Two questions for DVP

[John Canal]

Let me say that I certainly intended on not posting on this forum anymore, but
when I searched using Google for an article I wrote, I was stunned by the number
of attacks you've made against me, not only on your blog, but on several forums.
I guess you figured when I just ignored your rhetoric and ranting I was an easy
target for you...and oh how obvious it is that you like easy targets.

So, in view of those attacks, let me just ask you two questions....I'll make
them simple because they refer to the medical evidence and it's obvious you are
lost when it comes to that aspect of the case.

1. While there are a lot of problems with the Dox drawing in the graphic linked
to below, the area where the skull was blown-out isn't too awfully
inaccurate....so, with that in mind, if the damn scalp wasn't stretched up where
did they get the scalp/hair from to cover that blown out area??????????????

http://imageshack.us/a/img89/254/bohpicstaged.jpg

New secret instant results Rogaine?

Faked photo?

Authentic photo, but it's not JFK?

Wig?

Or how about this doosy of an answer that McAdams seemed to favor once: In the
blown out area the skull blew out but left the scalp and hair behind (kind of
like the Red Sea parting for Moses...the scalp and hair just moved aside to let
the skull blow out??????

Tell me wise guy, what's your answer?

2. If I'm on this side of the grass long enough to see another team of forensic
experts (who we both would accept the conclusions of) examine the originals,
(and you're still posting your attacks against me) will you accept a $500.00
wager regarding their conclusions?

Here are the terms:

If they conclude the entry was in the cowlick I'll pay you $500.00 and,
conversly, if they conclude the entry was near the EOP, you pay me $500.00.

Now, you do realize that the last panel of experts (and we won't count Sturdivan
and Zimmerman because you and the rest of the
"cowlick-entry-Humes-didn't-know-the-EOP-from-the-cowlick" club deemed them
blind or grossly incompetent) who were commissioned by the ARRB to examine the
originals basically said, "What cowlick entry?"

But we won't count them either because you and the rest of the aforementioned
club probably have group-attacked them as well.

Anyway, how about answering those questions?

Sorry for the spelling errors, I didn't proof it.

John Canal

P.S. How about putting this on your blog too?


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[David Von Pein]

Hi John C.,

Here is my reply:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/boh-part-21.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly, What is about "in the hairline" that you guys don't understand?

[Robert Harris]

What exactly did you mean in your "I leave you with these last thoughts"
post?





Robert Harris






In article <ku6cn...@drn.newsguy.com>,

[mainframetech]

John,
It looks like he just used your comments to get more people to make hits on his website. And took your comments out of context to make himself look good. He does that to anyone that makes him look bad. Honorable? Make your own decisions on that.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

"MAINFRAMETECH" SAID:

It looks like he [DVP] just used your [John Canal's] comments to get more

people to make hits on his website.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~sigh~

John Canal asked me to put this latest round of "BOH" stuff on my website.
Scroll back up to John's thread-starter and you'll see:

"P.S. How about putting this on your blog too?" -- J. Canal

MAINFRAME SAID:

And took your comments out of context to make himself look good.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Please elaborate. Which of John's comments did I take "out of context"?

[tray...@gmail.com]

It saddens me (and sometimes sickens me) that some relentlessly attack
David Von Pein. Sometimes I think he carries in him the spirits of Thomas
Paine & Vincent Bugliosi in his tireless efforts to appeal to people to
use common sense when dealing with horrific crimes against humanity the
evidence indicates was committed by POS. Look at his channels & blogs, he
hides nothing.

Cut the man some slack.....

Just Sayin'

[mainframetech]

Technically I will agree that you copied his comments as he typed them, but his tone was different than you seemed to respond to. Never mind that the information you posted in response to his comments was bogus in that you showed the defect on the top of the head as if a bullet caused it, but the testimony of Tom Robinson was that much of the damage to the top of the head was done by the prosectors looking for fragments. Of course we also have the statements of many of the Parkland trained personnel that there was NO damage on the TOP of the head when they were working on JFK.

As well, over 40 people agreed that they saw a 'large hole' in the back of head of JFK described as the size of an orange, with a plate of skull missing, and the photos you attempted to foist off on everyone did not show what was seen by those people. If you or anyone would like to make a list of the people that claimed to see only a small hole in the BOH, I'd love to see that list. On this forum I've listed the 40 (or more) that saw the 'large' hole and I'm still waiting for anyone at all to list the 'small hole' people.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I guess he hasn't done anything to you yet. You're welcome to your view of things.

[BT George]

I've exchanged a round or two by email with both John C and David VP on this topic. I'm still a "Cowlick" leaning LN who is open to other possibilities should follow-up forensic work indicate the orignial autopsists description was correct.

