Facts LNT'ers Just HATE! (#3)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Balds...@gmail.com
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
David Von Pein
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
JGL
Marty Baughman
Miss Rita
Muc...@Gmail.com
Osprey
Sam Brown
Steve sahi...@yahoo.com
Tara Lachat
Tims...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
The names change from time to time as they create new aliases, but they can be
recognized by their refusal to address the evidence, and their frequent use of
ad hominem attacks.
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
**********************************************************************
The BOH photo contradicts the Autopsy Report. Of course, it also contradicts
over 40 eyewitnesses - but LNT'ers will argue that *all* of them were simply
mistaken.
But they are forced to accept the Autopsy Report, and it *clearly* places the
large head wound 'largely in the Parietal, but extending somewhat into the
Occipital and Temporal' (as I recall the language.)
But no LNT'er yet has been able to point to any part of the Occipital *NOT* seen
in the BOH photo. The autopsy report clearly states that the large wound was
'devoid of bone and scalp' - yet this is simply *not* seen in the BOH photo.
Some try the argument that the scalp was pulled over the wound - but anyone can
examine the hair, and see that there's no stretching of the scalp taking place.
The autopsy report was quite clear, that wound was *DEVOID* of scalp.
Why can't any LNT'er point to any area of the occipital that CANNOT be seen in
the BOH photo?
And why is there such a dramatic conflict between *ALL* the evidence, and the
BOH photo?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
John Canal
>Why can't any LNT'er point to any area of the occipital that CANNOT be seen in
>the BOH photo?
Any LNTer? :-)
>And why is there such a dramatic conflict between *ALL* the evidence, and the
>BOH photo?
The BOH photo was taken late in the autopsy--at the same time as those of the
back wound that also show the BOH. The reason that the BOH shows the entry (red
splotch) to be higher than the EOP (where the bullet entered the skull) is the
same reason there is no opening in that photo in the occipital consistent with a
BOH wound that about 30 witnesses, including the autopsy docs, said they saw.
The reason is that, before the photo was taken, the scalp from about the EOP to
his hairline was "undermined" (a process used in hair restoration and by
morticans to maximize the stretchability of the scalp)....and then stretched.
The result was that the entry hole in the scalp went from about three inches
above the hairline (where it was at Z-312) to about 6 inches above the
hairline...where it shows in the photo.
Now, as far as the occipital opening described by so many witnesses goes, the
anomaly seen in the scalp in the photo that extends forward and to the right
from the red splotch was a large laceration that used to be open (at Z-312) and
also "used to be" in the occipital (pre-scalp undermining/stretching). IOW, that
laceration had been sutured closed (and, again, effectively moved up) by the
time the photo was taken.
Ben Holmes
>
>[...]
>
>>Why can't any LNT'er point to any area of the occipital that CANNOT be seen in
>>the BOH photo?
>
>Any LNTer? :-)
>
>>And why is there such a dramatic conflict between *ALL* the evidence, and the
>>BOH photo?
>
>The BOH photo was taken late in the autopsy--at the same time as those of the
>back wound that also show the BOH. The reason that the BOH shows the entry (red
>splotch) to be higher than the EOP (where the bullet entered the skull) is the
>same reason there is no opening in that photo in the occipital consistent with a
>BOH wound that about 30 witnesses, including the autopsy docs, said they saw.
>
>The reason is that, before the photo was taken, the scalp from about the EOP to
>his hairline was "undermined" (a process used in hair restoration and by
>morticans to maximize the stretchability of the scalp)....and then stretched.
Already dealt with... you snipped it.
Why someone would photograph a mortician's efforts to document an autopsy is
still unexplained.
>The result was that the entry hole in the scalp went from about three inches
>above the hairline (where it was at Z-312) to about 6 inches above the
>hairline...where it shows in the photo.
>
>Now, as far as the occipital opening described by so many witnesses goes, the
>anomaly seen in the scalp in the photo that extends forward and to the right
>from the red splotch was a large laceration that used to be open (at Z-312) and
>also "used to be" in the occipital (pre-scalp undermining/stretching). IOW, that
>laceration had been sutured closed (and, again, effectively moved up) by the
>time the photo was taken.
John Canal
>
>In article <h2ihb...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Why can't any LNT'er point to any area of the occipital that CANNOT be seen in
>>>the BOH photo?
>>
>>Any LNTer? :-)
>>
>>>And why is there such a dramatic conflict between *ALL* the evidence, and the
>>>BOH photo?
