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