My difference with John is that he KNOWS the near EOP entry is correct and that there was a medical cover-up to establish Fisher's conclusions in preference to the original autopsists. I reject such certainty as to the location and especially am resistant to easily accepting his claims of a willful cover up.

I merely believe that there is enough evidence of a discrepancy (see below) that a final and DECISIVE forensic examination should be done to directly tackle such issues and put this to bed once and for all.

My difference with David is somewhat the opposite coin. While I lean Cowlick for pretty much the same reasons as he, I simply don't share his level of certainty about it for a variety of reasons the principle being:

a) I have always been troubled that the original autopsist's have generally stuck to their guns on where they described the entrance (except for a brief defection by Humes post HSCA) even when their credibility has come under SEVERE attack for doing so. But how to account for this? Is it merely incredible stubborness or surpassing stupidity? ...Or is there perhaps something else possibly in play? (Like maybe KNOWING they are correct and expecting to be exonerated one day.**)


b) The actual reported observations of Sturdivan and Zimmerman when they viewed the original much clearer color versions of F8, made lower entry believer's of them---and for many of the same reasons John Canal and a few others have cited in support of the lower entry point.

** = Even Vincent Bugliosi, who favors the Cowlick entry, noted in Reclaiming History that the HSCA report in particular was unjustifiably harsh in skewering the competence of the original autopsy and autopsists. In particular he points out that their dismissal of the expertise of these men to perform a forensic examination of a victim of gunshot wounds rang hollow.


BT

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS/MainFrame SAID:

I guess he hasn't done anything to you yet.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Yeah, I've tortured Chris to no end. Bamboo shoots under his nails and everything. I'm a regular Captain Bligh.

[mainframetech]

Sadly, as was intended, arguing the entry point in the BOH of JFK is
just what was wanted, and the conspirators are no doubt laughing their
heads off, those that are still alive and living the good life.

Can anyone here allow themselves to face reality that over 40 people have
seen a 'large hole' at the BOH of JFK, and when challenged, NO ONE here has
been able to make a list of people that saw only a 'small hole' at the BOH.
The implication of the 'large hole' at the BOH is obvious...a frontal shot
matched with a small entry wound .25 inches in dia. in the right forehead j
ust in the hairline, lays out the path of the kill shot. Look into the sworn testimony of Tom Robinson (mortician) for the ARRB.

The 'large hole' was even drawn by Robinson:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4

Chris

[mainframetech]

It's been a long time, but I remember well your reaction when you lost
your debate with me and tried to use your website to win instead. This was
in the 'nuthouse' which you also visited for website hits.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

On 8/13/2013 3:43 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:08:28 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:10:12 PM UTC-5, tray...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> It saddens me (and sometimes sickens me) that some relentlessly attack
>>
>>>
>>
>>> David Von Pein. Sometimes I think he carries in him the spirits of Thomas
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Paine & Vincent Bugliosi in his tireless efforts to appeal to people to
>>
>>>
>>
>>> use common sense when dealing with horrific crimes against humanity the
>>
>>>
>>
>>> evidence indicates was committed by POS. Look at his channels & blogs, he
>>
>>>
>>
>>> hides nothing.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Cut the man some slack.....
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Just Sayin'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've exchanged a round or two by email with both John C and David VP on this topic. I'm still a "Cowlick" leaning LN who is open to other possibilities should follow-up forensic work indicate the orignial autopsists description was correct.
>>
>>
>>
>> My difference with John is that he KNOWS the near EOP entry is correct and that there was a medical cover-up to establish Fisher's conclusions in preference to the original autopsists. I reject such certainty as to the location and especially am resistant to easily accepting his claims of a willful cover up.
>>
>>
>>
>> I merely believe that there is enough evidence of a discrepancy (see below) that a final and DECISIVE forensic examination should be done to directly tackle such issues and put this to bed once and for all.
>>
>>
>>
>> My difference with David is somewhat the opposite coin. While I lean Cowlick for pretty much the same reasons as he, I simply don't share his level of certainty about it for a variety of reasons the principle being:
>>
>>
>>
>> a) I have always been troubled that the original autopsist's have generally stuck to their guns on where they described the entrance (except for a brief defection by Humes post HSCA) even when their credibility has come under SEVERE attack for doing so. But how to account for this? Is it merely incredible stubborness or surpassing stupidity? ...Or is there perhaps something else possibly in play? (Like maybe KNOWING they are correct and expecting to be exonerated one day.**)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> b) The actual reported observations of Sturdivan and Zimmerman when they viewed the original much clearer color versions of F8, made lower entry believer's of them---and for many of the same reasons John Canal and a few others have cited in support of the lower entry point.
>>
>>
>>
>> ** = Even Vincent Bugliosi, who favors the Cowlick entry, noted in Reclaiming History that the HSCA report in particular was unjustifiably harsh in skewering the competence of the original autopsy and autopsists. In particular he points out that their dismissal of the expertise of these men to perform a forensic examination of a victim of gunshot wounds rang hollow.
>>
>>
>> BT
>
> Sadly, as was intended, arguing the entry point in the BOH of JFK is
> just what was wanted, and the conspirators

None.

