Question for David VP-had to start a new thread
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>> "First, what about my question?" <<<
>
>
>Sorry, but the forum software has been mighty screwed-up the last few
>days. Maybe I missed something.
>
>
>>>> "I asked you, if, just for argument's sake, there WAS such a wound, do
>you think HB&F (and, perhaps a paranoid superior or two) would have
>reported its nature (size/location, etc.) precisely and unambiguously and
>expect for one minute that the majority of the thousands of bonafide and
>arm-chair forensic experts across the nation would buy the notion that
>such a wound was caused by a shot from the rear?" <<<
>
>Yes, I do think that REASONABLE armchair experts would buy that
>explanation. And do you know why? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE TRUTH. Plain and
>simple.
>
>Call me gullible. I don't care. I'm asking for it.
You requested it, you got it.
>
>
>>>> "I told you F8 was practically the Rosetta Stone for figuring out this
>BOH wound issue...and, after you tell me you don't have a clue what's
>being shown in that photo and I offer to send you a very user-friendly,
>color coded graphic that illustrates what's being shown in F8, you don't
>even have the courtesy or the willingness to accept my offer." <<<
>
>I wouldn't have the slightest idea if you've got it oriented right, now
>would I? How COULD I know that?
What if I told you:
1. Several years ago, I constructed a device that allowed me to accurately
adjust and measure the tilt and rotation of my anatomically correct model
skull...and used that device to match the tilt and rotation of my model with the
tilt and rotation of JFK's skull as see in F8. It was a painstaking task but I
was able to determine that JFK's skull was tilted some 33.0 deg. down and
rotated some 3.0 deg CW (to his right). After superimposing a photo of my model,
that had the entry marked on it (2.5 mm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the
EOP) onto JFK's skull in F8, the entry on my model matched the entry in F8.
2. Around the same time I visited the highly regarded, Forensic Anthropologist,
Dr. Anthony Falsetti, at his lab at the University of Florida. While we mainly
focused on the 6.5 mm fragment, and he performed some experiments x-raying
simulated bullet fragments on a human skull for me,...we also discussed at
length F8. He told me he saw nothing in F8 that conflicted with my conclusions.
3. Using a model skull, a computer generated 3-D model skull, and a human skull,
respectively, John Hunt, Paul Seaton, and L. Sturdivan, independently replicated
F8, as I had done, and their results were all consistent with mine.
4. I asked the late Dr. Lattimer to examine the graphics and steps documenting
my replication of F8 and he did just that and was totally supportive of my work
suggesting that I use human skulls and MC ammo to verify my findings......he
even offered to provide me with what I needed (skull/s, MC ammo, etc.).
5. I also asked Dr. Henry Lee to examine the documentation of my replication of
F8. He did and was so impressed, he asked if he could use my work in his
presentation at the 2004 Wecht Symposium. He did and I was flattered.
6. I visited the former Director of Medical Photography, John Stringer, at his
home. He was a gracious host and the visit lasted nearly two hours. The focus of
our discussions was F8, and he told me exactly how he took the picture.
He closely examined the graphics and documentation of my replication of that
photo and endorsed the accuracy of my work in writing. FOR ME, CONSIDERING THAT
JOHN STRINGER, HIMSELF, HAD TAKEN THAT PHOTO ON 11-22-63, ENOUGH WAS
ENOUGH...IOW, I WAS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN I KNEW THE PRECISE ORIENTATION OF JFK'S
SKULL IN F8 AS WELL AS THE LOCATION AND CONTOUR OF THE SKULL EDGE AND THE ENTRY
DEFECT THAT WAS SITUATED ALONG IT.
Other than that, David, I don't have the "slightest idea" why you should think I
have F8 orientated correctly.
>The photo is a mess, as far as my eyes can
>tell. Even Baden can't orient the thing in front of TV cameras. And he's a
>pathologist.
Are you being gullible or what? Baden Chaired the FPP, right? Yes, he did, of
course...the same FPP that definitively and without expressing the slightest bit
of difficulty decipering F8, stated their conclusions about what that photo
showed [7HSCA, para 300]. But, oh, maybe he forgot....not!
>But send the damn thing if you want...I don't care. It'll still no doubt
>look like spaghetti against the kitchen wall to my eyes.
Nah.....you've got your mind made up on this issue (even without understanding
key ev. related to it). Frankly, I went through the trouble of discussing this
with you, not to try to convince you I was right, but to offer my opinions on
this important issue to any open-minded lurkers...who might appreciate it.
I think one or two did....and that makes my efforts worthwhile.
John Canal
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hey, John ... I replied to this and your first one in the other thread
...
Barb :-)
David Von Pein
Can anyone logically explain how President Kennedy's scalp could possibly
have been "reflected" back so far on his head at Parkland Hospital (on its
own! with nobody tugging on it in any way!) so as to reveal the so-called
BOH damage underneath the scalp we see in the picture below?.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
Does anyone really think that the rear portion of JFK's scalp is hanging
loose off the back of his head in either of these photos?.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE3_HI.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE2_HI.jpg
In short: There are obviously no major tears (or any holes at all) in the
right-rear of John Kennedy's scalp....and yet some researchers think that
there is a bunch of damage (i.e., a big ol' hole) in the right-rear of
JFK's skull under this scalp....and that this damage was somehow fully
visible to the witnesses at Parkland, even though the scalp of JFK would
have had to have been nearly fully reflected toward the back side of his
head in order for anyone to actually have seen this UNDER-THE-SCALP hole
in the head.
In a word: How?
Do some people actually think that a large hunk of JFK's scalp was
flopping around like a loose wheel or like a piece of windblown hair on
his head (WITHOUT ANYONE PULLING ON THE SCALP!) while at Parkland?
Doesn't seem too logical to this writer.
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>Question........
>
>Can anyone logically explain how President Kennedy's scalp could possibly
>have been "reflected" back so far on his head at Parkland Hospital (on its
>own! with nobody tugging on it in any way!) so as to reveal the so-called
>BOH damage underneath the scalp we see in the picture below?.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
What that photo shows is no evidence there was or was not any BOH wound at
Parkland or when the body first arrived at Bethesda. That photo was taken
with the scalp being held in place, after it had been reflected, most of
the rear skull had come out, and the brain removed. What's your point? Is
this your proof that 20+ Parkland witnesses, C. Hill, Ebersole, and C.
