On Jan 31, 10:51 pm, David Von Pein <
davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> >>> ""You mention the BOH. What do you think is the case in autopsy photo BE2 (top of head), which also shows the BOH with brains hanging down over it? Are the large glob of brains coming out of a tiny 1/4-inch hole? Or what?" <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You can't be serious with this crap, can you Chris?
>
> BE2 doesn't show the right-rear ("BOH") area of JFK's head at all. It
> shows the very TOP of JFK's head. That's not the "BOH".
>
> Kennedy is literally lying on the right-rear of his head in that
> picture, and the occipital (right-rear) is not even in the camera's
> view in BE2:
>
David, if you look carefully at BE1 you will see that the head is
resting on the lower occipital portion. There is a 'T-holder' extended
under the head that leaves much of the skull accessible to autopsy
personnel, and leaves the right-rear mostly free. Since there was
only one wound in the head, one would think the brains hanging down
would have to come from that wound (singular), and not from a little
red spot on the scalp, although interestingly enough the brains
hanging down in BE2 are more forward of right where the little red
spot was supposed to be, and then flopping backward and down. So did
all those brains come out of that little red spot? Not possible,
since they cover the little red spot from above it. Or from a large
hole described by all of the Parkland personnel that has somehow
expanded more forward at Bethesda?
>
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wcIxxfegz8c/TyijK4vD9uI/AAAAAAAAEM4/ytfgpVJ...
>
> The brain tissue that we see on the TOP of JFK's head got there by way
> of its coming out of the one and only big wound in his head, which
> was, of course, located at the right-front-top portion of the head
> (just as the pictures show and just as the autopsy says).
>
Nope. Won't do. You can forget all your little efforts to make the
wound be in 'front' of anything. As you've been informed 'Parietal'
means top-to-rear. And temporal and occipital means side and far
back. Maybe this time you'll check it out so you don't keep making
that mistake.
> And this additional autopsy photo below shows a little bit better the
> relationship between the location of the right-frontal exit wound in
> JFK's head and the location on his head/hair which has a lot of brain
> tissue adhering to it:
Statement cancelled...'frontal' used improperly. Nofrontal wound
exists.
>
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5o...
>
> In the picture above, it's not difficult at all to visualize how that
> brain tissue got on top of JFK's head (and from what wound the brain
> tissue extruded from) -- it got there after coming out of the large
> wound located at the right-front-top part of his head.
>
LOL! You just can't help pretending that the large wound is
somehow in 'front' of something. It just plain isn't. And saying it
was 'on top' of his head would look awful funny if that were true just
by itself. The wound (based on the X-ray) was top to rear (parietal
was the term used by autopsy personnel). That X-ray had all skull
pieces together and yet we can see large amount of brain coming out of
the head. What hole of the X-ray did they come out of? Or do you
admit that they reassembled the skull fragments for the X-ray
picture?
> Plus -- Why on Earth would any brains that would have been ejected
> from a wound in the right-rear of his head be showing up at the VERY
> TOP of his head, which is where we see the brains in BE2?
>
That's an easy one. We merely need to look over the testimony and
the drawings of the Parkland trained medical personnel to determine
where the large wound was located. They all saw it at the right-rear
and much smaller than what they saw at Bethesda, but they did see
brain mater hanging out. If we then look over the drawings (standard
part of an autopsy) and photos of the autopsy at Bethesda, we see the
large wound is now described as going from the right-rear up and
forward to continue to the top of the head, far past the point of the
little red spot. We also see that flap of skull that was hinged out
from the original right side wound. Funny they left that out, but put
back all the other fragments...:)
> Any brain tissue that would have been ejected from your make-believe
> wound at the far right-rear of the head would have been brain tissue
> that Mr. Kennedy would have been literally LYING ON in BE2. Either
> that, or somehow a bunch of brain tissue (which you say exited from
> the right-rear) managed to take a sharp turn UPWARD and adhere itself
> all over the TOP of Kennedy's head and hair. Do you want to suggest a
> new theory, Chris -- the MSBTT (the "Magic Swerving Brain Tissue
> Theory")?
>
LOL! You just did put forward a wacky theory, so I'll try to bring
you back to earth with the truth. Your suggestion is false. See
above...where the head was resting on a "T-holder' (BE1) leaving the
right-rear free for doctors to work on the head. That leaves the
brain matter free to hang out and not be rested on by the head. Now
where you take a sharp turn into outer space is saying that brain
matter takes any kind of turn and adheres to hair. I know you'd love
for it to be that way, but it just wasn't. The brain matter you see
hanging down is in an autopsy photo at Bethesda, and the wound (for
some odd reason) has been expanded to alow more brain matter to hang
out from a larger wound than was recorded at Parkland. That brain
matter, as you now know from our pointing it out, is attached to skull
fragments that are then attached to the skull flap that autopsy
personnel described. And, as you say, the autopsy is where the really
good evidence is at...:)
> What obviously happened is that brain tissue was exuded from the large
> RIGHT-FRONTAL-TOP wound in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, with some of this
> brain tissue then adhering to his thick hair at the very top of his
> head. And that's exactly what we see in the BE2 autopsy photograph.