>>
>>The BOH photo was taken late in the autopsy--at the same time as those of the
>>back wound that also show the BOH. The reason that the BOH shows the entry (red
>>splotch) to be higher than the EOP (where the bullet entered the skull) is the
>>same reason there is no opening in that photo in the occipital consistent with a
>>BOH wound that about 30 witnesses, including the autopsy docs, said they saw.
>>
>>The reason is that, before the photo was taken, the scalp from about the EOP to
>>his hairline was "undermined" (a process used in hair restoration and by
>>morticans to maximize the stretchability of the scalp)....and then stretched.
>
>
>Already dealt with... you snipped it.
>
>Why someone would photograph a mortician's efforts to document an autopsy is
>still unexplained.
That must be a good question...because Davd Von Pein asked me something similar.
I don't think I answered him because he refused to figure out the photo that
shows the entry in the skull...IOW, he kept wanting to discuss the photo of the
entry in the scalp to argue where the entry was in the skull.
But, seeing as you're not him, I'll take a stab at your question. First, I'm
convinced that Burkley was calling the shots in the morgue that night. His
middle name must have been paranoia...he evidently was a conspiracy theorist
until he died. Anyway, it's obvious that he did not want to photograph the BOH
with the wound showing like the Parkland Docs decribed...he [Burkley] was
probably afraid that photographing such a wound would suggest there had been a
frontal shooter....and that's why, IMO, that's also why no photo was ever taken
of the BOH when the body was first received. Again, one was taken of the BOH
(the one you're referring to), but only much later and after the scalp had been
repaired.
That photo came back to haunt them in spades...because it was used to question
[reject] their near-EOP entry.
>>The result was that the entry hole in the scalp went from about three inches
>>above the hairline (where it was at Z-312) to about 6 inches above the
>>hairline...where it shows in the photo.
>>
>>Now, as far as the occipital opening described by so many witnesses goes, the
>>anomaly seen in the scalp in the photo that extends forward and to the right
>>from the red splotch was a large laceration that used to be open (at Z-312) and
>>also "used to be" in the occipital (pre-scalp undermining/stretching). IOW, that
>>laceration had been sutured closed (and, again, effectively moved up) by the
>>time the photo was taken.
I stand by that account.
Ben Holmes
>
>In article <h2jmr...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <h2ihb...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Why can't any LNT'er point to any area of the occipital that CANNOT be seen in
>>>>the BOH photo?
>>>
>>>Any LNTer? :-)
>>>
>>>>And why is there such a dramatic conflict between *ALL* the evidence, and the
>>>>BOH photo?
>>>
>>>The BOH photo was taken late in the autopsy--at the same time as those of the
>>>back wound that also show the BOH. The reason that the BOH shows the entry (red
>>>splotch) to be higher than the EOP (where the bullet entered the skull) is the
>>>same reason there is no opening in that photo in the occipital consistent with a
>>>BOH wound that about 30 witnesses, including the autopsy docs, said they saw.
>>>
>>>The reason is that, before the photo was taken, the scalp from about the EOP to
>>>his hairline was "undermined" (a process used in hair restoration and by
>>>morticans to maximize the stretchability of the scalp)....and then stretched.
>>
>>
>>Already dealt with... you snipped it.
>>
>>Why someone would photograph a mortician's efforts to document an autopsy is
>>still unexplained.
>
>That must be a good question...because Davd Von Pein asked me something
>similar.
That's hardly a good reason to think it a good question...
>I don't think I answered him because he refused to figure out the photo that
>shows the entry in the skull...IOW, he kept wanting to discuss the photo of the
>entry in the scalp to argue where the entry was in the skull.
>
>But, seeing as you're not him, I'll take a stab at your question. First, I'm
>convinced that Burkley was calling the shots in the morgue that night.
Well, either Burkley or *some* high ranking military person. Burkley as the one
calling the shots works fairly as well as any other... and better than most. (He
fits well with Finck's testimony, for example)
>His
>middle name must have been paranoia...he evidently was a conspiracy theorist
>until he died. Anyway, it's obvious that he did not want to photograph the BOH
>with the wound showing like the Parkland Docs decribed...he [Burkley] was
>probably afraid that photographing such a wound would suggest there had been a
>frontal shooter....
Unless the scenario was already planted and in place, I would suggest that
Burkley would have no particular reason to favor a forward shooter, or a
rearward shooter, or a shooter from the side.
I rather strongly suspect that the autopsy, X-rays, and photos were in a
constant 'flux' for a month or so... It would be fascinating indeed to go back
to Saturday, 11/23, and compare the photos, X-rays, and autopsy report with what
we have today.