> are no doubt laughing their
> heads off, those that are still alive and living the good life.
>

Well, when you start with nothing, I guess a CT can come up with, what,
twelve?

> Can anyone here allow themselves to face reality that over 40 people have
> seen a 'large hole' at the BOH of JFK, and when challenged, NO ONE here has
> been able to make a list of people that saw only a 'small hole' at the BOH.
> The implication of the 'large hole' at the BOH is obvious...a frontal shot
> matched with a small entry wound .25 inches in dia. in the right forehead j
> ust in the hairline, lays out the path of the kill shot. Look into the sworn testimony of Tom Robinson (mortician) for the ARRB.
>
> The 'large hole' was even drawn by Robinson:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
>
> Chris
>

Scary. This is what you have after 50 years?!?

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I attack DVP as often as I am allowed to. He deserves much more.

[BT George]

Sure. Let me help by doing that now. The following are "small hole" BOH witnesses:

1. Humes, Boswell, Finck (original autopsists)
2. Carnes, Fisher, Moritz, Morgan (Clark Panel)
3. McMeeken, Spitz, Lindenburg, Hodges, Olivier (Rockefeller Commission)
4. Baden, Coe, Davis, Wecht, Loquvam, Petty, Rose, Spitz (again), Westin (HSCA FPP)
5. Me, you, everyone else who's seen the BOH head autopsy photos & relevant head X rays INCLUDING many of your "large hole" BOH witnesses at Parkland. (And after they did most had sense enough when seeing the evidence to realize their memories & emergency room assumptions had been incorrect in this respect.)

The fact that you and many/most other CT's don't believe these witnesses and the hard evidence, doesn't change these inconvenient contraventions to your beliefs.

BT

[mainframetech]

Far more is known, this is just a tiny bit to whet the appetites of the
open minded.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yes.

>
>
> > Chris
>
> >

[mainframetech]

Thank you BT, you're the only one to respond to the challenge. I'll
start working on the list immediately looking for their comments, since
you gave NO links or backup. I'll look for people that actually saw the
body and made statements to the effect that they saw only a 'small hole',
and not political appointees that had a job to do of quieting down the
public. Do you find that the LNer folks have the same problem with the
many that saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, in that they 'don't
believe the witnesses'?

And please don't include ME in your list, although I was not present
with the body at any time, as was the case with many of your listees, I
believe the 'large hole' people and not the 'small hole' people. If you
come across any of your listees that saw the body and the 'small hole' and
said so, please pass on the link, Thanks.

Is there any reason that you think photos can't be retouched and a big
black blot placed where a large hole in the BOH would be? Or why a
mortician would say the hole was the 'size of an orange'?

>
>
> > The implication of the 'large hole' at the BOH is obvious...a frontal shot
>
> >
>
> > matched with a small entry wound .25 inches in dia. in the right forehead
>
> >
>

> > just in the hairline, lays out the path of the kill shot. Look into the sworn testimony of Tom Robinson (mortician) for the ARRB.

[mainframetech]

BT,
I took a fast look at your list, and realized that you just copied down
the names of panel appointees for the most part. I'm sorry I wasn't more
clear. I'm looking for people that actually saw the body and not a photo
that is in contention as a fake. We know that the panels all decided on
the WC theory of the murder (except the HSCA), and so might have
subscribed to a description of the BOH that included a 'small hole' rather
than a 'large hole'. My concern was more with the witnesses that stated
from their presence with the body, that they saw a 'large hole'. Anyone
can be faked out by photos that have been 'fixed'. I'll look into the
prosector's statements, although I expect them to say what they were
ordered to. I'll still count them as 'small hole' people for you.

Chris

[BT George]

Yes. I count the various panels as witnesses as well as the original 3
autopsists. I feel the inclusion of the HSCA panelists is particularly
justifed since the HSCA didn't just look at the pictures, but took steps
to validate that the pictures/X-rays were of JFK and were not fakes in any
way. (I would quote the relevant language in their review, but I am sure
you are familiar enough with the evidence not to need a cite from for that
statment.)

I know that you reject their conclusions, but am curious if you think the
experts who did the vetting for authenticity were all just "lying" or
merely so grossly incompetant they did not detect the fakery? Or is it
even worse...that they actually "doctored" the photos to obscure the true
size of the wound?