Boyers were either hallucinating or lying?
Too bad you could tell them face to face what you think of their
testimonies.
>Does anyone really think that the rear portion of JFK's scalp is hanging
>loose off the back of his head in either of these photos?.....
Undoubtedly there was a BOH wound there....interesting you don't show a
pic of the BOH when the body was first received......Oh, that's right they
forgot to take one.....just like they forgot to take a pic of the BOH from
the rear with the scalp reflected......just like they forgot to even draw
even a half-way detailed sketch of the BOH damage (rear view)...until the
ARRB...just like they forgot to mention, until the ARRB, that the bone
fell out all the way to the EOP when they reflected the scalp...and just
like they forgot to mention, until the ARRB, that they replaced pieces of
rear skull before the x-rays.
Coiunciences? Sure.
But it's just dandy that they took pics of JFK from those other
views...they were being thorough I presume...well, sort of.
F8's the key to the BOH wound vs. No-BOH wound issue.......for those who
care to understand it [F8].
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE3_HI.jpg
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE2_HI.jpg
>
>In short: There are obviously no major tears (or any holes at all) in the
>right-rear of John Kennedy's scalp....and yet some researchers think that
>there is a bunch of damage (i.e., a big ol' hole) in the right-rear of
>JFK's skull under this scalp....and that this damage was somehow fully
>visible to the witnesses at Parkland, even though the scalp of JFK would
>have had to have been nearly fully reflected toward the back side of his
>head in order for anyone to actually have seen this UNDER-THE-SCALP hole
>in the head.
>
>In a word: How?
Use your imagination...anyone who can call so many people liars or
hallucinators has got to have one.
>Do some people actually think that a large hunk of JFK's scalp was
>flopping around like a loose wheel or like a piece of windblown hair on
>his head (WITHOUT ANYONE PULLING ON THE SCALP!) while at Parkland?
>
>Doesn't seem too logical to this writer.
So.
John Canal
tomnln
The autopsy photos are PHONY>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185061547.2...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1185061547.2...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> Pein says...
>> Question........
>>
>> Can anyone logically explain how President Kennedy's scalp could possibly
>> have been "reflected" back so far on his head at Parkland Hospital (on its
>> own! with nobody tugging on it in any way!) so as to reveal the so-called
>> BOH damage underneath the scalp we see in the picture below?.....
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
> What that photo shows is no evidence there was or was not any BOH wound at
> Parkland or when the body first arrived at Bethesda. That photo was taken
> with the scalp being held in place, after it had been reflected, most of
> the rear skull had come out, and the brain removed. What's your point? Is
> this your proof that 20+ Parkland witnesses, C. Hill, Ebersole, and C.
> Boyers were either hallucinating or lying?
>
You claim to be an expert on the autopsy? The scalp had not yet been
reflected. The scalp in the rear of the head is still intact.
Interesting tactic that the moderators allow you to call a fellow poster a
liar. So your principle is that victims who call perpetrators liars must
therefore be liars themselves? Like the victims from the Nazi death camps?
David Von Pein
Mainly, that the scalp of John F. Kennedy would probably not have
become completely separated from the underlying skull enough to make
any "BOH" wound (which you say was there in full view at Parkland on
11/22/63) visible to the Parkland personnel.
The last time I looked, the LEFT side of my scalp was ATTACHED
(firmly!) to the RIGHT side of my scalp. They're connected.
And, the last time I looked, there's not a single tear or rip or gash
or ANY damage to the scalp of John F. Kennedy at autopsy (right side
or left side).....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
So, if the Parkland witnesses saw any "BOH" wound, the above scalp
must not have been in the position we it in above. Correct? It would
have been peeled back on his head, right? If not, how could the PH
people have seen anything UNDER the scalp at all (where you say the
hole is located)?
And then we have this picture of the left side of JFK's head.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE1_HI.jpg
.....The left side of the head, as we can see, is perfectly intact.
Not a sign of damage anywhere. And this part of JFK's scalp (last time
I noticed) was FIRMLY ATTACHED to the part of the scalp that you say
was peeled back far enough at Parkland Hospital to have made a large
BOH hole visible to witnesses there.
In short: How is it possible for the right side of JFK's scalp to
have, in effect, totally separated from the intact left side of the
scalp on the same man's head and yet still have the WHOLE SCALP of
that man's head look like this later that night at Bethesda?.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
====================
A Bugliosi/Baden Refresher..........
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I {Vince B.} believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," {Baden} told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; On Pages 407-408 of
"Reclaiming History"
====================
I think it's also worth mentioning here the fact that (as far as I'm
aware) there wasn't a single witness at Parkland or Bethesda who
claimed to have seen TWO large holes in JFK's head on Nov. 22nd.
This fact would certainly suggest that there was, indeed, only ONE
large wound in Kennedy's head, and that wound was located, per the
autopsy and the authenticated autopsy photographs, "chiefly
parietal" (i.e., the side and top of the head). .....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/skull3.gif
I'll finish this post by reiterating what I've said to John C. in the
past ---
You could be correct re. your assessment of the "BOH" controversy.
I'll admit, despite my skepticism, it's possible you are correct
(especially since your scenario doesn't change a single thing
regarding the key, critical facts in the case with respect to the
number of shooters involved in the assassination, or the number of
bullets that hit JFK, or where those bullets came from, or who it was
who fired those gunshots).
So, yes, your scenario is not "impossible". I'll admit that (once
again). But I'm still quite dubious about your version.
But, then too, almost anything is "possible". (Just ask Oliver "MULTI-
GUNMEN, ONE-PATSY" Stone.) ;)
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=213800607
Anthony Marsh
> Question........
>
> Can anyone logically explain how President Kennedy's scalp could possibly
> have been "reflected" back so far on his head at Parkland Hospital (on its
> own! with nobody tugging on it in any way!) so as to reveal the so-called
> BOH damage underneath the scalp we see in the picture below?.....