>and that's why, IMO, that's also why no photo was ever taken
>of the BOH when the body was first received. Again, one was taken of the BOH
>(the one you're referring to), but only much later and after the scalp had been
>repaired.
I don't agree with the scalp stretching theory... as originally stated.
>That photo came back to haunt them in spades...because it was used to question
>[reject] their near-EOP entry.
I rather doubt if it 'haunted' anyone other than the prosectors, who knew what
they saw in front of them.
The wounds described were improbable at best from the snipers nest. It was much
better to move the entire trajectory higher up, where it's far more believable.
>>>The result was that the entry hole in the scalp went from about three inches
>>>above the hairline (where it was at Z-312) to about 6 inches above the
>>>hairline...where it shows in the photo.
>>>
>>>Now, as far as the occipital opening described by so many witnesses goes, the
>>>anomaly seen in the scalp in the photo that extends forward and to the right
>>>from the red splotch was a large laceration that used to be open (at Z-312) and
>>>also "used to be" in the occipital (pre-scalp undermining/stretching). IOW, that
>>>laceration had been sutured closed (and, again, effectively moved up) by the
>>>time the photo was taken.
>
>I stand by that account.
I'd have to see scalp being stretched that far un-noticeably before I could
believe such a scenario.
John Canal
>
>In article <h2jq0...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>>
>>In article <h2jmr...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <h2ihb...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>Why can't any LNT'er point to any area of the occipital that CANNOT be seen in
>>>>>the BOH photo?
>>>>
>>>>Any LNTer? :-)
>>>>
>>>>>And why is there such a dramatic conflict between *ALL* the evidence, and the
>>>>>BOH photo?
>>>>
>>>>The BOH photo was taken late in the autopsy--at the same time as those of the
>>>>back wound that also show the BOH. The reason that the BOH shows the entry (red
>>>>splotch) to be higher than the EOP (where the bullet entered the skull) is the
>>>>same reason there is no opening in that photo in the occipital consistent with a
>>>>BOH wound that about 30 witnesses, including the autopsy docs, said they saw.
>>>>
>>>>The reason is that, before the photo was taken, the scalp from about the EOP to
>>>>his hairline was "undermined" (a process used in hair restoration and by
>>>>morticans to maximize the stretchability of the scalp)....and then stretched.
>>>
>>>
>>>Already dealt with... you snipped it.
>>>
>>>Why someone would photograph a mortician's efforts to document an autopsy is
>>>still unexplained.
>>
>>That must be a good question...because Davd Von Pein asked me something
>>similar.
>
>
>That's hardly a good reason to think it a good question...
You got me there....good point.
>>I don't think I answered him because he refused to figure out the photo that
>>shows the entry in the skull...IOW, he kept wanting to discuss the photo of the
>>entry in the scalp to argue where the entry was in the skull.
>>
>>But, seeing as you're not him, I'll take a stab at your question. First, I'm
>>convinced that Burkley was calling the shots in the morgue that night.
>
>
>Well, either Burkley or *some* high ranking military person. Burkley as the one
>calling the shots works fairly as well as any other... and better than most. (He
>fits well with Finck's testimony, for example)
Bet on Burkley. Here's a few citations to back that up...and there are
more--overkill isn't needed.
1. "And during the course of the autopsy, I supervised everything that was
done." [Burkley's 10-17-67 interview with W. McHugh for the JFK Library.
2. "Burkley was a maniac...They were all scared to death anyway when they got
down there. And Admiral Burkley started screaming at them." [O'Connor's taped
interview with Livingstone, HT2, p. 261]
3. "I supervised the autopsy." [Burkley's sworn 3-10-79 affadavit, NARA, JFK Doc
014877
4. "I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy..." [Burkley
affadavi, JFK Collection: HSCA, RG 233]
5. "Burkley told us to leave the tracheotomy and back wound alone". [O'Connor to
Bill Law, taped interview, "In the Eye of History", p. 43]
>
>>His
>>middle name must have been paranoia...he evidently was a conspiracy theorist
>>until he died. Anyway, it's obvious that he did not want to photograph the BOH
>>with the wound showing like the Parkland Docs decribed...he [Burkley] was
>>probably afraid that photographing such a wound would suggest there had been a
>>frontal shooter....
>
>
>Unless the scenario was already planted and in place, I would suggest that
>Burkley would have no particular reason to favor a forward shooter, or a
>rearward shooter, or a shooter from the side.