BT

[mainframetech]

I believe the doctoring was done long before the panelists saw the pictures.
I don't believe any of the people on the panels 'fixed' any evidence,
that was done previous to their review. I DO believe they knew why they
were picked for the panels, and what they should find, and the 'doctoring'
made those findings easier to make. However, I can't count any panelists,
because they were NOT truly witnesses to the BOH like the many Parkland
personnel, only to photos, which were one level back from actually seeing
reality. As to people that saw a 'small hole' we have a count of 3, the
prosectors.

As to the 2 autopsy photos that showed the BOH, one was a black blot,
which is too obvious, and the other had the hair done in 2 styles, one you
would expect, where the hair was wet and then below that, it suddenly goes
dry. I believe that is faked. I feel better comparing people that
actually saw the BOH and not those that simply accepted the autopsy photos
as real.

In finding over 40 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH, they
corroborate each other and also show the fakery in the 2 photos. When you
hear their descriptions, they seem different, but they're saying the
same thing; a massive wound in the BOH, not a little pinhole for a bullet.
We already have an entry wound at the right forehead just in the hairline.

Chris

[BT George]

IOW, you think they were so biased that they didn't really do their jobs and ignored the evidence of fakery because they "knew what they should find". IMO, that is little better than calling them dishonest liars. However, even if they "fooled themselves" due to bias, one would presume that bias was not due to a genetic predispostion to beleive the government's case.

What then? Were they simply beholden to the government so monumentally that they just went along "finding what they should"? If so, is it also your position that they remained, in some mysterious way, beholden to that same lying Federal Government to their old age and/or deaths? Is that why to this very day---35 years later---we know of none of them recanting and saying they weren't REALLY sure the photos were authentic after all?

>However, I can't count any panelists,
>
> because they were NOT truly witnesses to the BOH like the many Parkland
>
> personnel, only to photos, which were one level back from actually seeing
>
> reality. As to people that saw a 'small hole' we have a count of 3, the
>
> prosectors.
>
>

OK. So here are 3 blatant liers who maintained their "small hole" testimony until their old age/dying days. Even after multiple decades and numerous presidents, they kept lying like rugs to protect the cover up, and for what?

Most CT's and quite a few LN's seem to think they were fairly incompetent, so did they keep right on lying to avoid a "hit" to their image? Was it fear that Clinton, Bush, or Obama's hit squads would come to finish them off for telling the truth and embarrassing the government with actions that took place when the first two were teens and the last a toddler?

Enquiring minds want to know.

>
> As to the 2 autopsy photos that showed the BOH, one was a black blot,
>
> which is too obvious, and the other had the hair done in 2 styles, one you
>
> would expect, where the hair was wet and then below that, it suddenly goes
>
> dry. I believe that is faked. I feel better comparing people that
>
> actually saw the BOH and not those that simply accepted the autopsy photos
>
> as real.
>
>

But it's not really as simple as everyone just "accepting" the autopsy photos as real, is it? For the HSCA, and everyone since, one is really only being asked to "simply accept" that those who vetted the photos for authenticity were competant and honest enough to tell the truth rather than simply go along with whatever they "knew they should find."

>
> In finding over 40 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH, they
>
> corroborate each other and also show the fakery in the 2 photos. When you
>

> hear their = descriptions, they seem different, but they're saying the

>
> same thing; a massive wound in the BOH, not a little pinhole for a bullet.
>
> We already have an entry wound at the right forehead just in the hairline.
>
>

Come again on where you have documented this "entry" wound at the right forehead just in the hairline? Do have some kind of "undoctored" autopsy photo or X-ray that clearly shows it? If so, who vetted that?

BT

>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:27:00 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:41:02 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:28:06 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:39:15 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:44:12 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:43:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:08:28 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:10:12 PM UTC-5, tray...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > It saddens me (and sometimes sickens me) that some relentlessly attack
>
> >
>

>
> > > > > > > > David Von Pein. Sometimes I think he carries in him the spirits of Thomas
>
>
> > > > > > > > Paine & Vincent Bugliosi in his tireless efforts to appeal to people to
>
>
> > > > > > > > use common sense when dealing with horrific crimes against humanity the
>
>
> > > > > > > > evidence indicates was committed by POS. Look at his channels & blogs, he
>
>
> > > > > > > > hides nothing.
>
>
> > > > > > > > Cut the man some slack.....
>
>
> > > > > > > > Just Sayin'
>
>
> > > > > > > I've exchanged a round or two by email with both John C and David VP on this topic. I'm still a "Cowlick" leaning LN who is open to other possibilities should follow-up forensic work indicate the orignial autopsists description was correct.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > My difference with John is that he KNOWS the near EOP entry is correct and that there was a medical cover-up to establish Fisher's conclusions in preference to the original autopsists. I reject such certainty as to the location and especially am resistant to easily accepting his claims of a willful cover up.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > I merely believe that there is enough evidence of a discrepancy (see below) that a final and DECISIVE forensic examination should be done to directly tackle such issues and put this to bed once and for all.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > My difference with David is somewhat the opposite coin. While I lean Cowlick for pretty much the same reasons as he, I simply don't share his level of certainty about it for a variety of reasons the principle being:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > a) I have always been troubled that the original autopsist's have generally stuck to their guns on where they described the entrance (except for a brief defection by Humes post HSCA) even when their credibility has come under SEVERE attack for doing so. But how to account for this? Is it merely incredible stubborness or surpassing stupidity? ...Or is there perhaps something else possibly in play? (Like maybe KNOWING they are correct and expecting to be exonerated one day.**)
>
> >

The disbelief in the autopsy gets greater, not lesser. I doubt they will be vindicated any time soon. More and more things are picked out and made known and throw a wrench in the wacky 'lone nut' theory. The ARRB information opened a whole new set of problems for the LN crowd. They are trying to figure out their best 'ignore it' strategy now.

>
>
> > > > > > > b) The actual reported observations of Sturdivan and Zimmerman when they viewed the original much clearer color versions of F8, made lower entry believer's of them---and for many of the same reasons John Canal and a few others have cited in support of the lower entry point.
>
> >

Anything that Photoshop can do now, could be done on machines back in 1963.

I doubt genetics had anything to do with it. You don't believe that they would pick a panel that might come up with a different answer than they wanted, do you?

>
>
> What then? Were they simply beholden to the government so monumentally that they just went along "finding what they should"? If so, is it also your position that they remained, in some mysterious way, beholden to that same lying Federal Government to their old age and/or deaths? Is that why to this very day---35 years later---we know of none of them recanting and saying they weren't REALLY sure the photos were authentic after all?
>

There could be many reasons for them to keep their peace. If they acted anything like the WC panel, they wouldn't even be in the room half the time while witnesses were being questioned. They might have appreciated the notoriety from being on a panel. They may be beholden to the person that picked them. They might be afraid that blowing the whole thing might get them hurt. They might not want to let it out that they went along with what was wanted, and that way ruin their reputation.

>
>
>
>
> >However, I can't count any panelists,
>
> >
>
> > because they were NOT truly witnesses to the BOH like the many Parkland
>
> >
>
> > personnel, only to photos, which were one level back from actually seeing
>
> >
>
> > reality. As to people that saw a 'small hole' we have a count of 3, the
>
> >
>
> > prosectors.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> OK. So here are 3 blatant liers who maintained their "small hole" testimony until their old age/dying days. Even after multiple decades and numerous presidents, they kept lying like rugs to protect the cover up, and for what?
>

The 3 prosectors were ordered to find what they found. They were under orders, and their future careers and retirement were on the line. That was the reason for stealing the body and getting it to a venue that the conspirators could control. Once ordered to find certain things, they even helped to a degree. The damage to the top of the head was seen to be done by the prosectors themselves by Tom Robinson, supposedly in search of bullet fragments. Although they ordered all the assistants out of the room, they didn't order Robinson out (he wasn't military) and he saw them damaging the skull at the top of the head. He comments on it while describing damage to the head. See his ARRB testimony. At the end of the autopsy, which was being steered by an admiral off to the side, who was sending in orders at times, to stop some procedures, orders were given verbally and in writing that every person was to shut up and not speak of the autopsy to anyone! Not spouses or family members, or anyone. It wasn't until the ARRB that many new pieces of information came out.

>
>
> Most CT's and quite a few LN's seem to think they were fairly incompetent, so did they keep right on lying to avoid a "hit" to their image? Was it fear that Clinton, Bush, or Obama's hit squads would come to finish them off for telling the truth and embarrassing the government with actions that took place when the first two were teens and the last a toddler?
>

No one in government would give away the secret. And few that retired would either. Don Adams, an FBI agent, gave out some information on the crimes the FBI committed, but since he was selling his book, it was easy for the LNers to ignore him as a liar. The key figures in any government want the public to believe the government when ever they say something, so they will work extra hard to make people believe any story they come out with. For the full term of the Bush admin. most all TV specials and documentaries about the various 'conspiracies' were used to prove that there was a phony conspiracy and that the people that spoke about it were all kooks. The ridicule method is still the major method used to try and escape from facts that go against the government's story.

>
>
> Enquiring minds want to know.
>

See above.

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > As to the 2 autopsy photos that showed the BOH, one was a black blot,
>
> >
>
> > which is too obvious, and the other had the hair done in 2 styles, one you
>
> >
>
> > would expect, where the hair was wet and then below that, it suddenly goes
>
> >
>
> > dry. I believe that is faked. I feel better comparing people that
>
> >
>
> > actually saw the BOH and not those that simply accepted the autopsy photos
>
> >
>
> > as real.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> But it's not really as simple as everyone just "accepting" the autopsy photos as real, is it? For the HSCA, and everyone since, one is really only being asked to "simply accept" that those who vetted the photos for authenticity were competant and honest enough to tell the truth rather than simply go along with whatever they "knew they should find."
>
>

An example is the case where the HSCA came out publicly with the story that everyone at the autopsy agreed that they did not see a 'large hole' in the BOH, only a 'small' one. Later when dealing with those witnesses separately, it turned out that they had mostly said they saw a 'large hole', so the HSCA was caught in a lie. Of course, it might have been a mistake, but I'm a cynical fella. Here's a piece from an article:

"The HSCA report, in volume 7, stated that all of the Dallas doctors had to be wrong about the exit wound they recalled in the back of JFK’s head, since all of the autopsy witnesses the HSCA had interviewed said the wounds they observed matched the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact. The release of the interview reports in 1993 revealed that the HSCA had lied about what those witnesses had said."
From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
Author: Douglas Horne

>
> >
>
> > In finding over 40 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH, they
>
> >
>
> > corroborate each other and also show the fakery in the 2 photos. When you
>
> >
>

> > hear their descriptions, they seem different, but they're saying the

>
> >
>
> > same thing; a massive wound in the BOH, not a little pinhole for a bullet.
>
> >
>
> > We already have an entry wound at the right forehead just in the hairline.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Come again on where you have documented this "entry" wound at the right forehead just in the hairline? Do have some kind of "undoctored" autopsy photo or X-ray that clearly shows it? If so, who vetted that?
>
>
>
> BT
>

It was seen by Tom Robinson, who got very close to the body during preparation for burial. It is mentioned in his testimony for the ARRB. As to the autopsy photo that might have shown it before they put a little wax on it, go here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
look at Groden's Superior Right Profile photo. You can see where the wax was placed to cover the small hole estimated at .25 inches in diameter.

>
Chris

[BT George]

"Wanted" a panel to differ with the goverments case is a strong word. But the real question is whether they picked a panel "willing" do disagree with the government's case.

Since YOU go in with the belief the HSCA was trying to perpetuate a (by then 15 year old) cover-up and that everyone invited to the table was willing, if not desiring, to go along with that, naturally you find the notion of actual honesty and integrity "preposterous". I simply don't share your extreme skepticism in that regard.

>
> >
>
> > What then? Were they simply beholden to the government so monumentally that they just went along "finding what they should"? If so, is it also your position that they remained, in some mysterious way, beholden to that same lying Federal Government to their old age and/or deaths? Is that why to this very day---35 years later---we know of none of them recanting and saying they weren't REALLY sure the photos were authentic after all?
>
> >
>
> There could be many reasons for them to keep their peace. If they acted anything like the WC panel, they wouldn't even be in the room half the time while witnesses were being questioned. They might have appreciated the notoriety from being on a panel. They may be beholden to the person that picked them. They might be afraid that blowing the whole thing might get them hurt. They might not want to let it out that they went along with what was wanted, and that way ruin their reputation.
>
> >
>

Yes. And that all rests on your assumptions of their non-integrity in the first place, and dissmissal of the value of going to your grave with a clean conscience even if they had originally help facilitate a cover up. You could be right on both counts, but I don't buy it.

> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >However, I can't count any panelists,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > because they were NOT truly witnesses to the BOH like the many Parkland
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > personnel, only to photos, which were one level back from actually seeing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > reality. As to people that saw a 'small hole' we have a count of 3, the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > prosectors.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > OK. So here are 3 blatant liers who maintained their "small hole" testimony until their old age/dying days. Even after multiple decades and numerous presidents, they kept lying like rugs to protect the cover up, and for what?
>
> >
>
> The 3 prosectors were ordered to find what they found. They were under orders, and their future careers and retirement were on the line. That was the reason for stealing the body and getting it to a venue that the conspirators could control. Once ordered to find certain things, they even helped to a degree. The damage to the top of the head was seen to be done by the prosectors themselves by Tom Robinson, supposedly in search of bullet fragments. Although they ordered all the assistants out of the room, they didn't order Robinson out (he wasn't military) and he saw them damaging the skull at the top of the head. He comments on it while describing damage to the head. See his ARRB testimony. At the end of the autopsy, which was being steered by an admiral off to the side, who was sending in orders at times, to stop some procedures, orders were given verbally and in writing that every person was to shut up and not speak of the autopsy to anyone! Not spouses or family members, or anyone. It wasn't until the ARRB that many new pieces of information came out.
>
> >
>

Yes. And after 30 something years, I'm quite "shocked" that one gets a lot of wild accusations coming out in the JFK case! Of course, you choose to believe pretty much only the conspiracy-oriented "revelations" that came out from the ARRB, while discounting anything H,B,F and others said that directly contradicts it.

