....especially when it mirrors precisely my own thoughts
regarding this issue (which are thoughts and opinions that I have
possessed for years prior to even laying eyes on VB's book for the
first time on May 21, 2007).
I will say that Vincent's comments about the direction of any "scalp-
pulling" that some people say was done at Parkland has me a tad bit
perplexed (as it does Barb Junkkarinen too, I believe).
But...whether Vince is, himself, confused about the direction the
scalp was supposedly being pulled from (i.e., from the front vs. from
the rear), it's obvious from his comments regarding that scalp issue
that it really is a moot point altogether in VB's mind....because he
was merely describing for his readers an event that Vince believes
NEVER OCCURRED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Also......
I think another important Vince-like argument could probably be
utilized in connection with this always-controversial "Back-of-the-
Head" subject.....
Mr. Bugliosi, on page #953 of his massive tome, "Reclaiming History",
said the following:
"With respect to the 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
Now, it has occurred to me that the above wholly-reasonable argument
being made by Vincent Bugliosi (a seasoned and highly-successful
former Deputy District Attorney) could almost certainly be re-worded
and could also easily apply to this sticky-wicket known as the "BOH
Wound Witnesses" snafu.
Allow me to demonstrate (with changes made to Bugliosi's original
quote appearing in all capital letters):
"With respect to the BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND WITNESSES, once you
establish and know that PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONLY
ONE SINGLE BULLET AND THAT ONE BULLET POSITIVELY CAME FROM BEHIND THE
PRESIDENT, 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 (AND OTHERS, INCLUDING THE PARKLAND
AND BETHESDA WITNESSES) have raised through the years about THE HEAD
WOUNDS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
"IN MORE SIMPLE TERMS, ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONE
BULLET FROM BEHIND (VIA THE INCONVERTIBLE PRESENCE OF THE *ONE* SINGLE
BULLET WOUND OF ENTRY ON THE *BACK* OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD), WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES IT REALLY MAKE EXACTLY *WHERE* THE OTHER (LARGER)
WOUNDS WERE LOCATED ON JFK'S HEAD?"
Regards to all,
David Von Pein
September 16, 2007
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0057f012f24b26e1
>>> "To David VP: Your recent two-part post was well put together, but there was one remark that I want to correct you on. The Parkland docs DID NOT "just" think there was a large wound in the BOH...many reported that the wound was both occipital and parietal." <<<
And yet not a single witness (that I'm aware of) placed the wound in
BOTH the rear and the right-front. Almost every witness placed the
head wound back here (illustrated below):
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
That's very odd, indeed, if the RIGHT-TOP-FRONT area of the head was
also severely affected, which we KNOW it was, because that's the exact
area on JFK's head (the right-front) where Oswald's bullet positively
exited President Kennedy's head.
Which, in my opinion, makes the "Jackie Possibly CLOSED UP The Exit
Wound, Masking Its Presence From The Parkland Personnel" theory more
palatable.
I'm still not wildly enthusiastic about that "Jackie Closed The Wound"
theory myself -- because it's hard to believe she could have done THAT
good a job of completely hiding that large oozing wound in the right-
front portion of her husband's head from the view of so many different
people at Parkland.
But I think that "Jackie" theory makes a heck of a lot more sense than
most of the conspiracy theories I've heard over the years with respect
to the "BOH" discrepancies.
And we have this from VB too (you didn't expect to get through a whole
DVP post without a Vince citing, did you?) ;) .....
"On the issue of the locus of the head exit wound, perhaps the
most overlooked piece of medical and scientific evidence in books on
the assassination that proves the exit wound was in the right front of
the president's head is the fact that of the three fragments of the
skull found inside the presidential limousine, the HSCA forensic
pathology panel said that autopsy X-rays show that the largest one,
triangular in shape, contained "a portion of the right coronal
suture." {i.e.:}...The juncture between the parietal (side and top)
and frontal bone.
"Although the bullet fragmented upon striking bone in the
president's head, the HSCA concluded that the main part of the bullet
literally exited along the coronal suture line to the right front of
the president's head.
"Dr. Michael Baden told me, "The autopsy photographs clearly
show that the semicircular defect was half of a bullet wound with an
exit beveling, and this caused most of the damage to Kennedy's
parietal and frontal bones" (Telephone interview of Dr. Michael Baden
by {Vincent Bugliosi} on January 8, 2000). ....