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
I think you have the wrong photo. This one does not even show any skull
in the back of the head.
It shows no wounds on the back of the head.
David Von Pein
skull in the back of the head. It shows no wounds on the back of the
head." <<<
[Andy Griffith on:]
"Curious...curious...curious..."
John Canal
says...
>
>>>> "What's your point?" <<<
>
>Mainly, that the scalp of John F. Kennedy would probably not have
>become completely separated from the underlying skull enough to make
>any "BOH" wound (which you say was there in full view at Parkland on
>11/22/63) visible to the Parkland personnel.
I, nor any of us, if I can speal for them, who believe there was a BOH
wound have never stated the scalp was seperated from the underlying bone.
Again, the BOH skull was shattered...in pieces, but each piece was
undoubtedly still adhered to the scalp. All then that would have been
needed to expose the brain would have been a tear in the scalp...which
logically would have been at the margin of one of those pieces. IOW, the
tear would have allowed the witnesses to view the brain between the gap of
two or more BOH pieces of skull that had moved out of positon(again, but
still adhered to the scalp).
At Bethesda it would have take Boswell only a second or two to "smooth"
the scalp with the adhered bone piece/s back into its original natural
position...and then take the skull x-rays.
>The last time I looked, the LEFT side of my scalp was ATTACHED
>(firmly!) to the RIGHT side of my scalp. >They're connected.
I'm pleased to hear that.
>And, the last time I looked, there's not a single tear or rip or gash
>or ANY damage to the scalp of John F. Kennedy at autopsy (right side
>or left side).....
The report mentions four tears in the scalp....Boswell, for the ARRB, drew
[MD-209, #4] and spoke of another extending well down into the occipital.
In any case, with all that hair, especially if the scalp had been smoothed
over and held taunt, I don't think you should necessarily expect to see
such a tear.
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>So, if the Parkland witnesses saw any "BOH" wound, the above scalp
>must not have been in the position we it in above. Correct?
No, because it's out of position...Boswell stated that because the skull
underneath it had come out and there was no brain...the entire rear scalp
was loose.
>It would
>have been peeled back on his head, right?
No. just at least one piece of the fragmented rear skull, while still
adhered to the scalp, moved out of position...for that to have happened
there would have had to have been at least one tear in the rear scalp,
presumeably at the margin of the bone piece that moved. Look at ARRB
Md-209, #4...that's probably the tear.
>If not, how could the PH
>people have seen anything UNDER the scalp at all (where you say the
>hole is located)?
See above.
>And then we have this picture of the left side of JFK's head.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE1_HI.jpg
>
>.....The left side of the head, as we can see, is perfectly intact.
>Not a sign of damage anywhere. And this part of JFK's scalp (last time
>I noticed) was FIRMLY ATTACHED to the part of the scalp that you say
>was peeled back far enough at Parkland Hospital to have made a large
>BOH hole visible to witnesses there.
I never meant to say anything like that...if I did, I mispoke and please
put it here so I know to be more careful about what I say next
time_______________________________.
>In short: How is it possible for the right side of JFK's scalp to
>have, in effect, totally separated from the intact left side of the
>scalp on the same man's head and yet still have the WHOLE SCALP of
>that man's head look like this later that night at Bethesda?.....
I hope what I said above has eliminated the need for me to try to figure
out what you're driving at there.
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>====================
>
>A Bugliosi/Baden Refresher..........
>
>"Dr. Michael Baden has what I {Vince B.} believe to be the answer, one
>whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
>the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
>wrong," {Baden} told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
>head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
>have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
>saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
>been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
>gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
>of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
>head" [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; On Pages 407-408 of
>"Reclaiming History"
Look, I have othing but the greatest respect for VB...I still have his
faxes from when he tried to help me get my book published, even though he
was swamped. That said, he knew there had been no rear exit and assumed
like Posner and the HSCA that a BOH wound equated to a frontal
shot...solution = there couldn't have been any BOH wound.
Also, knowing his character and ability to solve conflicts, if he, unlike
Posner or the HSCA, had had an opportunity to fully digest the ARRB
revelations of, especially Boswell, we might not be discussing this ssue
right now.
>====================
>
>I think it's also worth mentioning here the fact that (as far as I'm
>aware) there wasn't a single witness at Parkland or Bethesda who
>claimed to have seen TWO large holes in JFK's head on Nov. 22nd.
I don't recall saying there were. I believe, and I can't speak for the
other BOH wound theorists on this specific point, the entry hole was split
by a fracture (see F8 and Boswell's little outset drawing on his face
sheet)....and the bone piece with the top half of the entry is the one
that moved out of position (still adhered to the torn scalp).....so,
technically, that would mean one BOH wound.
That said, no one can ever be certain of the exact nature of the BOH
wound....had the autopsists taken a photo of the BOH from the rear as one
would have expected them to take, we'd know precisely what it looked like.
>This fact would certainly suggest that there was, indeed, only ONE
>large wound in Kennedy's head, and that wound was located, per the
>autopsy and the authenticated autopsy photographs, "chiefly
>parietal" (i.e., the side and top of the head). .....
Unless, VB miraculously has a change of opinion on this your opinion is
cured in the best cement know to mankind.....and, for the little it's
worth and knowing you don't give a rat's butt, I bet my last dime you are
dead wrong.
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
>
>http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/skull3.gif
>
>I'll finish this post by reiterating what I've said to John C. in the
>past ---
>
>You could be correct re. your assessment of the "BOH" controversy.
>I'll admit, despite my skepticism, it's possible you are correct
If you ever have to bet on this issue, bet on there being a BOH wound.
>(especially since your scenario doesn't change a single thing
>regarding the key, critical facts in the case with respect to the
>number of shooters involved in the assassination, or the number of
>bullets that hit JFK, or where those bullets came from, or who it was
>who fired those gunshots).
For once we agree.
>So, yes, your scenario is not "impossible". I'll admit that (once
>again). But I'm still quite dubious about your version.