>
Forget it. 'Frontal' can't be used if we're following autopsy
personnel and their autopsy report.
> So there's no need to postulate a huge gaping hole at the right-rear
> of JFK's head to explain and reconcile that BE2 photo.
Whoops! You said 'postulate', when in actuality the Parkland
medical personnel didn't postulate anything, they stated clearly what
they saw, some of them from only 18 inches away. We know you want to
pretend that it's all guesswork, but you're attempting (without
success) to do away with the Parkland personnel, as if you knew
something they didn't, although you weren't anywhere near the body
that they saw. Since you don't now and never did have the direct
sight of the body, and aren't medically trained to the degree the
Parkland personnel qwere, you can't really say anything about what
they saw. We just take their word, since they corroborate each other
nicely.
> My above
> explanation reconciles that photo very nicely, thank you. While your
> theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. And you are, indeed, making
> the exact same orientation mistake that many people believe the
> Parkland witnesses apparently also made when they saw JFK in Trauma
> Room #1 on 11/22/63 (Jim Moore being one such researcher and author
> who promotes this point-of-view; although I, myself, do not agree with
> Moore on this point) -- i.e., you seem to be implying that a certain
> part of President Kennedy's head is visible in a certain picture, when
> (in reality) the portion of the head you claim to be viewing is really
> not in the picture at all.
>
Once again you're saying that what the Parkland people saw they
didn't see! When you weren't even there! Are you trying to rewrite
history to cover something up, or are you just deluded? I'm not
putting forward any theory here as you seem to be, I'm taking the word
of medically trained witnesses that have no reason to lie.
> Another way to look at this mistake that I think you are making is by
> looking at this composite photo I created for two of the autopsy
> photos:
>
These pictures are available on the internet on other websites.
If these are from the 'BE' autopsy series, I have the URL for them. If
you simply say which ID they have, we can all follow along. Now, to
clear up your continuing confusion about the photos, look carefully at
the photo on the left. Got it yet? If you check the hair hanging
down on our left, you'll see that it is not matted and from a side
view it would look like the right side picture. Let's get into the
hard stuff that you're having a problem with.
>
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBHISnnSPE4/TyijKuibhNI/AAAAAAAAEMw/f3Ipo1N...
>
> When looking at the above two pictures in conjunction with each other,
> do you, Chris, really think that the photo on the left depicts the
> area of JFK's head where you say a large wound was located (the right-
> rear-occipital area of the head)?
>
I didn't say it. I repeated it from the Parkland medically
trained personnel. They were the ones who said it.
> It's fairly clear from the angles at which the two pictures were taken
> that NONE of the "occipital" area of Kennedy's head can be seen in the
> picture on the left. The President's hair is obscuring any portion of
> his head in that photo which could be considered "occipital" or "right-
> rear".
>
Wrong again. What is obscuring our view is brain matter hanging out
of the wound that has been expanded to the top of the head. What is
hanging down is the scalp flap described by Boswell that has skull and
brain matter attached.
> In order for Mr. Stringer (the photographer at JFK's autopsy at
> Bethesda) to have captured any part of the "right-rear" or "occipital"
> areas of JFK's head, he would need to photograph the President from
> the SIDE (as was done in the photo on the right, which does depict a
> portion of the "left-rear" or "left occipital" area of the head).
>
A shame that so many of his photos have gone missing. They might
have been instrumental in helping see the truth of the wounds. And as
we know, there was no wound on the left side of the head.
> Or, if not from the side, Stringer would have needed to photograph JFK
> from directly UNDERNEATH the autopsy table (and also would have needed
> to remove that metal headrest on which the President's head is lying,
> in order to get a complete and unobstructed view of the right-rear
> area of Kennedy's head that so many people think contained a great-big
> gaping hole).
>
Many people are the Parklnad trained medical personnel did not say
they 'thought' they might have seen something, they clearly stated and
drew their description of the wound that they DID see in the right-
rear of the head. Since the scalp flap that Boswell described and
that we can see, was open and hanging down with brain matter hanging
out (as per their statements), they had a good idea of where the hole
was.
> Or, Kennedy's body could have been rolled over and his head lifted, so
> that Stringer could get that unobstructed view of the right-rear of
> the head. And, of course, we have a series of pictures taken by
> Stringer that do depict that very thing--an unobstructed view of the
> right-rear of JFK's head (the three pictures below). And these three
> photos are showing a "right-rear" portion of the head that is
> completely INTACT and WOUND-FREE:
>
>
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oysbjGcLmUg/TyijKQGRjqI/AAAAAAAAEMo/_z9grR3...