I'm convinced that he didn't want to public to think there had been multiple
shooters...thus, no photo was ever taken of the BOH when the body was first
received (with a BOH wound, besides the entry, as described by so many
witnesses, it would have suggested a frontal shooter). Also, this smells of
Burkley's doind: the autopsy report understated how far the large wound extended
into the occipital--the report said "somewhat into the occipital", but it went
all the way down to near the EOP (we know that because there were 11 cerebellum
eyewitnesses).
>I rather strongly suspect that the autopsy, X-rays, and photos were in a
>constant 'flux' for a month or so... It would be fascinating indeed to go back
>to Saturday, 11/23, and compare the photos, X-rays, and autopsy report with what
>we have today.
>
>
>>and that's why, IMO, that's also why no photo was ever taken
>>of the BOH when the body was first received. Again, one was taken of the BOH
>>(the one you're referring to), but only much later and after the scalp had been
>>repaired.
>
>
>I don't agree with the scalp stretching theory... as originally stated.
Well, that makes it unanimous...not one person agrees with me. But I'll stick to
my guns for this reason: If the bullet at Z-312 entered slightly above the EOP
(and F8, the poto o the inside of the skull confirms t did) that would have made
a bullet hole in the scalp a little less than about three inches above the
hairline....but the photos show the entry about six inches above the hairline.
The only possible explanations are: 1) doctored photos and 2) the scalp was
stretched. There are too many photos, B &W and color to have been
doctored....the scalp was stretched. I found five morticians who'll go on record
saying the scalp (with "undermining") from the EOP to the hairline could
possibly have been stretched three inches.
>>That photo came back to haunt them in spades...because it was used to question
>>[reject] their near-EOP entry.
>
>
>I rather doubt if it 'haunted' anyone other than the prosectors, who knew what
>they saw in front of them.
That's who I meant by them.
>The wounds described were improbable at best from the snipers nest. It was much
>better to move the entire trajectory higher up, where it's far more believable.
Yes, the prosector's near-EOP entry (which was correct) didn't appear to be
consistent with a shot from six floors up...that's why the 6.5 mm opacity was
added....and that's why the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission, and HSCA
experts moved it up.
>>>>The result was that the entry hole in the scalp went from about three inches
>>>>above the hairline (where it was at Z-312) to about 6 inches above the
>>>>hairline...where it shows in the photo.
>>>>
>>>>Now, as far as the occipital opening described by so many witnesses goes, the
>>>>anomaly seen in the scalp in the photo that extends forward and to the right
>>>>from the red splotch was a large laceration that used to be open (at Z-312) and
>>>>also "used to be" in the occipital (pre-scalp undermining/stretching). IOW, that
>>>>laceration had been sutured closed (and, again, effectively moved up) by the
>>>>time the photo was taken.
>>
>>I stand by that account.
>
>I'd have to see scalp being stretched that far un-noticeably before I could
>believe such a scenario.
Because that explanation sounds so far-fetched, I sat on it for about six months
before I dared to post it on the other group. McAdams was fair enough to add my
article on that to his site, under " The Head Wounds".
David Von Pein
>>> "The scalp was stretched." <<<
Then why didn't a single one of the autopsy doctors remember this
"scalp stretching" that you've invented, John?
Not one of them ever said a thing about any "scalp stretching" -- even
33 years later, when fears of WW3 were no longer a concern to these
doctors.
John Canal believes, incredibly, that Burkley and Humes and Finck and
Boswell wanted to hide a bunch of stuff from the American people, even
though all of those people knew beyond all doubt that there was only
ONE single bullet hole of entry in JFK's head--and that bullet hole
was in the BACK of his head.
Crazy.
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>>>> "The scalp was stretched." <<<
>
>Then why didn't a single one of the autopsy doctors remember this
>"scalp stretching" that you've invented, John?
I hesitate to answer this in view of your failure to try to understand F8 which
is the smoking gun, photographic and scientific (whether you like it or not)
evidence of where the bullet entered the skull.
Also, if you clip out the following points without addressing them then I'll
post my "Defending DVP post (the one MAdams rejected)...again"....and post it
again (on the unmoderated group)every time you mention my name in one of your
posts. That's not any kind of a threat--not that you'd care either way--it's
just a professional "heads-up."
Least I remind you, Dr. Joe Davis tried to tell his FPP colleagues that there
was evidence on the lateral film for a bullet entering near the EOP--do you
think he lied? His trail of opacities was also seen by Sturdivan and Zimmerman.
The give away that shows his colleagues had already passed judgement on the
entry location is that when Davis brought that up, they immediately went off the
record and the subject never came up again for discussion.
The entry location is consistent with the reported brain damage as is the
trajectory, if a 20 degree deflection is factored in, like the 20 deg.
deflection Lattimer showed in his trajectory diagram.
That's not to mention the fact that every human who said they saw the entry said
it was near the EOP.
Then you have the other side: 1) Myers says the HSCA's straight line trajectory
was impossible, 2) there are no bone chips near the high entry (to represent the
beveled out bone around the entry), 3) there was no puncture type wound reported
in the parietal lobe, and 4) the 6.5 mm thing has been claimed as evidence for
their high hit and we know the thing wasn't even there on 11-22-63.
This is as much of a no-brainer issue as I've ever seen....BUT, NONETHELESS,
I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>Not one of them ever said a thing about any "scalp stretching" -- even
>33 years later, when fears of WW3 were no longer a concern to these
>doctors.
I think there is more than one contributing factor for why they didn't clearly
explain why the entry in the scalp in the BOH photos is so high above the
hairline (stretched).
1. Those guys had been told to keep their mouth shut (to the public) about the
autopsy for years...it wasn't untill their JAMA interview that they were
released from any such restrictions. IMO, this must have affected their
recollections about what happened.
2. IMO, you had Burkley ordering them not to take a photo of the BOH when the
body was first received in order to make absolutely certain (it would have been
prudent to err on the side of caution) such a photo (which would have shown a
BOH wound) didn't cause some to misintrepret the photograph as evidence of a
frontal shot. Burkley probably also told them to understate the extent that the
large wound went into the occipital---"somewhat into the occipital" just doesn't
get it...I say that because there were 11 cerebellum witnesses, one being Humes,
and the large wound had to extend to near the EOP for cerebellum to have been
seen. Burkley's orders I'm sure didn't help their being able to accurately
recall what happened that night.
3. They did lie to cover their ass. There were several instances, but the most
obvious one is CE-388. Humes had to have Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about
50 deg. to make his near-EOP entry line up with the SN shot...Humes didn't
consider a deflection. The problem is that he testified the lean in 388 matched
JFK's lean in Z-312, but the lean in 312 is only 27 deg. [Myers]. My point is
that the "cover-my-ass" lies probably also had a negative affect on thier
recollections.
Obvious problems with ther recollections are many...the stretching problem was
just one.
They even denied that the red spot in the BOH photos was the entry...it
obviously is and is centered in the BOH photos...they forgot what they took a
photo of.
Humes told the HSCA that the white spot near the hairline was the entry...but he
corrected himself to the ARRB.
Boswell said they took one of the late arriving bone fragments and placed it n
the entry.....but all the late arriving fragments were parietal and/or frontal.
Boswell said a laceration extended forward from the LEFT occipital.....and when
the questioner asked him to confirm that, he did. There was a BOH occipital
laceration.....but it sure as hell didn't extend from the LEFT side...he clearly
forgot.
Boswell said he couldn't remember why the slant of the entry in CE-388 was to
the right and the face sheet showed a slant to the left. I know why that
conflict exists, BTW...but he had forgotten.
Now, they did tell the ARRB that they, not only stretched the scalp they
"undermined" it as well...the later action being, importantly, a special procss
for maximizing the stetchability of the scalp.
>John Canal believes, incredibly, that Burkley and Humes and Finck and
>Boswell wanted to hide a bunch of stuff from the American people, even
>though all of those people knew beyond all doubt that there was only
>ONE single bullet hole of entry in JFK's head--and that bullet hole
>was in the BACK of his head.
>
>Crazy.
If I had read that first, I wouldn't have spent the last hour writing what I did
above.
And, I'll point something else out to you. You've often used the fact that a
dozen or so forensic pathologists disagreed with Humes as some kind of proof he
was wrong. But I did some research and found out that the experts on the three
panels were, not only colleagues, but also associates of one
another....co-authoring books, together etc. In no way was there any dozen
independent/objective opinions rendered....your experts all agreed either
because several of them were colleagues and associates of one another and/or
because of pressure from the chairman of the respective panels. The best example
is Fisher's an Spitz' (you remember Spitz, right?--to refresh your memory, he
served on both the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA panels) book on medicolegal
autopsies....Ramsey Clark wrote the foreward for that book and Baden was a
contributing author. Thsoe guys shouldn't have even been on the same panel
together...conflict of interests?.
And why did Fisher report the high entry and unfragmented BOH?....the fact that
his report was released on the same day that the trial of Clay Shaw comenced
might give you a clue.
yah, I know you think that's crazy...I'll tell you what's crazy is all those
eyewitnesses being told they were wrong about what they saw on the body based on
controversial autopsy x-rays and photos.