"The fact that the largest fragment found of the president's
skull was along the coronal suture, that this triangular fragment was
one of three that, in the aggregate, lined up, on reconstruction, with
the large defect to the right front of the president's skull, and that
this large fragment of bone was beveled on its outer surface, rather
than its inner surface, provide conclusive evidence of an exiting
bullet to the right front of the president's head." -- VINCENT
BUGLIOSI; Pages 235-236 of the CD's Endnotes in "Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
================
>>> "Furthermore, I would have appreciated your take (and VB's) more if you had added, not only the fact that 10 doctors and other eyewitnesses, including TWO neurosurgeons, not to mention Humes in his WC testimony, saw CEREBELLUM tissue exuding from the large defect, but also the fact that it would have been virtually impossible to see cerebellum exuding from a wound that was limited in its area to the top/right/front of his head." <<<
No "cerebellum" was seen by anybody. In fact, via Doctor Boswell's
1996 words on this subject (reprinted below), it would have been
literally impossible for any cerebellum to have spilled out onto that
stretcher at Parkland (or at Bethesda) on 11/22/63.
The "I Saw Cerebellum" comments made by the various witnesses are yet
additional errors in a series of innocent observational errors made by
the doctors. And some of the doctors who initially said they thought
they saw cerebellum have since reversed themselves on that issue
(Pepper Jenkins and Paul Peters on the 1988 NOVA program, to name
two).
And Dr. Boswell's testimony below provides the (virtual) proof that no
cerebellum was extruding from JFK's head, either at Parkland Hospital
or on the autopsy table at Bethesda. (And we all know that Mr. Canal
thinks Dr. Boswell's ARRB remarks are very, very solid and worthy of
accepting.) ;)
And in this particular instance, since there's not a sign of ambiguity
at all in this testimony, unlike Boswell's remarks re. the BOH
situation, I'm inclined to accept this as the final "Cerebellum" word:
DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB Testimony) -- "In Dallas, they had said that
the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding.
But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort
of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to
cut the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about
getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both
the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
really very simple to take out."
QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"
BOSWELL -- "No."
QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes."
=====================================================
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 1):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 2):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
MORE "BOH" TALK (PART 3):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
=====================================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2c94231696691a5c
>>> "She {Barb J.} has forgotten more about the medical evidence than you pretend to know." <<<
Yeah, prob'ly so.
>>> "Therefore, you've got gal [sic] to question her on this issue, IMHO." <<<
Yeah, prob'ly so. But I've got the sum total of the evidence to always
fall back on. Plus the common-sense factor of knowing that it would
have been totally silly for the Bethesda doctors to want to cover up
the truth about the death of JFK, which the doctors knew had been
caused by only two bullets which both entered JFK's body FROM BEHIND.
>>> "You've also got a lot of gal [sic] saying that all those witnesses "who saw the body" and a BOH wound were wrong...BASED ON: 1) A photo taken near the end of the autopsy when the next major step was to turn the body over to the morticians..." <<<
I don't give a damn WHEN the photo was taken. The fact is there is NO
REAR SCALP MISSING on the head of the dead President. None! Zilch! Not
even a mark on the scalp. Nothing.
It's virtually impossible for the rear scalp of JFK to be in this
condition (below) if the Parkland witnesses are correct about there
having been a very large BOH wound in this SAME HEAD of President
Kennedy. .....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
Was JFK's scalp supposedly peeled COMPLETELY BACK off of his head at
Parkland, thereby exposing a massive hole underneath the TOTALLY-
INTACT scalp (per the above photo) at the far-right-rear of the head?
If so, why didn't any Parkland witnesses say anything about the scalp
being massively peeled back off of the President's head?
Of course, I'll grant you, none of the Parkland people seemed to
notice the large exit wound in the front-right part of JFK's head
either, so I guess maybe they just all missed seeing this massive
"Scalp Peeling" that must have been occurring at Parkland as well (if
Mr. Canal's theory concerning JFK's head wounds is a correct one, that
is).
~shrugs shoulders twice in bewilderment~
>>> "Look at the damn x-rays and BOH photo. The autopsists even said the large wound extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital....even if they understated how far back the wound went, the aforementioned photo and x-rays show no hint of a wound where they said there was one...nada, zilcho, zero, nothing...DO YOU GET IT? Why don't you ask yourself why that is, if that's not too much of a hurdle to jump before you accuse so many credible witnesses of being liars or hallucinators?" <<<
See my last remarks.