That's news....but you still ought to understand F8 if you're going to
opine on this issue in the future...again, IMO.
John Canal
David Von Pein
been a tear in the scalp." <<<
But what "tear" in the scalp?? Where? I see not a sign of any scalp
damage. Nothing. And the lighting is pretty darn good in this photograph
below. Do you think the darkest part of the photo (the right-rearmost area
of JFK's head) is masking a "tear" or gash in the scalp big enough so that
a huge hole in JFK's underlying skull could have been seen by the Parkland
witnesses? Good gravy. That's kinda wild, IMO. Esp. since you and I both
know this photo is not any kind of a fake. ....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>>> "The report mentions four tears in the scalp." <<<
The autopsy report you mean?? Scalp tears in the far back regions of the
occipital area?? You must be joking. Where does the autopsy report say any
such thing?
I searched for "scalp" within the entire autopsy report, and found no such
references to scalp damage deep in the occipital area. I did find this, of
course:
"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." -- Via JFK's Autopsy Report
>>> "In any case, with all that hair, especially if the scalp had been
smoothed over and held taunt, I don't think you should necessarily expect
to see such a tear." <<<
So a tear or rip in the scalp that was sufficient enough in size at
Parkland to allow a gaping hole UNDERNEATH this scalp to become fully
visible to the PH personnel is now completely invisible due to a little
tugging and "smoothing" on that scalp by the Bethesda doctors?
Okay. Not IMpossible, I suppose. But likely? ~shrug~
But, then too, the Parkland people never saw even the faintest signs of
the large SIDE OF THE HEAD wound that we know was there via this picture
below, now did they?
And how on Earth THIS large right-side wound became totally invisible to
the PH people is yet another of the great unanswerable mysteries of the
universe I guess. ~additional shrug required here~ ....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
>>> "Unless VB miraculously has a change of opinion on this, your opinion
is cured in the best cement know{n} to mankind....and, for the little it's
worth and knowing you don't give a rat's butt, I bet my last dime you are
dead wrong." <<<
Don't make it your very last dime, John. Because this crazy "BOH" matter
can never be fully resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Not mine either.
And I think I've admitted that in the past. The Baden/ Bugliosi
explanation isn't fully satisfying to me either (whether you think it is
or not).
I'll admit, I was hoping that Vince B. would be coming up with one of his
"startling new inferences" (which he's been known to provide from time to
time) re. the BOH matter. But he's not a superman either. He thinks
Baden's explanation that I quoted earlier is probably the correct
solution. So he's got nothing "new" or earth-shaking to add.
But I can tell from his writing on this BOH subject, that even VB is a
little bit tentative about some aspects of it. One of the things that
disappointed me the most about VB's book (re. the BOH topic specifically)
was when Vince seemed to put some stock and semi-faith in Jim Moore's
ludicrous BOH theory.
Mr. Moore actually thinks (and, incredibly, comes right out and says this
in his 1990 book) that all of the Parkland witnesses actually did see the
large wound on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, but they ALL somehow got
disoriented in some way afterward and described this RIGHT SIDE wound as
having been at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the head.
But Moore isn't saying the same thing as Baden/Bugliosi (or me)...i.e.,
he's not saying that the pooling blood from gravity made it merely look
like the wound was in the right-rear of the head (due to all the gore
puddling there).
Moore, instead, said in his book that the witnesses all merely mis-
identified the location of the wound that each of them really did see at
the Right-Front. For some reason, the "Right-Front" became "Far-
Right-Rear" due to JFK merely lying on his back on the stretcher.
Weird indeed. Esp. considering that all of those PH people were
professional health-care individuals, who were no doubt trained in
anatomy. But, somehow, the President LYING DOWN on a stretcher totally
confused every last witness as to the basics regarding a human's skull
anatomy.
The fact that Mr. Bugliosi could give any credence whatsoever to that
theory of Moore's disappointed me a little bit. But Vince's siding with
Baden on the matter did not; because I've backed that theory myself in
past years.
But....at least you and I agree that our differences on the BOH situation
don't add up to a second assassin and/or mysterious unknown killers
roaming Dallas.
Now, that business about the Mob hiring Jack Ruby to rub out
Oswald...well, that's where we're several hundred miles apart. But, maybe
that's a subject for another time.
Anthony Marsh
Two major errors there. If there is a frontal entrance there does not have
to be any BOH exit. Second, a massive BOH wound could be both the entrance
and the exit. In some cases there could be a large than expected entrance
wound in the back of the head. But in fact there were NO wounds in the
back of the head.
> That said, no one can ever be certain of the exact nature of the BOH
> wound....had the autopsists taken a photo of the BOH from the rear as one
> would have expected them to take, we'd know precisely what it looked like.
>
They did take photos of the back of the head.
John Canal
says...
>
>>>> "All then that would have been needed to expose the brain would have
>been a tear in the scalp." <<<
>
>But what "tear" in the scalp?? Where? I see not a sign of any scalp
>damage. Nothing. And the lighting is pretty darn good in this photograph
>below. Do you think the darkest part of the photo (the right-rearmost area
>of JFK's head) is masking a "tear" or gash in the scalp big enough so that
>a huge hole in JFK's underlying skull could have been seen by the Parkland
>witnesses? Good gravy. That's kinda wild, IMO. Esp. since you and I both
>know this photo is not any kind of a fake. ....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
>
>
>>>> "The report mentions four tears in the scalp." <<<
>
>The autopsy report you mean?? Scalp tears in the far back regions of the
>occipital area?? You must be joking. Where does the autopsy report say any
>such thing?
>
>I searched for "scalp" within the entire autopsy report, and found no such
>references to scalp damage deep in the occipital area. I did find this, of
>course:
>
>"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." -- Via JFK's Autopsy Report
I said the AR mentioned four tears in the scalp...it does...and it lists
them. But, you're correct, none of the four tears listed includes the
occipital (the first one is close, but no cigar). Note that I DID NOT SAY
any of those four that were listed mentioned the "occipital".
That said, interestingly, the AR ALSO says a defect of the scalp and skull
extended "somewhat" into the occipital region.
