Dr. Flim-Flam Baden
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91c09dcd-4d0b-489d...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.%20JFK%20HEAD%20X-RAY?gda=t5lWSEUAAABrEH4yw07ipnsmlUNdPxtmacxiBWxDPWBSXBdc4cYp7WG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDSFwjKfnRyfQ7qIBJo_o-vrwKbTaMHo_0cbUNo4A2jWCQ&gsc=FfRawwsAAAAts84rG444YVfHVei129Od
>
>
> "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
> other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." --
> Michael Baden; January 2000
Dr. Flim-Flam Baden Below.
Gil Jesus
>
> > � � �"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head
> > other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." --
> > Michael Baden; January 2000
But the HSCA Medical Panel (of which Dr. Baden was chairman) was not
allowed to view the responses to the interviews of witnesses who saw
the wound at the rear of the head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Of course, Von Pinhead doesn't tell you that part. He just presents a
conclusion that was based on incomplete information.
The truth is usually not in what Von Pinhead tells you, it's usually
in what he DOESN'T tell you....Par for the course, folks.
Thank Goodness for videos.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:91c09dcd-4d0b=
>-489d-b762-...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD"There was no defect or wound to the rear =
>of Kennedy's head
>> > other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." --
>> > Michael Baden; January 2000
>
>
>
>But the HSCA Medical Panel (of which Dr. Baden was chairman) was not
>allowed to view the responses to the interviews of witnesses who saw
>the wound at the rear of the head.
>
>
>Of course, Von Pinhead doesn't tell you that part. He just presents a
>conclusion that was based on incomplete information.
>
>The truth is usually not in what Von Pinhead tells you, it's usually
>in what he DOESN'T tell you....Par for the course, folks.
>
>Thank Goodness for videos.
Most revealing of all, is that the troll bases his opinion of the back of JFK's
head on the assertion of someone who never saw it.
Anyone with just a tad bit of intelligence and honesty would base their opinion
on those who were provably in a position to KNOW the facts.
David Von Pein
>>> "Most revealing of all, is that the troll bases his opinion of the back of JFK's head on the assertion of someone who never saw it." <<<
No. I base my overall conclusion mostly on the following two photos,
which irrevocably provide the best evidence for the condition of the
back of JFK's head....and there simply is no hole in the FAR-RIGHT-
REAR in EITHER photograph. It's not there. So nobody at Parkland (or
Bethesda) could have seen what simply is not there. Period.
Ben and other assorted rabid CTers, however, would rather rely on the
"BOH Wound" witnesses exclusively, even though the following two
images provide much better evidence than ANY of those witnesses
provide. .....
Gil Jesus
>Most revealing of all, is that the troll bases his opinion of the back of JFK's
>head on the assertion of someone who never saw it.
>
>Anyone with just a tad bit of intelligence and honesty would base their opinion
>on those who were provably in a position to KNOW the facts.
Agreed, Ben. That's the way it works in a deceiver's world. Everyone
who actually SAW the head wound with their OWN TWO EYES got it wrong,
while those who examined doctored photographs got it right.
One of the sins of the LN position is that it is so ridiculous from
the standpoint of common sense, that it serves to insult one's
intelligence.
Which is why only a small minority support it.
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "Most revealing of all, is that the troll bases his opinion of the back of JFK's head on the assertion of someone who never saw it." <<<
>
> No. I base my overall conclusion mostly on the following two photos,
> which irrevocably provide the best evidence for the condition of the
> back of JFK's head....and there simply is no hole in the FAR-RIGHT-
> REAR in EITHER photograph. It's not there. So nobody at Parkland (or
> Bethesda) could have seen what simply is not there. Period.
>
> Ben and other assorted rabid CTers, however, would rather rely on the
> "BOH Wound" witnesses exclusively, even though the following two
> images provide much better evidence than ANY of those witnesses
> provide. .....
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%2...
Where are the "As was at Parkland" labels?
Herbert
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Most revealing of all, is that the troll bases his opinion of the back of JFK's head on the assertion of someone who never saw it." <<<
>
> No. I base my overall conclusion mostly on the following two photos,
> which irrevocably provide the best evidence for the condition of the
> back of JFK's head....and there simply is no hole in the FAR-RIGHT-
> REAR in EITHER photograph. It's not there. So nobody at Parkland (or
> Bethesda) could have seen what simply is not there. Period.
Why didn't they shave the back of the head like Werner Spitz said he
would have? (Remember now, he was on your side, don't embarrass
yourself again)
> Ben and other assorted rabid CTers, however, would rather rely on the
> "BOH Wound" witnesses exclusively, even though the following two
> images provide much better evidence than ANY of those witnesses
> provide. .....
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.%20JFK%20HEAD%20X...
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%2...
Gil Jesus
>On Jul 19, 3:20 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> No. I base my overall conclusion mostly on the following two photos,
>> which irrevocably provide the best evidence for the condition of the
>> back of JFK's head....and there simply is no hole in the FAR-RIGHT-
>> REAR in EITHER photograph. It's not there. So nobody at Parkland (or
>> Bethesda) could have seen what simply is not there. Period.
So, either ALL of the witnesses told the SAME LIE or the photographs
are faked.
Let the viewers determine who the liars are.
Gil Jesus
MORE:
the brain wound was in the back of the head slightly to the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
Wilson: bullet entered right front of skull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXkRO-zypo
The large back of the head wound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
O'Donnell: Small wound in front, large wound in rear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XprQQrILI28
FBI man O'Neill: "large wound in right rear of skull"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
Witnesses: "The back of his head blew off"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
The Kilduff announcement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU
The HSCA's Big Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Interview - Dennis David