>
> In short -- Chris has totally misrepresented what can be seen in
> Autopsy Photo #BE2.
>
Oh, get off your ego. You're not lecturing to an audience, you're
discussing with me. I can't misrepresent any photo we've examined,
since they exist and can't (we hope) be changed. They are what they
are. It may be that some folks (and I include you in that group)
might 'misinterpret' a photo though. See above for the explanations
and it might help you understand some of the things you've asked
about.
> >>> "Humes said: "And the exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and side - right side of the President's head." [End Humes' quote] No witness had described it there." <<<
>
> And yet the large wound is there anyway -- in the autopsy photographs,
> and in the autopsy X-rays, and in the Zapruder Film too.
>
> Go figure that.
>
Easy to figure. You can't see what the photos and the statements
and drawings show. No one has said that the large wound isn't there,
so maybe you're not paying attention to the answers you're getting.
And we now know that Humes had that wound being in a few different
places over the years. Maybe his memory was failing from 1963 to
1967. He was the only person (including other autopsy personnel)
trhat used the word 'front', and he looked like an ass when he did it,
becasue he was very unsure of himself in the video. As a side
interest on the video, Humes also 'verified' the placement of the back
wound as being just at the lower neck with a picture used in the
video, when the autopsy photo (the last word) has it lower down on the
upper back and way below that spot. His video for CBS was a failure if
he was suppposed to convince me and the Parkland doctors what he would
like us to believe. Looks like he sold you the bridge though...:)
>
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-fin...
>
> IN SUMMARY:
>
> Chris accuses me of ignoring a bunch of witnesses. But what does Chris
> do? He totally ignores (or brushes aside) BOTH of the above
> investigative panels--the Clark Panel from 1968 and the House Select
> Committee from ten years later.
>
Get a grip on yourself David. You yourself have made statements
clearly showing your contempt and disbelief for all the Parkland
medically trained personnel who actually saw the body and the head,
and have stated that you know the truth in opposition to what they
have said, although you were never present. I accept the Parkland
wirness statements completely. They make sense, and there is less
chance they were coerced at the time of the ER work on JFK, whereas
some of the later testimony and photos don't make as much sense.
However, there are those that do have a problem with the various
panels that have tried to look over the information and make sense out
of it all. They found (as you know) differences in viewpoints,
changed statements along the way, facts which had to be refigured that
didn't make sense. As a matter of fact, many ups and downs. It
doesn't make one feel very cozy and secure, like reading the foolish
WC and finding they ignored certain witnesses that had pertinent
testimony. All stuff that can make one insecure about their
government in doing a simple task of investigation. That includes
stealing bodies and spiriting them away to a government installation
wher they had greater control over outcomes. that makes one have
doubts as to an 'official' story, and those that promote it.
> And the Clark and HSCA panels were examining THE BEST EVIDENCE in the
> whole case for determining where the wounds were located in President
> Kennedy's body (other than having JFK's body right there in the same
> room with them in 1968 and 1978) -- the autopsy photos and X-rays.
>
First, let's take the testimony of Dr. Finck about the 'little red
spot'.
"Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon
examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if
anything, that red spot in the upper portions?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.
Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16,
of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder
if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to
what you believe that could be.
Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?
Mr. PURDY. Yes.
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. "
Now let's see some more of this 'little red spot' that means nothing
with Boswell and Humes:
"It is this photograph that Humes and Boswell were told to place an
entry wound, forced to choose between: A. a red spot near the cowlick,
or B. a small speck that looks like a piece of brain or fat clinging
to the hair by the HSCA forensic panel. They did not want to choose
either but picked B. To the ARRB they choose a spot behind the right
ear that seems dark and intact in the photo."
From:
http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/horne/Backes3.html
Here's a report of statements from Humes and other doctors where
Humes himself denies knowing what the 'little red spot' is:
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts
to get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at
the top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded: “I
don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we
reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect
corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t know what
that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I just don’t know
what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance.”[362]
Similarly, Pierre Finck, has always insisted that the skull wound was
low in JFK’s skull."
Actually, YOU don't support the Parkland witnesses, but the photos
fit perfectly. But their statements have ben of great help in finding
truth against al the wacky theories put forward to try and make the
'official' stoy more believable. Your interpretation of the photos
hugs the 'official' story close, but it's a false sense of security,
since your blankey is toxic.
>
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/boh-part-20.html
I didn't look at that last link. I'm not surew I trust information
from your own private website. I like info fromll and sundry so that
they can more be trusted.
Chris