A little conflict there...or confusion..or...?
You must recall that I have been saying all along that that last statement
was part of the subtle effort on their part to not definitively eport a
BOH wound. The proof is F8....it clearly shows that the defect extended
all the way down to the EOP...and Boswell not only [finally] admitted that
in his depositon...he drew it [ARRB, MD-209].
>
>>>> "In any case, with all that hair, especially if the scalp had been
>smoothed over and held taunt, I don't think you should necessarily expect
>to see such a tear." <<<
>
>So a tear or rip in the scalp that was sufficient enough in size at
>Parkland to allow a gaping hole UNDERNEATH this scalp to become fully
>visible to the PH personnel....
If, before he arrived at PH, the tear had allowed the scalp and an adhered
piece of bone to move out of position thereby allowing the brain to be
exposed through the opening...........Note, though, that the scalp wasn't
"missing", just torn...so, a little smoothing at Bethesda, moved the bone
piece/s, with the scalp adhered to it/them, back into place...presto..the
opening that allowed the brain and cerebellum to be seen, was closed.
>is now completely invisible due to a little
>tugging and "smoothing" on that scalp by the >Bethesda doctors?
Ok, look at the BOH photo that you linked. Notice that the oval defect,
accepted by most as being the entry, has what Boswell identified as being
a scalp tear extending forward and to the right from it.
Well, I know what you're thinking..."so what?" And you're think that
because the entry defect is above the occipital. let's stop there for a
moment.
I started to replicate the BOH photo [F3] but just had problems getting
the right materials to do it...I abandonedthat project. But, one
researcher, Brian Kelleher (sp?), whom I disagree with on a lot of issues,
did go through the trouble of replicating F3. He concluded that the
"entry" defect is two inches above the EOP...not nearly in the cowlick
where McAdams and the HSCA would like to have you believe it is. More.
Barb, has done experiments, using, as I recall, her husband, and written
an article about where the EOP is on a human and how that location
compares to where the defect appears in F3....concluding the defect in F3
is close to the EOP.
For me, while I believe there's a reasonable possibility Barb is correct,
I tend to think the entry defect is probably shown in that photo above the
EOP by up to two inches. That said, I also am 100% convinced the scalp in
that photo is way out of its correct position....and Boswell clearly
states that in his ARRB dep. Heck, as Barb has pointed out, look at the
defect's lateral position in the photo...it's midline or even a little
left of midline, isn't it?......but all [HB&F, HSCA, McAdams, Posner,
etc.] agree the entry was one inch RIGHT of midline....proof the scalp was
out of position.
The reason that the scalp is out of position is because there was no bone
or brain ehind it and it had been reflected back........prior to being
pulled back towards it original, natural position and the photo taken.
The bottom line is that I believe that the tear we all see in that photo,
if the scalp had been in the correct loocation, wuld extend up an to the
right from near the EOP.
Now, look closely at ARRB, MD-209, drawing #4. See the "laceration"
Boswell drew? It goes well past the Lambdoid suture and down near the EOP.
Now, where the Hell was this admission duing the WC..or in the autopsy
report?????
>Okay. Not IMpossible, I suppose. But likely?
What's more likely...he scenario I've outlined, which I admit may be a
tough pill to swallow....or the scenario that calls for all those
witnesses, for no good reason whatsoever, to be dead wrong or lie about
what they saw?
Now, again, I know what you're thinking...HB&F would have reported a BOH
if one was there. Look, David, there is irrefutable, inarguable proof they
lied to make sure their findings did not trigger the conspiracy alarm
bells to go off. That proof is in living color..CE-388. Humes had assumed
[incorrectly that the bullet took a staight-through-the-head path from the
EOP and exited high in the top/right/front of the ead. The problem with
this incorrect straight-through path is that with the correct entry and
exit locations, with JFK's lean the way it was in Z-312 [about 26 deg.],
Humes' bullet trajectory theory would have had the bullet being fired from
near ground level. So, how did he not sound off the conspiracy alarms with
his trajectory (which, BTW, is the only head shot trajectory dwg the WC
came up with)?.....I'll tell you...he lied like a rug...testifying under
oath that JFK's lean in CE-388 matched the lean of JFK seen in Z-312.
David, if there were even 10-20 degrees difference, I'd possibly buy the
idea, Humes' erred...BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS APPROXIMATELY 25 DEGEES....ANY
FOURTH GRADER CAN SEE THE LEAN IS WRONG...HUMES DID NOT MAKE A
MISTAKE...HE HAD TO LIE TO GET HIS TRAJECTORY TO SHOW THE SHOT CAME FROM
SIX FLOORS UP.
Ok, why did I go here...it's because it shows that Humes an Boswell were
quite willing and capable of not being 100% unambiguous when it came to
their findings if being 100% accuate could possibly have set off the
consiracy alarms....as reporting a BOH wound MIGHT WELL have.
~shrug~
Gather up all the eyewitnesses that are still alive, get them in a room,
and shrug when they reiterate what they saw in DP, and/or at PH or
Bethesda. Not practical to do so,,,of course not...so just imagine
yourself doiung it.
Now, I also know what your thinking (you know this means we've bee doing
this too long)...Humes and Boswell would have endangered their careers by
lying...when you follow orders or do something in what you sincerely
believe is in the best interests of the naton...IT'S NOT LYING.
>But, then too, the Parkland people never saw even the faintest signs of
>the large SIDE OF THE HEAD wound that we know was there via this picture
>below, now did they?
I thought that was explained? You don't buy that explanaton...but try to
sell the notion 20+ witnesses were lying of hallucinating...is this double
standards, David?
David, pardon me...I'm going to end this...my webtv doesn't like long
replies...it could start smoking.
John Canal
John Canal
thing a mnute ago.
>>>> "Unless VB miraculously has a change of opinion on this, your opinion
>is cured in the best cement know{n} to mankind....and, for the little it's
>worth and knowing you don't give a rat's butt, I bet my last dime you are
>dead wrong." <<<
>
>
>Don't make it your very last dime, John. Because this crazy "BOH" matter
>can never be fully resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Not mine either.
It's resolved good enough for me. There are no liars or hallucinators in
the BOH theory...just H & B not being fully unambiguous...for what they
thought were patriotic reasons. Also F8 backs up the BOH theory.
>And I think I've admitted that in the past. The Baden/ Bugliosi
>explanation isn't fully satisfying to me either (whether you think it is
>or not).
>
>I'll admit, I was hoping that Vince B. would be coming up with one of his
>"startling new inferences" (which he's been known to provide from time to
>time) re. the BOH matter. But he's not a superman either. He thinks
>Baden's explanation that I quoted earlier is probably the correct
>solution. So he's got nothing "new" or earth-shaking to add.
I'm convinced the publisher was putting pressure on him...there's no way
he would have had time to digest the ARRB info on even these issues and
make any changes to his manuscript that might have been necessary.
>But I can tell from his writing on this BOH subject, that even VB is a
>little bit tentative about some aspects of it.
Since I put RH down after I got the jist of his BOH and entry theories, I
put it away and haven't picked it up. Would you, if you have the time,
tell me the pages where you feel he seems a bit tentative about this
stuff?
>One of the things that
>disappointed me the most about VB's book (re. the BOH topic specifically)
>was when Vince seemed to put some stock and semi-faith in Jim Moore's
>ludicrous BOH theory.
>
>Mr. Moore actually thinks (and, incredibly, comes right out and says this
>in his 1990 book) that all of the Parkland witnesses actually did see the
>large wound on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, but they ALL somehow got
>disoriented in some way afterward and described this RIGHT SIDE wound as
>having been at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the head.
>
>But Moore isn't saying the same thing as Baden/Bugliosi (or me)...i.e.,
>he's not saying that the pooling blood from gravity made it merely look
>like the wound was in the right-rear of the head (due to all the gore
>puddling there).
>
>Moore, instead, said in his book that the witnesses all merely mis-
>identified the location of the wound that each of them really did see at
>the Right-Front. For some reason, the "Right-Front" became "Far-
>Right-Rear" due to JFK merely lying on his back on the stretcher.
>
>Weird indeed. Esp. considering that all of those PH people were
>professional health-care individuals, who were no doubt trained in
>anatomy. But, somehow, the President LYING DOWN on a stretcher totally
>confused every last witness as to the basics regarding a human's skull
>anatomy.
But McAdams says that they thought the top of the head was the BOH. And
that when they said occipital they didn't really mean the occipital or
BOH.....or something like that. <g>
>The fact that Mr. Bugliosi could give any credence whatsoever to that
>theory of Moore's disappointed me a little bit. But Vince's siding with
>Baden on the matter did not; because I've backed that theory myself in
>past years.
>
>But....at least you and I agree that our differences on the BOH situation
>don't add up to a second assassin and/or mysterious unknown killers
>roaming Dallas.
>
>Now, that business about the Mob hiring Jack Ruby to rub out
>Oswald...well, that's where we're several hundred miles apart. But, maybe
>that's a subject for another time.
How often have you read where an author tells the reader up front that a
major section of his or her book is "speculation"? Would I bet mylast dime
my theory was fully accurate...no, but I wouldn't throw it out the window
either.
For instance, this crapola about how Ruby would never have left his dog
alone in the car as part of a plan to kill Oswald shows just how desperate
to make their case the conventional Posner, HSCA, McAdams
"Ruby-did-it-on-the-spur-of-the-moment" theorists are. Heck, Ruby's sister
would have cared for the dog..or seen to it someone did.
I'm absolutely convinced that Ruby had help timing the hit and getting
into the basement from thoseon the DPD who were outraged at the way LHO
murdered one of their own and father of two small children.
And, in all the thousand or so JFK books you can find a more plausible
explanation for the Ferrie library card mystery than the one in my book,
I'd like to know about it.
Cripes, now you got me going. And what about the gross error that Poser
made when he said Ferrie and LHO were in the CAP at different times and
never knew each other? Heck, that fricken photo showing them together at a
CAP cook-out cost me a bunch to legally put in my book.....in fact, the
guy who owns the rights to it, was at the cook-out (in the pic) and knew
LHO and Ferrie.
Yah, this subject is for another day....about 20 years from now.
John Canal
John Canal
I'll try the rest...again..my webtv just crashed and I lost the whole thing a
minute ago.
>>>> "Unless VB miraculously has a change of opinion on this, your opinion
>is cured in the best cement know{n} to mankind....and, for the little it's
>worth and knowing you don't give a rat's butt, I bet my last dime you are
>dead wrong." <<<
>
>
>Don't make it your very last dime, John. Because this crazy "BOH" matter
>can never be fully resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Not mine either.
It's resolved good enough for me. There are no liars or hallucinators in
the BOH theory...just H & B not being fully unambiguous...for what they
thought were patriotic reasons. Also F8 backs up the BOH theory.
>And I think I've admitted that in the past. The Baden/ Bugliosi
>explanation isn't fully satisfying to me either (whether you think it is
>or not).
>
>I'll admit, I was hoping that Vince B. would be coming up with one of his
>"startling new inferences" (which he's been known to provide from time to
>time) re. the BOH matter. But he's not a superman either. He thinks
>Baden's explanation that I quoted earlier is probably the correct
>solution. So he's got nothing "new" or earth-shaking to add.
I'm convinced the publisher was putting pressure on him...there's no way
he would have had time to digest the ARRB info on even these issues and
make any changes to his manuscript that might have been necessary.
>But I can tell from his writing on this BOH subject, that even VB is a
>little bit tentative about some aspects of it.
Since I put RH down after I got the jist of his BOH and entry theories, I
put it away and haven't picked it up. Would you, if you have the time,
tell me the pages where you feel he seems a bit tentative about this
stuff?
>One of the things that
>disappointed me the most about VB's book (re. the BOH topic specifically)
>was when Vince seemed to put some stock and semi-faith in Jim Moore's
>ludicrous BOH theory.
>
>Mr. Moore actually thinks (and, incredibly, comes right out and says this
>in his 1990 book) that all of the Parkland witnesses actually did see the
>large wound on the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, but they ALL somehow got
>disoriented in some way afterward and described this RIGHT SIDE wound as
>having been at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the head.