That's your right, but I'm not buying the "massive government cover up" spanning 3-5 decades stuff.

> >
>
> > Most CT's and quite a few LN's seem to think they were fairly incompetent, so did they keep right on lying to avoid a "hit" to their image? Was it fear that Clinton, Bush, or Obama's hit squads would come to finish them off for telling the truth and embarrassing the government with actions that took place when the first two were teens and the last a toddler?
>
> >
>
> No one in government would give away the secret. And few that retired would either. Don Adams, an FBI agent, gave out some information on the crimes the FBI committed, but since he was selling his book, it was easy for the LNers to ignore him as a liar. The key figures in any government want the public to believe the government when ever they say something, so they will work extra hard to make people believe any story they come out with. For the full term of the Bush admin. most all TV specials and documentaries about the various 'conspiracies' were used to prove that there was a phony conspiracy and that the people that spoke about it were all kooks. The ridicule method is still the major method used to try and escape from facts that go against the government's story.
>
> >
>

Wow. So the Discovery Channel, ABC, and other networks were following the Bush Administration's JFK talking points (that I was unaware even existed) and coming up with specials to refute a conspiracy as a result? Give me a break!

Sure everyone *knows* how much the media (other than Fox) just *loved* supporting the Bush Administration on a wide range of topics. Why not support them in a---to me---utterly inexplicable desire to perpetuate a cover-up of the JFK case 4 decades later!?!

...Oh...and of course...now that Bush's ideological "twin" is in office the cover up continues. Just as it has under some 9 different Presidential Administrations from two different parties that so *clearly* need JFK to have been bumped off by a lone-nut in order to maintain their own power and policies. I just can't imagine why that was never clear to me before now!

> >
>
> > Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> >
>
> See above.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > As to the 2 autopsy photos that showed the BOH, one was a black blot,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > which is too obvious, and the other had the hair done in 2 styles, one you
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > would expect, where the hair was wet and then below that, it suddenly goes
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > dry. I believe that is faked. I feel better comparing people that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > actually saw the BOH and not those that simply accepted the autopsy photos
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > as real.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > But it's not really as simple as everyone just "accepting" the autopsy photos as real, is it? For the HSCA, and everyone since, one is really only being asked to "simply accept" that those who vetted the photos for authenticity were competant and honest enough to tell the truth rather than simply go along with whatever they "knew they should find."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> An example is the case where the HSCA came out publicly with the story that everyone at the autopsy agreed that they did not see a 'large hole' in the BOH, only a 'small' one. Later when dealing with those witnesses separately, it turned out that they had mostly said they saw a 'large hole', so the HSCA was caught in a lie. Of course, it might have been a mistake, but I'm a cynical fella. Here's a piece from an article:
>
>
>
> "The HSCA report, in volume 7, stated that all of the Dallas doctors had to be wrong about the exit wound they recalled in the back of JFK’s head, since all of the autopsy witnesses the HSCA had interviewed said the wounds they observed matched the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact. The release of the interview reports in 1993 revealed that the HSCA had lied about what those witnesses had said."
>
> From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> Author: Douglas Horne
>
>

Yet we have the strange phenomenon that when several of the large hole BOH Parkland doctor witnesses actually viewed JFK's autopsy photos in the circa 1988PBS NOVA special, they came out claiming it was consistent with their observations/memories. Now this was a "mere" 25 years after the assassination so "no doubt" they were simply intimidated by the Feds into this confession.

However, even if you buy into the above notion, I don't for the life of me understand why they claimed it was really "consistent" with what they described as having seen before, when everyone watching the earlier part of the program could see very clearly it was NOT. It seems to me that even if the "guiding hand" of Big Brother were involved in all this, a much better story would be to have them saying something like "I thought I remembered seeing a large hole back there, but after viewing the autopsy evidence I can see that I must have been wrong about that." Or maybe have them advance some form of LN theory to reconcile the difference.

To me it seems more like they were rather embarrased to realize they had gotten it so wrong and now tried---rather weakly---to save face by claiming that's what they'd really seen in the first place. All I know is that a script that has them describe and illustrate a scenario very supportive a large hole in the BOH or upper right head, and then come out trying to claim they'd seen something consistent with the autopsy evidence all along, is a very STRANGE cover-up script!

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In finding over 40 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH, they
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > corroborate each other and also show the fakery in the 2 photos. When you
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > hear their descriptions, they seem different, but they're saying the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > same thing; a massive wound in the BOH, not a little pinhole for a bullet.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We already have an entry wound at the right forehead just in the hairline.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Come again on where you have documented this "entry" wound at the right forehead just in the hairline? Do have some kind of "undoctored" autopsy photo or X-ray that clearly shows it? If so, who vetted that?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > BT
>
> >
>
> It was seen by Tom Robinson, who got very close to the body during preparation for burial. It is mentioned in his testimony for the ARRB. As to the autopsy photo that might have shown it before they put a little wax on it, go here:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
>
> look at Groden's Superior Right Profile photo. You can see where the wax was placed to cover the small hole estimated at .25 inches in diameter.
>
>

Yep. I see it. ...And I also just saw Cinque's Oswald-in-the-doorway too! That certainly does it for me. There WAS a conspiracty in the JFK case! (...or not.)

BT
>
> >
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

I don't think you had a witness say that there was Oswald definitely in the doorway, or there wouldn't be a controversy. In the case of the small entry wound in the right forehead of JFK, it was seen and noted by the mortician with no doubt about it. He didn't point out the mortician's wax on the body, he pointed out the wound itself and estimated the size at a quarter inch. They put on the wax after that.
>
Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

>>> "The HSCA report, in volume 7, stated that all of the Dallas doctors had to be wrong about the exit wound they recalled in the back of JFK?s head, since all of the autopsy witnesses the HSCA had interviewed said the wounds they observed matched the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact. The release of the interview reports in 1993 revealed that the HSCA had lied about what those witnesses had said."

>>
>>>
>>
>>> From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Author: Douglas Horne
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Yet we have the strange phenomenon that when several of the large hole BOH Parkland doctor witnesses actually viewed JFK's autopsy photos in the circa 1988PBS NOVA special, they came out claiming it was consistent with their observations/memories. Now this was a "mere" 25 years after the assassination so "no doubt" they were simply intimidated by the Feds into this confession.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, even if you buy into the above notion, I don't for the life of me understand why they claimed it was really "consistent" with what they described as having seen before, when everyone watching the earlier part of the program could see very clearly it was NOT. It seems to me that even if the "guiding hand" of Big Brother were involved in all this, a much better story would be to have them saying something like "I thought I remembered seeing a large hole back there, but after viewing the autopsy evidence I can see that I must have been wrong about that." Or maybe have them advance some form of LN theory to reconcile the difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> To me it seems more like they were rather embarrased to realize they had gotten it so wrong and now tried---rather weakly---to save face by claiming that's what they'd really seen in the first place. All I know is that a script that has them describe and illustrate a scenario very supportive a large hole in the BOH or upper right head, and then come out trying to claim they'd seen something consistent with the autopsy evidence all along, is a very STRANGE cover-up script!
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> In finding over 40 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH, they
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> corroborate each other and also show the fakery in the 2 photos. When you
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> hear their descriptions, they seem different, but they're saying the
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> same thing; a massive wound in the BOH, not a little pinhole for a bullet.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> We already have an entry wound at the right forehead just in the hairline.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Come again on where you have documented this "entry" wound at the right forehead just in the hairline? Do have some kind of "undoctored" autopsy photo or X-ray that clearly shows it? If so, who vetted that?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> BT
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It was seen by Tom Robinson, who got very close to the body during preparation for burial. It is mentioned in his testimony for the ARRB. As to the autopsy photo that might have shown it before they put a little wax on it, go here:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>> look at Groden's Superior Right Profile photo. You can see where the wax was placed to cover the small hole estimated at .25 inches in diameter.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. I see it. ...And I also just saw Cinque's Oswald-in-the-doorway too! That certainly does it for me. There WAS a conspiracty in the JFK case! (...or not.)
>>
> I don't think you had a witness say that there was Oswald definitely in the doorway, or there wouldn't be a controversy.

Somebody just saying that wouldn't resolve anything.
As it happens, there is photographic evidence of who was in the doorway.

[mainframetech]

Yet who was in the doorway became a point of argument. If you choose to
argue with Tom Robinson's statements, go ahead. The mark is there on an
autopsy photo at the right place, and Robinson's statement is in the ARRB
testimony pointed to by the Ferrell site under 'medical evidence'. You
will also find HIS drawing of the 'large hole' in the BOH that he
described as 'the size of an orange'. Too many people saw the hole, not
one or two. And any that may have said they were mistaken after seeing
photos were no doubt fooled as they were supposed to be by the fakes.

As some have suggested, the first statements from witnesses are
generally more true than later statements.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Not to anybody with a lick of sense.

/sandy