And, btw, I've never once accused any Parkland witness of being a
"liar". Never once.
(John C. sure is irritable today.)
>>> "Do you actually think the autopsy docs didn't know where the temporal and occipital bones were? Don't bother to answer that...OF COURSE YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THOSE BONES WERE." <<<
Go ask Tony Marsh. He thinks the Bethesda docs (all 3 of 'em!) were
total and utter incompetents, and they couldn't even tell a little
piece of loose brain tissue from a hole in the back of JFK's head.
I guess Tony must think JFK wasn't shot in the head AT ALL, seeing as
how he thinks there was NO HOLE at all in the back of the head.
Go figure that. ~shrug~
(I wandered off on a Marsh tangent; sorry.)
>>> "The Greer did it theory makes more sense than what you're sputtering out." <<<
My, my. John C. sure is testy today.
>>> "I've come to know former FBI agent, Francis O'Neill, pretty good...do you want to talk to him up front and personal like and ask him if he was smoking that funny stuff when he viewed and felt the back of JFK's skull with his finger...and saw a large BOH wound????? I'm almost positive I can arrange that...if you have the B____s to. How about it?" <<<
No, thanks.
(My goodness, John's on edge today.)
>>> "Good day." <<<
Yeah, right. ;)
Gil Jesus
witness of two is a true witness, then what is the witness of one
continually repeated ?
Still the witness of one. Then there is the evidence from the 26
volumes of LIES.
Then there is the McAdams site:
And speaking of witnesses, did Von Pein know that the ARRB released a
document showing that ALL of the witnesses who saw the President's
head wound described large wound of exit in the rear -- both at
Parkland AND Bethesda ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Of course he did. He just ignores that.
Speaking of witnesses, didn't ALL of the witnesses describe a small
entrance wound in the front and/or a large exit wound in the rear ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9LTOhTU84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPOObPve3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
their descriptions match exactly what these photos show :
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2JIsDgyC6WBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyBHXirWsef5v4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
why was a "black square" added to the "death stare" photo in exactly
the spot where witnesses said there was a small entrance wound ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L165WN4FV4tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
David Von Pein
Oh sure. I just "ignore" the BOH witnesses. That must be why I wrote
the following in this very thread:
"Not a single witness (that I'm aware of) placed the wound in
BOTH the rear and the right-front. Almost every witness placed the
head wound back here (illustrated below):"
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
Can't read now either, huh Jesus?
lazu...@webtv.net
photograph agree with it, i.e. that there was no damage to the rear of
the president's head?!!!----Old Laz, who doesn't think all the witnesses
are either lying, nuts, or mistaken---Occam's razor, you know
aeffects
ole Dave, will tuck the old tail and run from this.....Laz -- good
posting
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3873410e-5467-4667...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Why do none of the witnesses who have looked at the BOH photograph
>>>> president's head?" <<<
>
>
> Those witnesses would obviously not agree with what the official
> autpsy photos depict because those witnesses legitimately thought they
> saw a large hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head.
>
>
>
> If those people truly thought they saw only a hole in the BACK of
> JFK's cranium, then why on Earth would they suddenly think there was
> NO HOLE in the back of JFK's head just because they were shown a
> picture?*
>
>
>
> Replay -- DUH!
>
>
>
> * = Footnote --- Of course, there are some exceptions to the above
> "BOH" witness scenario (but not many). With four such exceptions being
> Parkland doctors Peters, McClelland, Dulany, and Jenkins. Each of
> those doctors appeared on the PBS NOVA program in 1988 and seemingly
> totally reversed their earlier opinions about the location of the
> President's large head wound.
>
> "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very
> vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." -- Dr.
> Robert McClelland
>
> "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember
> President Kennedy at the time." -- Dr. Paul Peters
You forgot to mention WHICH pohotos they were shown one at a time "Behind
Closed Doors".
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5d6840462191ec6a
>>> "Why do none of the witnesses who have looked at the BOH photograph agree with it?" <<<
Well this is a real toughie, huh? (Duh!)
Those witnesses would obviously not agree with what the official
autopsy photos depict because those witnesses legitimately thought
they saw a large hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head.