>
>But Moore isn't saying the same thing as Baden/Bugliosi (or me)...i.e.,
>he's not saying that the pooling blood from gravity made it merely look
>like the wound was in the right-rear of the head (due to all the gore
>puddling there).
>
>Moore, instead, said in his book that the witnesses all merely mis-
>identified the location of the wound that each of them really did see at
>the Right-Front. For some reason, the "Right-Front" became "Far-
>Right-Rear" due to JFK merely lying on his back on the stretcher.
>
>Weird indeed. Esp. considering that all of those PH people were
>professional health-care individuals, who were no doubt trained in
>anatomy. But, somehow, the President LYING DOWN on a stretcher totally
>confused every last witness as to the basics regarding a human's skull
>anatomy.
But McAdams says that they thought the top of the head was the BOH. And
that when they said occipital they didn't really mean the occipital or
BOH.....or something like that. <g>
>The fact that Mr. Bugliosi could give any credence whatsoever to that
>theory of Moore's disappointed me a little bit. But Vince's siding with
>Baden on the matter did not; because I've backed that theory myself in
>past years.
>
>But....at least you and I agree that our differences on the BOH situation
>don't add up to a second assassin and/or mysterious unknown killers
>roaming Dallas.
True. But the BOH, entry location, and 6.5 mm thing controversies are some
of the seeds that have grown into conspiracy theories....and should be
resolved...which is what I'm trying to do, believe me...and more behind
the scenes than anyone except Barb knows.
>Now, that business about the Mob hiring Jack Ruby to rub out
>Oswald...well, that's where we're several hundred miles apart. But, maybe
>that's a subject for another time.
How often have you read where an author tells the reader up front that a
David Von Pein
There's that imaginary tear in the scalp again...plus a lot of other
stuff that needs to happen to JFK's head (under that scalp, which had
no tears in it at all as we can see from the photo) in order for a
LARGE, GAPING HOLE with lots of ooze to become visible to the Parkland
personnel.
I'll go with the Baden/Bugliosi/DVP "gravity made the blood/ooze fall
toward the BOH, making it look like a wound was there" theory (for
now). Thanks.
>>> "What's more likely...he scenario I've outlined, which I admit may be a tough pill to swallow....or the scenario that calls for all those witnesses, for no good reason whatsoever, to be dead wrong or lie about what they saw?" <<<
The Baden/Bugliosi theory is the most logical (as amazing as that
sounds to your ears).
Why?
Because......
There are no tears in the scalp at the BOH area of JFK's head (which
is mandatory for your theory to have any hope at all of surviving even
the first inning of the nine-inning ballgame). And even if a "tear"
were there that was not picked up by the photo, it still is certainly
nowhere NEAR big enough to allow viewers access to seeing a huge,
gaping hole in the skull underneath (per your theory). No way.
Your best bet is to claim that (somehow, some way) JFK's scalp slipped
off of his head at Parkland ON ITS OWN and reflected itself all the
way back to expose the BOH.
But how likely is that alternate scenario either?
We're left with the best solution, although certainly not perfect
either (given that nobody, somehow, saw ANY signs of the larger right-
side wound to the front of JFK's head at PH, incredibly enough). And
that best solution is the reprise quote from "RH" below:
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "If, before he arrived at PH, the tear had allowed the scalp and an adhered piece of bone to move out of position thereby allowing the brain to be exposed through the opening...........Note, though, that the scalp wasn't "missing", just torn...so, a little smoothing at Bethesda, moved the bone piece/s, with the scalp adhered to it/them, back into place...presto..the opening that allowed the brain and cerebellum to be seen, was closed." <<<
>
> There's that imaginary tear in the scalp again...plus a lot of other
> stuff that needs to happen to JFK's head (under that scalp, which had
> no tears in it at all as we can see from the photo) in order for a
> LARGE, GAPING HOLE with lots of ooze to become visible to the Parkland
> personnel.
>
> I'll go with the Baden/Bugliosi/DVP "gravity made the blood/ooze fall
> toward the BOH, making it look like a wound was there" theory (for
> now). Thanks.
>
You are confusing wounds. There was no separate back of the head wound.
What people did see was a wound on the top of the head which extended
into the back of the head. And in the back of the head there was
extensive fracturing and avulsion.
>
>>>> "What's more likely...he scenario I've outlined, which I admit may be a tough pill to swallow....or the scenario that calls for all those witnesses, for no good reason whatsoever, to be dead wrong or lie about what they saw?" <<<
>
>
> The Baden/Bugliosi theory is the most logical (as amazing as that
> sounds to your ears).
>
Nope. Mine is.
> Why?
>
> Because......
>
> There are no tears in the scalp at the BOH area of JFK's head (which
> is mandatory for your theory to have any hope at all of surviving even
> the first inning of the nine-inning ballgame). And even if a "tear"
> were there that was not picked up by the photo, it still is certainly
> nowhere NEAR big enough to allow viewers access to seeing a huge,
> gaping hole in the skull underneath (per your theory). No way.
>
Any chance there was a tear, but it was stitched up?
> Your best bet is to claim that (somehow, some way) JFK's scalp slipped
> off of his head at Parkland ON ITS OWN and reflected itself all the
> way back to expose the BOH.
>
It's a fundamental error to assume that the condition of the head was
exactly the same when JFK was taken into the ER as when he was at Bethesda.
John Canal
says...
>
>>>>"If, before he arrived at PH, the tear had allowed the scalp and an adhered
>>>>piece of bone to move out of position thereby allowing the brain to be exposed
>>>>through the opening...........Note, though, that the scalp wasn't "missing",
>>>>just torn...so, a little smoothing at Bethesda, moved the bone piece/s, with the
>>>>scalp adhered to it/them, back into place...presto..the opening that allowed the
>>>>brain and cerebellum to be seen, was closed." <<<
>
>There's that imaginary tear in the scalp again...plus a lot of other
>stuff that needs to happen to JFK's head (under that scalp, which had
>no tears in it at all as we can see from the photo) in order for a
>LARGE, GAPING HOLE with lots of ooze to become visible to the Parkland
>personnel.
Wow, that photo sure has become the linchpin of your theory that, not only
were all those BOH witnesses wrong about what they said they saw, but also
that Boswell was hallucinating or blatantly lying to the ARRB.
Only problem is that photo (and I don't know why I keep repeating this
because you sweep it under the rug like it has no significance whatsoever)
was taken: (1) after the scalp had been reflected, (2) the rear skull
pieces had come out, (3) the brain had been removed, and (4) an attempt
was made to hold the previously reflected scalp back in place.
Boswell: "....this scalp is all loose......this might not be the position
of this wound.....this scalp may fit differently..."
Jeeze, how in the world could it possibly fit different, David?
And, this is an appropriate time to bring up the fact that a photo of the
BOH from the rear taken when the body was first received (you know, like
all those other views) would be the one that would have been your
linchpin...if a photo like that showed no BOH wound.
Boswell again, FWIW to you: "The scalp was seperated, but it folded over
and almost hid the wound. when you lifted the scalp up, you could really
lay it back posteriorly, and there was a lot of bone attached to the scalp
but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back
here reflect that". HE'S REFERRING TO THE PIECES OF THE SKULL AT THE REAR
OF HIS HEAD THAT GO WELL DOWN INTO THE OCCIPITAL.
Boswell on that same wound, FWIW to you: "...the wound went from the left
posterior to the right anterior." He clarifys saying that he meant the
left [sic] occipital area when he said left posterior area.
And, FWIW to you, he draws the scalp laceration he talking about [MD-209,
#4]
Doesn't it strike you as being a little odd that there were several scalp
tears identified in the autopsy report...but none going well down into the
occipital even though the skull was shattered there?
No, I didn't think so...Baden, VB, Posner, and McAdams didn't take that as
being odd either.
What's happened is that the laceration that appears somewhat high up on
the head in your favorite photo is grossly out of place...that's probably
the same laceration that Boswell drew in MD-209 and talked about in his
deposition.
Here's what bothers me. You are so sure that this obviously mobile scalp
didn't shift up that you are willing to call all those BOH witnesses
hallucinators or liars...not to mention Boswell because of his revelations
to the ARRB.
>I'll go with the Baden/Bugliosi/DVP "gravity made the blood/ooze fall
>toward the BOH, making it look like a wound was there" theory (for >now).
Thanks.
Oh, and is that what Ebersole saw as he held the President's head in his
hands...or did he see a right rear gaping wound like he testified? Same
with C. Boyers?
Baden lied many times, IMO, and you all follow him like he was the Pied
Piper.
>>>>"What's more likely...he scenario I've outlined, which I admit may be
a tough >>>>pill to swallow....or the scenario that calls for all those
witnesses, for no >>>>good reason whatsoever, to be dead wrong or lie
about what they saw?" <<< > > >The Baden/Bugliosi theory is the most
logical (as amazing as that >sounds to your ears).
Thankfully there are some other pretty smart folks that agree with
me...and they understand F8.
>Why?
>
>Because......
>
>There are no tears in the scalp at the BOH area of JFK's head (which
>is mandatory for your theory to have any hope at all of surviving even
>the first inning of the nine-inning ballgame). And even if a "tear"
>were there that was not picked up by the photo, it still is certainly
>nowhere NEAR big enough to allow viewers access to seeing a huge,
>gaping hole in the skull underneath (per your theory). No way.
If the scalp was torn and folded over with a piece of bone attached to it
with the other side of that bone being hinged by the untorn scalp, there
would have been the opening. It's only a minor leap to conclude that,
considering the force of the bullet and temporary cavity caused the rear
skull to shatter it also could have cause at least one scalp tear....then,
with such a tear and a loose bone moved that was adhered to it and you
have the opening that so many witnesses clearly saw.
>Your best bet is to claim that (somehow, some way) JFK's scalp slipped
>off of his head at Parkland ON ITS OWN and reflected itself all the
>way back to expose the BOH.
That's not what happened...why would I say that? Are you trying to give me
an out...I don't need one...you following the the fellow who, IMO,
proveably lied many times over under oath, needs the out.
>But how likely is that alternate scenario either?
>
>We're left with the best solution, although certainly not perfect
>either (given that nobody, somehow, saw ANY signs of the larger right-
>side wound to the front of JFK's head at PH, incredibly enough). And
>that best solution is the reprise quote from "RH" below:
>
>"Dr. Michael Baden has what I {Vince B.} believe to be the answer, one
>whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in
>the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
>wrong," {Baden} told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
>head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
>have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
>saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
>been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
>gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
>of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
>head" [End Baden quote]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; On Pages 407-408 of
>"Reclaiming History"
Here's your hero, Baden who you, Posner, McAdams, and VB believe instead
of 20+ PH witnesses, C. Hill, Ebersole, and C. Boyers:
(1) There was no lower brain damage.
Oops, what about the longitudinal laceration that began at the tip of the
occipital bone?
(2) There was no evidence on the x-rays of an entry where the autopsy
doctors said there was.
Oops, what about the trail of opacities extending anteriorly from near the
EOP that his own FPP member, Dr. Davis, pointed out to him?
(3) This trajectory in F-66 is fairly accurte.
Oops, the arrow trajectory points back to several floora above the TSBD
and points forward to near JBC's back?
(4) All the x-rays experts with who we consulted are unanimous that the
x-rays show an entry in the cowlick.
Oops, Dr. seam says such a conclusion is uncertain.
(5) A fragment rubbed off the bullet as it entered the rear skull.
Oops, a nearly perfectly round, disc-shaped fragment, with the approximate
dia. of the round, rubbed off a FMJ bullet and deposited itself 1.0 cm
below the entry and 2.5 cm to the right of midline (coincidently the same
precise distance right of midline as the autopsists' entry)?
I'll stop...you're not listening anyway.
"I Will Follow Him"...wasn't that the title of a hit song from the 60's by
Dell Shannon? Is that your theme on this issue, David?
John Canal