If those people truly thought they saw only a hole in the BACK of
JFK's cranium when they saw JFK up close and in person, then why on
Earth would they suddenly think there was NO HOLE in the back of JFK's
head just because they were shown a picture?*
Replay -- DUH!
* = Footnote --- Of course, there are some exceptions to the above
"BOH" witness scenario (but not many). With four such exceptions being
Parkland doctors Peters, McClelland, Dulany, and Jenkins. Each of
those doctors appeared on the PBS NOVA program in 1988 and seemingly
totally reversed their earlier opinions about the location of the
President's large head wound.
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very
vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." -- Dr.
Robert McClelland
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember
President Kennedy at the time." -- Dr. Paul Peters
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
Dr. Carrico also totally changed his opinion with respect to JFK's
head wound too. Years later he decided the large wound was located at
the right-front of the President's head instead of where he places it
here:
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
CTers can piss all over the NOVA comments of those four Parkland
physicians if they wish to (and they do wish to do that, no
doubt)....but those doctors are on film saying what they said in 1988
nonetheless. And I've seen a video with the late Dr. Carrico doing his
about-face regarding the head-wound location as well. So, take it with
the usual grain of salt.
But even without such retractions/reversals by ANY of the "BOH"
witnesses, the BEST evidence with respect to how John F. Kennedy was
killed (and by how many bullets and from what direction those bullets
were fired) is (and always will be) the autopsy report, which was
signed by all three autopsy physicians. And that autopsy report says
the following (as unambiguous as can be).....
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles
fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from
a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via
JFK's Autopsy Report (Autopsy No. A63-272)
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
============
Plus: The next "best" evidence is, of course, the autopsy pictures,
which the HSCA determined were "authentic and unaltered".....
"The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and
X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's
consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations.
The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were
authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy
personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the
medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII
============
So, in a nutshell......
LNers have the positively-verified-as-authentic autopsy photos and X-
rays, plus the autopsy report, which is a report that contains these
words that CTers will never be able to skirt around without resorting
to the usual (unsupportable) CT tactic of calling all three autopsists
rotten, dirty liars: "The deceased died as a result of two gunshot
wounds...fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the
deceased".
CTers have the following -- The "BOH" witnesses (some of whom have
admitted they were in error regarding their observations about
President Kennedy's head wounds).
That is where things rest with respect to the location of JFK's large
head wound (and probably always will rest). So, which should we
choose?.....
1.) Should we call many, many people outright "liars" (such as Humes,
Finck, Boswell, Blakey, Baden, plus all four doctors who viewed the
autopsy photos for the Clark Panel in 1968, plus all of the various
photographic experts who examined the autopsy pictures for the HSCA)?
2.) Or should we call the "BOH" witnesses "mistaken" (not liars,
because none of them were really outright liars, IMO)?
Option #2 is a far more "reasonable" conclusion to reach than is
Option #1. Because Option #2 has nobody telling a single "lie" to
anyone; whereas Option #1 has many people telling deliberate, outright
lies in order to hide the truth about President Kennedy's death.
Almost all conspiracy theorists, of course, pretty much have no choice
but to select Option #1 (if, that is, they want to remain a believer
in a multi-gun conspiracy, with the fatal gunshot hitting JFK from the
front).
But I'll go with the most "reasonable" choice among the two options
above, which, of course, is #2.
lazu...@webtv.net
BOH photo. Recall that they acted like they'd never seen the damned
thing before at the HSCA! They couldn't find the EOP entry wound in this
photo which they had insisted should be visible to them, and they never
agreed with the so-called cowlick entry, which the HSCA had to invent to
make sense of some kind of rear entry site.
As further confirmation of Humes' position, there was a BOH photo in
1966, included in the NA's Autopsy Photo Inventory, which DID SHOW A
WOUND OF ENTRANCE NEAR THE EOP, AND WAS SO LABELLED---BUT IS APPARENTLY
NOW MISSING. Explain that one!
So if you can't use the autopsists, and are only going with a couple of
Parkland Doctors, who for some reason or another thought it was prudent
to change their minds about a massive defect in the rear of the head,
you've got nearly 40 people, the majority of whom are medical
professionals still on your "mistaken" list.
------Old Laz, who's afraid ole Occam has fallen off his razor
David Von Pein
So?
=====================================
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
=========================================
tomnln
You NEED to get up to speed David>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm