Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

For David Von Pein

50 views
Skip to first unread message

John Canal

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 4:29:52 PM7/11/11
to
Hi David,

Long time no locked horns.

:-)

Side note to Marsh...please wait and give DVP a chance to reply before you jump
in and mangle this thread. Thanks.

Look, I know how busy you are and that my posts are too long and wordy, but just
this once I'd apprecaite it if you'd read what I have to say...entirely.
Thanks...I really do appreciate that.

And, probably to your surprise, I don't want to argue with you this time. I just
want to ask you a "non-leading" question and say thanks. Hmmm, what comes first?
Okay, it's the question.

I've got to be careful as what I most recall from our exchanges is that you
detest misspellings and typos, etc.

Now, I realize (not so much to my surprise, but probably to the surprise of
many...are you there Mitch, .john et al.?) that you couldn't tell a photo of the
engine of a Dodge Challenger (BTW, I owned one the first year they came
out...1970) from one of the "Missile wound in the posterior skull [that'd be
JFK's] with the scalp reflected" [F8].........and don't much care that you
can't........but I still want to ask you the following question.

If, after you open the link [thank you if you'll be so courteous to do that] and
look at the image (AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IT IS...IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
YOU THINK IT'S A PICTURE OF A GOOSE), I'd like to know if you can see (near
where the red line from the ruler leads to..also in the blow-up) what appears to
be a somewhat circular shaped feature/defect/whatever??

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg

Okay, thanks on that...I think.

Next I want to thank you...really....sincerely....honestly....no-shit.

It's taken me 11 years of research to resolve (of course, no one else here will
agree that I have..but that's to be expected and not a big deal for me what they
[respectfully, and you?] think) two glaring (there are others but these two are
the most important) conflicts in the record on the medical evidence........and I
owe to you for pointing something out to me that eventually led to me finding
the solution/s.

Those conflicts, BTW, are the ones Barb J. challenged me to explain some 11
years ago.

The first one is how on God's green earth could the three autopsy pathologists,
and several others assisting them, supposedly mis-identify [BY SOME FOUR INCHES)
the location of the wound where the fatal bullet entered the back of JFK's head?

The second one is how the Hell could some 25, mostly medically trained witnesses
supposedly be mistaken about seeing a wound (not to mention that 11 said they
saw cerebellum), perhaps the size of a small orange, in the right rear of JFK's
head?

Before I get to what you said that put me on the right course to resolving these
conflicts, let me say something else.

Even though, when we were yelling at one another you used to post--ad nauseam I
might add--links to the BOH photo and the lateral X-ray as the best evidence the
entry was in the cowlick and there was no larger opening in the right-rear BOH,
I discounted during my aforementioned quest the x-ray as any serious
evidence....and I'll tell you why. I wouldn't mind if you skip over the reasons
immediately below to what I have to say the BOH photo if you're getting bored.

In any case, first, Boswell aditted he "may have" (Mitch, I said "may have") put
back pieces of rear skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken....and I
could not find, for the life of me, after going through the complete lists of
photos and X-rays any of those that Boswell could have been referring to except
the lateral and/or AP X-rays. IMO, this alone diminishes the evidentiary value
of the X-rays.

Second, the three highly credentialed forensic experts commissioned by the ARRB
to re-examine the photos and X-rays found no evidence whatsoever of any entry in
the cowlick on the X-rays....conflicting with what Fisher, Baden et al. said.

And third, one of the HSCA's own forensic pathologists, whom I have befriended,
BTW, stated on the record there was evidence of a low entry.

There are several (scratch "several" and replace it with "many")others but this
is getting too long already so I'll not include them.

Okay, let's set aside the X-rays and talk about the BOH photo/s (actually the
ones of the back wound that show the entry in the cowlick and undamaged BOH are
also relative to this explanation).

Here's what you said (actually what you asked me) that put me on the right track
after I was not seeing, for about seven or eight years, the "forest for the
trees" (like everyone else over the past four decades who was trying to resolve
these issues):

You asked me (paraphrasing now) to explain why the entry in the BOH photo was
several (5-6?) inches above JFK's hairline when one's EOP is typically only
about 2-2.5 inches above one's hairline?

I doubt you'll recall, but unlike me, I didn't respond for quite a
while....because I was taken aback by your great question...which is one a whole
lot of others trying to resolve these conflicts should have been asking and/or
addressing literally decades ago. I was actually disappointed in myself that I
didn't see, for myself, the problem with the arguments of the low-entry
advocates that you were so observant about and happy to point out.

So, based on your great question, I needed to figure out how the heck a bullet
hole only 2-3 inches above his hairline (near his EOP) could show up 5-6 inches
above it in the photos. There was only one exlanation...and it seemed far
out...even to me.

They stretched the scalp. That was the only possible/feasible explanation...that
is if the entry in the skull was near the EOP....and, while let's not argue
about it, F8 and a ton of other evidence proves that the bullet did in fact
enter near the EOP.

Then, after re-reading the testimony, one ceratin word the autopsists used
seemed unusual and jumped out at me....it was "undermined".

Research (the internet is wonderful, isn't it?) revealed that, in layperson's
terms, "undermining" dramatically increases the "stretchability" of the scalp.
The process is used in the hair restoration business and by morticians.

I was happy when several local morticians, some who I visited and interviewed in
person and who were familiar with the process of "undermining", agreed
wholeheartedly that JFKs rear scalp could have been stretched three or so
inches.

Anyway, what happened on 11-22-63 at Bethesda, and probably by now you're tired
of rolling your eyes, is that they needed to stretch the rear scalp to cover the
large top/right/front area where the scalp and bone had been blown out from...IN
PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL...and that's exactly what they did.

There was nothing sinister about this....it wasn't part of any cover-up....a
tiny bit more on that thought later.

That's why you can see a white glob down near his hairline...the top layers
(with the hair follicles) were stretched so thin they were slightly torn
allowing a piece of the muscle/tissue below the stretched top layers (there are
five total layers to the scalp) to exude through.

Now, also in preparation for an open casket funeral, they had to suture closed a
right rear scalp tear that certainly did exist.......previously (in Dealey
Plaza, at PH, and at Bethesda when the body first arrived).

Note that brain had exuded through, and cerebellum was seen by the
aforementioned witnesses through, not only that scalp tear, but also through an
opening in between the bones in that area (the ones there were disloged by the
bullet entering near the EOP).

The bottom line is that the photos showing the BOH scalp were taken, not even
near to the time when the body was first received, but after midnight...and,
more importantly, after the autopsists and morticians had repaired the BOH
scalp.

Someone (IOM, Burkley, clearly a CT until he died) decided that, if any were
taken, the photos of the BOH when the body was first received (showing an
"exit-like" BOH wound), that as much as even "suggested" there might have been a
frontal shot, IN ORDER TO NOT ALARM THE NATION, NOT BE KEPT IN THE RECORD, AND
THE ONES INNOCENTLY TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT TO SHOW HOW THE REAR OF HIS
HEAD WAS SUCCESSFULLY REPAIRED IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL,
SUBSTITUTED [FOR THEM] IN THE RECORD.

I'm not going to bother telling you--or anyone else here--all the evidence (some
of that includes two in-person interviews with the autopsy photographerand his
two signed statements) I've put together that proves this scenario but it's just
a matter of time before all this comes out and you'll know it.

BTW, what mostly pisses me off about all this is that, while Fisher should have
known, Baden undoubtedly knew all along the BOH photos were taken late and did
not reveal that fact to the "BOH wound" and "cerebellum" eyewitnesses when he
asked them to think again about what they saw. Those photos caused several
witnesses to recant what they earlier said.

In any case, I want to thank you for asking me that great question about the
distance of the entry relative to his hairline....that finally put me on the
right track to resolving this.

John Canal


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

bobr

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 8:24:17 PM7/11/11
to

I think you are being pre-mature. I do not think you have the F8 picture
oriented correctly. The ruler is on the right side of the head. The body
is face up on the table and the camera is below the body looking up and
the light is on the ceiling and is therefore projecting down. The circular
artifact you are pointing to is a bullet strike but it is to the right
side of the head.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 10:23:15 PM7/11/11
to
On 7/11/2011 4:29 PM, John Canal wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Long time no locked horns.
>
> :-)
>
> Side note to Marsh...please wait and give DVP a chance to reply before you jump
> in and mangle this thread. Thanks.
>

Mangle, mangle.

> Look, I know how busy you are and that my posts are too long and wordy, but just
> this once I'd apprecaite it if you'd read what I have to say...entirely.
> Thanks...I really do appreciate that.
>
> And, probably to your surprise, I don't want to argue with you this time. I just
> want to ask you a "non-leading" question and say thanks. Hmmm, what comes first?
> Okay, it's the question.
>
> I've got to be careful as what I most recall from our exchanges is that you
> detest misspellings and typos, etc.
>
> Now, I realize (not so much to my surprise, but probably to the surprise of
> many...are you there Mitch, .john et al.?) that you couldn't tell a photo of the
> engine of a Dodge Challenger (BTW, I owned one the first year they came
> out...1970) from one of the "Missile wound in the posterior skull [that'd be
> JFK's] with the scalp reflected" [F8].........and don't much care that you
> can't........but I still want to ask you the following question.
>

I love it when you WC defenders fight with each other so I won't try to
take sides or break you up. It just confirms that personal attacks are
your only available tactic when you don't have evidence.

> If, after you open the link [thank you if you'll be so courteous to do that] and
> look at the image (AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IT IS...IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
> YOU THINK IT'S A PICTURE OF A GOOSE), I'd like to know if you can see (near
> where the red line from the ruler leads to..also in the blow-up) what appears to
> be a somewhat circular shaped feature/defect/whatever??
>

How can it be a circular entrance hole when Humes said the only thing
left on the skull was a SEMI-Circular defect?


> http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
>
> Okay, thanks on that...I think.
>
> Next I want to thank you...really....sincerely....honestly....no-shit.
>
> It's taken me 11 years of research to resolve (of course, no one else here will
> agree that I have..but that's to be expected and not a big deal for me what they
> [respectfully, and you?] think) two glaring (there are others but these two are
> the most important) conflicts in the record on the medical evidence........and I
> owe to you for pointing something out to me that eventually led to me finding
> the solution/s.
>
> Those conflicts, BTW, are the ones Barb J. challenged me to explain some 11
> years ago.
>
> The first one is how on God's green earth could the three autopsy pathologists,
> and several others assisting them, supposedly mis-identify [BY SOME FOUR INCHES)
> the location of the wound where the fatal bullet entered the back of JFK's head?
>

How could the three autopsy doctors miss seeing the semi-circular defect
on the frontal bone?

> The second one is how the Hell could some 25, mostly medically trained witnesses
> supposedly be mistaken about seeing a wound (not to mention that 11 said they
> saw cerebellum), perhaps the size of a small orange, in the right rear of JFK's
> head?
>

Because they didn't. And they recanted the cerebellum.

> Before I get to what you said that put me on the right course to resolving these
> conflicts, let me say something else.
>
> Even though, when we were yelling at one another you used to post--ad nauseam I
> might add--links to the BOH photo and the lateral X-ray as the best evidence the
> entry was in the cowlick and there was no larger opening in the right-rear BOH,
> I discounted during my aforementioned quest the x-ray as any serious
> evidence....and I'll tell you why. I wouldn't mind if you skip over the reasons
> immediately below to what I have to say the BOH photo if you're getting bored.
>
> In any case, first, Boswell aditted he "may have" (Mitch, I said "may have") put
> back pieces of rear skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken....and I
> could not find, for the life of me, after going through the complete lists of
> photos and X-rays any of those that Boswell could have been referring to except
> the lateral and/or AP X-rays. IMO, this alone diminishes the evidentiary value
> of the X-rays.
>
> Second, the three highly credentialed forensic experts commissioned by the ARRB
> to re-examine the photos and X-rays found no evidence whatsoever of any entry in
> the cowlick on the X-rays....conflicting with what Fisher, Baden et al. said.
>

They all voted on it.

> And third, one of the HSCA's own forensic pathologists, whom I have befriended,
> BTW, stated on the record there was evidence of a low entry.
>

You have offered no proof of that statement.

> There are several (scratch "several" and replace it with "many")others but this
> is getting too long already so I'll not include them.
>
> Okay, let's set aside the X-rays and talk about the BOH photo/s (actually the
> ones of the back wound that show the entry in the cowlick and undamaged BOH are
> also relative to this explanation).
>
> Here's what you said (actually what you asked me) that put me on the right track
> after I was not seeing, for about seven or eight years, the "forest for the
> trees" (like everyone else over the past four decades who was trying to resolve
> these issues):
>
> You asked me (paraphrasing now) to explain why the entry in the BOH photo was
> several (5-6?) inches above JFK's hairline when one's EOP is typically only
> about 2-2.5 inches above one's hairline?
>
> I doubt you'll recall, but unlike me, I didn't respond for quite a
> while....because I was taken aback by your great question...which is one a whole
> lot of others trying to resolve these conflicts should have been asking and/or
> addressing literally decades ago. I was actually disappointed in myself that I
> didn't see, for myself, the problem with the arguments of the low-entry
> advocates that you were so observant about and happy to point out.
>
> So, based on your great question, I needed to figure out how the heck a bullet
> hole only 2-3 inches above his hairline (near his EOP) could show up 5-6 inches
> above it in the photos. There was only one exlanation...and it seemed far
> out...even to me.
>
> They stretched the scalp. That was the only possible/feasible explanation...that

Impossible.

> is if the entry in the skull was near the EOP....and, while let's not argue
> about it, F8 and a ton of other evidence proves that the bullet did in fact
> enter near the EOP.
>
> Then, after re-reading the testimony, one ceratin word the autopsists used
> seemed unusual and jumped out at me....it was "undermined".
>
> Research (the internet is wonderful, isn't it?) revealed that, in layperson's
> terms, "undermining" dramatically increases the "stretchability" of the scalp.

Not 4 inches. Never.

> The process is used in the hair restoration business and by morticians.
>
> I was happy when several local morticians, some who I visited and interviewed in
> person and who were familiar with the process of "undermining", agreed
> wholeheartedly that JFKs rear scalp could have been stretched three or so
> inches.
>

No.

> Anyway, what happened on 11-22-63 at Bethesda, and probably by now you're tired
> of rolling your eyes, is that they needed to stretch the rear scalp to cover the
> large top/right/front area where the scalp and bone had been blown out from...IN
> PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL...and that's exactly what they did.
>
> There was nothing sinister about this....it wasn't part of any cover-up....a
> tiny bit more on that thought later.
>
> That's why you can see a white glob down near his hairline...the top layers
> (with the hair follicles) were stretched so thin they were slightly torn
> allowing a piece of the muscle/tissue below the stretched top layers (there are
> five total layers to the scalp) to exude through.
>

Not exude. That dab of fat tissue, not cerebellum, was ON TOP of the
hair, as the HSCA photographic panel determined. Guess again.

> Now, also in preparation for an open casket funeral, they had to suture closed a
> right rear scalp tear that certainly did exist.......previously (in Dealey
> Plaza, at PH, and at Bethesda when the body first arrived).
>

Show me the sutures.

> Note that brain had exuded through, and cerebellum was seen by the
> aforementioned witnesses through, not only that scalp tear, but also through an
> opening in between the bones in that area (the ones there were disloged by the
> bullet entering near the EOP).
>

No.

> The bottom line is that the photos showing the BOH scalp were taken, not even
> near to the time when the body was first received, but after midnight...and,
> more importantly, after the autopsists and morticians had repaired the BOH
> scalp.
>

Silly.

> Someone (IOM, Burkley, clearly a CT until he died) decided that, if any were
> taken, the photos of the BOH when the body was first received (showing an
> "exit-like" BOH wound), that as much as even "suggested" there might have been a
> frontal shot, IN ORDER TO NOT ALARM THE NATION, NOT BE KEPT IN THE RECORD, AND
> THE ONES INNOCENTLY TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT TO SHOW HOW THE REAR OF HIS
> HEAD WAS SUCCESSFULLY REPAIRED IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL,
> SUBSTITUTED [FOR THEM] IN THE RECORD.
>

So you are accusing Humes of masterminding a cover-up of the conspiracy?

John Canal

unread,
Jul 11, 2011, 10:27:55 PM7/11/11
to
[...]

>I think you are being pre-mature. I do not think you have the F8 picture
>oriented correctly. The ruler is on the right side of the head. The body
>is face up on the table and the camera is below the body looking up and
>the light is on the ceiling and is therefore projecting down. The circular
>artifact you are pointing to is a bullet strike but it is to the right
>side of the head.

That's your pinion and you're entitled to it just like I am to mine.

That said, naturally, I'm not going to change your mind on this, but, if
I'm not mistaken, there's only one individual in decades who's seen the
"originals" who "doesn't" orientate F8 the way I do...and that's my
friend, David Mantik. But, to be fair to him, it's important to note that
he spent almost all of his time there examining the X-rays...and why is
that?....it's because he reads X-rays for a living...and he help prove
that at least the AP film was tampered with.

You're wrong about this and someday you'll figure that out...for now,
though, let's just agree to disagree.

Even Marsh orientates it correctly.

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

bobr

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 7:43:14 AM7/12/11
to

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 7:43:34 AM7/12/11
to

JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "I'd like to know if you can see (near where the red line from the ruler leads to...also in the blow-up) what appears to be a somewhat circular shaped feature/defect/whatever?? http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi, John.

To answer your question -- Yes, of course. I do, indeed, see a
circular shape there.


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "Here's what you said (actually what you asked me) that put me on the right track after I was not seeing, for about seven or eight years, the "forest for the trees" (like everyone else over the past four decades who was trying to resolve these issues): You asked me (paraphrasing now) to explain why the entry in the BOH photo was several (5-6?) inches above JFK's hairline when one's EOP is typically only about 2-2.5 inches above one's hairline? I doubt you'll recall, but unlike me, I didn't respond for quite a while....because I was taken aback by your great question...which is one a whole lot of others trying to resolve these conflicts should have been asking and/or addressing literally decades ago. I was actually disappointed in myself that I didn't see, for myself, the problem with the arguments of the low-entry advocates that you were so observant about and happy to point out." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above question that you said I asked you some years ago is one
that I cannot seem to find in my multi-part "BOH" series that I have
archived on one of my websites. If you could locate and post the
original question that I asked, I'd very much like to see it.

However, that question does, indeed, sound very familiar and similar
to something I mentioned in one of our discussions, which I did locate
in Part 6 of our "BOH" series on April 1, 2009. Here's what I said at
that time:

"Amazingly, John Canal must actually think that in some crazy
and magical way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp
(which John insists is taking place to the scalp in the [autopsy]
picture [showing the red spot on the back of JFK's head]) somehow
resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH THE
COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
head). David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably
couldn't pull off that incredible feat of having an EOP entry hole
climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head."
-- DVP

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/boh-part-6.html


JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "What happened on 11-22-63 at Bethesda...is that they needed to stretch the rear scalp to cover the large top/right/front area where the scalp and bone had been blown out from...IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL...and that's exactly what they did. There was nothing sinister about this....it wasn't part of any cover-up." <<<

So you think they would have wanted to stretch President Kennedy's
scalp to the Nth degree, instead of using some kind of plaster and/or
fake hair/scalp that morticians undoubtedly utilize all the time to
"repair" damage to a dead person's head? Correct?

But, then too, it seems to me that that kind of extended stretching of
the scalp would have produced a final result of having JFK appearing
to have a cowlick at the very TIP-TOP part of his head. Wouldn't that
have looked much sillier than having some kind of fake hair and scalp
being put over the large wound in the skull?

I'm not sure exactly what the head would have looked like to an
observer during an open-casket funeral under the "stretched scalp"
conditions that you describe, John, but in my mind, I think JFK would
have looked awfully goofy with a "cowlick" being stretched way up to
the top-right-front part of his head.

Plus: You've got a serious problem with your theory from this
additional point-of-view:

After the initial scare of "World War 3" had died down (which is a
"scare" that many people believe was the cause for some degree of
cover-up regarding the evidence in the JFK case), why in the world
wouldn't the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) have
eventually COME CLEAN with the whole truth concerning this "stretched
scalp" business that you think occurred at Bethesda?

Humes, Boswell, and Finck all testified at various times in front of
the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the ARRB (and Finck also
testified at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969), and in all of that
testimony--which is testimony that occurred well AFTER anyone would
have been scared to death about bombs being dropped on their homes by
the Soviet Union--there isn't a single thing mentioned by ANY of those
three autopsy surgeons about the scalp being stretched (particularly
Dr. Humes, who we know assisted Tom Robinson in preparing JFK's body
following completion of the autopsy).

So, John, were those THREE autopsy physicians so amazingly UNIFIED in
their desire to keep silent about the stretched scalp that they were
all willing to take such a secret to their graves?

Or do you even think Drs. Boswell and Finck knew about the stretching
of JFK's scalp at all?

Let me also add these tidbits for additional consideration:

On March 12, 1978, the HSCA tape recorded an interview with Dr. Pierre
Finck. And during that interview, Dr. Baden of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel talks about how the "cowlick" location of the bullet
entry wound in JFK's head "lays right over" the entry hole in
Kennedy's skull as seen on an X-ray of the President's head [the
interview can be heard below].

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-finck.html

Now, after being confronted by Dr. Baden about these discrepancies
concerning the location of the entry wound, wouldn't you think that
Dr. Finck would have spoken up at that point and explained to Baden
and company about the fact that the scalp had been stretched? Or, to
ask again, are you of the opinion that Dr. Finck was completely
ignorant of the "stretching" procedure? He never even learned about it
from Humes? Was he kept completely in the dark about this so-called
"stretching" of the scalp?

And why was Dr. Humes so willing to stay quiet about the stretching--
even when he was, in effect, being attacked and skewered when he
testified in front of both the HSCA and the ARRB?

And then there are the Parkland witnesses:

You're claiming, John, that there was only a small "tear" in the right-
rear (occipital) portion of JFK's scalp, which is a tear that you say
was stitched up before the red-spot picture was taken, and (amazingly)
not a HINT of this "stitching" is evident in the photograph.

But I beg to differ with you on this point, because according to the
Parkland witnesses, there was actually a HUGE HOLE in the right-rear
of Kennedy's head when he was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital.
It wasn't just a small "tear", according to the vast majority of
Parkland witnesses.

I, of course, firmly believe that the Parkland witnesses (and, yes,
some of the Bethesda witnesses too) were wrong. They did not and could
not have seen a great-big hole in the right-rear of JFK's head on
November 22nd, because the SCALP of the President is completely INTACT
in the photographs. And the X-rays fully corroborate the photos as
well. There was NO LARGE DEFICIT at the right-rear of President
Kennedy's head.

And, in my view, those photos and X-rays (in tandem) are, indeed, by
far the best evidence when it comes to trying to resolve this issue
concerning the President's head wounds.

And let me also ask you this final question, John:

If JFK's scalp is being stretched by up to four inches, then why
doesn't Kennedy's head (on the whole) look distorted in some manner in
this "red spot" BOH picture below?:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPuIiynTRkI/AAAAAAAAHwI/zzbCDTLLYlg/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

I.E.:

Via your "stretched scalp" theory, wouldn't it stand to reason that
the parts of President Kennedy's head that AREN'T being stretched
would look sort of out of place when compared to just the portion of
his scalp which is being seriously manipulated by up to four whole
inches in that picture?

But when I look at that red-spot picture, it looks to me as though
every part of JFK's head is in proper harmony (and "in-sync") with the
other portions of his head. The cowlick is where it should be. The
right ear is where it should be, etc.

And, btw, John, where IS the actual "cowlick" area of the President's
head in that picture via your stretched-scalp theory? Did the cowlick
just VANISH off of his head when that photo was snapped? Because, per
your theory, the bullet hole (the red spot) is really at EOP level. So
this must mean that the cowlick is some four inches HIGHER than the
red spot in the picture. But where is the cowlick in the picture? Is
the cowlick just not visible at all in the photo, via your
interpretation of things?

Anyway, that's just some more food for additional BOH thought.

Thanks, John.

Complete "BOH" series:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 4:03:06 PM7/12/11
to
On 7/12/2011 7:43 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN CANAL SAID:
>

>>>> "I'd like to know if you can see (near where the red line from the
ruler leads to...also in the blow-up) what appears to be a somewhat
circular shaped feature/defect/whatever??
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg<<<

>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Hi, John.
>
> To answer your question -- Yes, of course. I do, indeed, see a
> circular shape there.
>

I see several circular shapes. Does that mean they are all bullet holes? I
remind you also that Humes said there was not a complete circle, only a
semi-circle left.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 4:04:03 PM7/12/11
to
On 7/12/2011 7:43 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN CANAL SAID:
>

You can tell right away that someone has a kooky theory when he makes up
impossible things to make it work.

> But, then too, it seems to me that that kind of extended stretching of
> the scalp would have produced a final result of having JFK appearing
> to have a cowlick at the very TIP-TOP part of his head. Wouldn't that
> have looked much sillier than having some kind of fake hair and scalp
> being put over the large wound in the skull?
>
> I'm not sure exactly what the head would have looked like to an
> observer during an open-casket funeral under the "stretched scalp"
> conditions that you describe, John, but in my mind, I think JFK would
> have looked awfully goofy with a "cowlick" being stretched way up to
> the top-right-front part of his head.
>
> Plus: You've got a serious problem with your theory from this
> additional point-of-view:
>
> After the initial scare of "World War 3" had died down (which is a
> "scare" that many people believe was the cause for some degree of
> cover-up regarding the evidence in the JFK case), why in the world
> wouldn't the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) have
> eventually COME CLEAN with the whole truth concerning this "stretched
> scalp" business that you think occurred at Bethesda?
>

Because they were professional liars and they were under military orders
to keep silent.

> Humes, Boswell, and Finck all testified at various times in front of
> the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the ARRB (and Finck also
> testified at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969), and in all of that
> testimony--which is testimony that occurred well AFTER anyone would

And they always lied.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 4:10:45 PM7/12/11
to
In article <9a78551c-150c-477d...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
>>>> "I'd like to know if you can see (near where the red line from the rule=
>r leads to...also in the blow-up) what appears to be a somewhat circular sh=
>aped feature/defect/whatever?? http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senh=

>anced.jpg <<<
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>Hi, John.
>
>To answer your question -- Yes, of course. I do, indeed, see a
>circular shape there.

David,

Thanks. Out of all the researchers that I've argued with, you're the most
honest.

>JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
>>>> "Here's what you said (actually what you asked me) that put me on the r=
>ight track after I was not seeing, for about seven or eight years, the "for=
>est for the trees" (like everyone else over the past four decades who was t=
>rying to resolve these issues): You asked me (paraphrasing now) to explain =
>why the entry in the BOH photo was several (5-6?) inches above JFK's hairli=
>ne when one's EOP is typically only about 2-2.5 inches above one's hairline=
>? I doubt you'll recall, but unlike me, I didn't respond for quite a while.=
>...because I was taken aback by your great question...which is one a whole =
>lot of others trying to resolve these conflicts should have been asking and=
>/or addressing literally decades ago. I was actually disappointed in myself=
> that I didn't see, for myself, the problem with the arguments of the low-e=
>ntry advocates that you were so observant about and happy to point out." <<=


><
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>The above question that you said I asked you some years ago is one
>that I cannot seem to find in my multi-part "BOH" series that I have
>archived on one of my websites. If you could locate and post the
>original question that I asked, I'd very much like to see it.

I'm sure I have it, because I have two full folders containing hard copies
of our discussions. Trust me, you were the first one that I know of to
mention that near-EOP entry theorists had a problem because the entry in
the BOH photos was too high above the hairline. You probably couldn't find
it because I paraphrased what you asked...but the key word was "hairline".
I'm sure of it...that question--yours-- marked a turning point in a long
"quest" for me...I won't forget it. Actually it was a wake up call for me
because I realized I wasn't half as observant as I thought I was or else I
would have noticed the hairline problem before you. I was humbled.

>However, that question does, indeed, sound very familiar and similar
>to something I mentioned in one of our discussions, which I did locate
>in Part 6 of our "BOH" series on April 1, 2009. Here's what I said at
>that time:
>
> "Amazingly, John Canal must actually think that in some crazy
>and magical way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp
>(which John insists is taking place to the scalp in the [autopsy]
>picture [showing the red spot on the back of JFK's head]) somehow
>resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH THE
>COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's
>head). David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably
>couldn't pull off that incredible feat of having an EOP entry hole
>climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though
>that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head."
>-- DVP

Yes, you said that AFTER I finally offered the stretched scalp as an
explanation/answer for/to your initial question.

>>>> "What happened on 11-22-63 at Bethesda...is that they needed to stretch=
> the rear scalp to cover the large top/right/front area where the scalp and=
> bone had been blown out from...IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL..=
>.and that's exactly what they did. There was nothing sinister about this...=


>.it wasn't part of any cover-up." <<<
>
>So you think they would have wanted to stretch President Kennedy's
>scalp to the Nth degree, instead of using some kind of plaster and/or
>fake hair/scalp that morticians undoubtedly utilize all the time to
>"repair" damage to a dead person's head? Correct?

They did use plaster of paris covered with rubber to fill the
cranium...then they sutured the stretched scalp to the rubber [covering
the plaster].

As far as using a wig or fake hair, I don't know why they didn't but none
of the morticians said they did....they all (both the morticians, Humes,
and Boswell) did say the stretched the scalp successfully...with H &B
saying the "undermined" the scalp...which is a whole new ball game when it
comes to stretching the scalp goes.

>But, then too, it seems to me that that kind of extended stretching of
>the scalp would have produced a final result of having JFK appearing
>to have a cowlick at the very TIP-TOP part of his head. Wouldn't that
>have looked much sillier than having some kind of fake hair and scalp
>being put over the large wound in the skull?

I can't answer that. What's important to note is that, while the
morticians and autopsists said they "successfully" covered the large
top/right/front hole with his own strethced [undermined] hair, evidently
Jackie and/or RFK decided he still didn't look presentable enough for an
open casket funeral.

>I'm not sure exactly what the head would have looked like to an
>observer during an open-casket funeral under the "stretched scalp"
>conditions that you describe, John, but in my mind, I think JFK would
>have looked awfully goofy with a "cowlick" being stretched way up to
>the top-right-front part of his head.

Evidently you're correct...the open casket funeral idea was nixed.

That said, take a look at this link. Please notice that there is hair [his
own] available to cover the large top/right/front area....that hair came
from the undamaged (other than a tear which was easily sutured closed)
scalp from the rearmost margin of the aforementioned blown out area all
the way back to his hairline. In short, there was a lot of undamaged scalp
that they had available to undermine and stretch.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1888/bohscalprepair.jpg

Note that Dr. Karnei sent me a letter after I sent him my "scalp
stretching" theory and he said it was...well shit, read for yourself what
he said...open the link. Thanks.

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/807/karneinotetome.jpg

>Plus: You've got a serious problem with your theory from this
>additional point-of-view:
>
>After the initial scare of "World War 3" had died down (which is a
>"scare" that many people believe was the cause for some degree of
>cover-up regarding the evidence in the JFK case), why in the world
>wouldn't the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) have
>eventually COME CLEAN with the whole truth concerning this "stretched
>scalp" business that you think occurred at Bethesda?

Honestly, that is another excellent question and it befuddles me why they
didn't tell all....especially when they were accused of grossly
mislocating the entry. I sent also Boswell my scalp stretching article and
there was no response.

I'm thinking that when they reviewed the originals in 1966 and again the
next year they simply rubber-stamped the authentication and didn't notice
that the entry had been stretched way above his hairline. Then it wasn't
until the HSCA convened when they saw those photos again...and that was a
decade and a half later when their memories of what happened must have
been fading. Plus they were only given 48 hours notification that they
needed to appear and didn't have a chance to look at the photos before
they testified [before the HSCA].

They were on the defensive and confused, not being able to explain how the
entry "moved" up to the cowlick. In fact Humes was so confused he sid he
thought the white blob near the hairline might be the hairline....and that
the entry was BELOW the EOP. Baden et al. jumped all over him on that.

It got worse...when HB&F testified before the ARRB none of them would
admit the red splotch was the entry...because it was simply too high above
the hairline. They must not have remembered stretching the scalp...or (and
I agree this seems unlikely) because they were sworn to secrecy on
11-22-63 they may have simply wiped some of the things they did out of
their minds.

But the bottom line is David that the entry was near the EOP...F8 shows it
to be there and there's a lot of other persuasive evidence (that I'm not
going to bore you with) that says it was. Heck even my friend, Dr. Joseph
Davis told them on the record there was evidence on the X-rays for a low
[Humes'] entry. He wrote me that if I opined in favor of Humes' entry he
would not opine against me.

I know you don't think much of Cyril Wecht, but he is a gracious person
and still a qualified forensic pathologist IMO.....anyway, he looked over
a good copy of F8 that I sent him and said the photo shows the entry was
where Humes put it. Evidently he didn't pay attention to F8 that much
during the HSCA. Further he said he was so sure he'd agree with Humes'
entry publicly.

>Humes, Boswell, and Finck all testified at various times in front of
>the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the ARRB (and Finck also
>testified at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969), and in all of that
>testimony--which is testimony that occurred well AFTER anyone would
>have been scared to death about bombs being dropped on their homes by
>the Soviet Union--there isn't a single thing mentioned by ANY of those
>three autopsy surgeons about the scalp being stretched (particularly
>Dr. Humes, who we know assisted Tom Robinson in preparing JFK's body
>following completion of the autopsy).

All good points. On the night of 11-22-63 [or technically early the next
AM], when they undermined and stretched the scalp there was that fear that
the Soviet Union had been involved.

Fisher is the one who started this mess reporting that the entry was
high....and he wrote that he didn't use F8 as evidence because it was out
of focus. I think--and this is speculation--that he wanted to report that
the entry was high because it seemed more consistent with a shot from six
floors up than one near the EOP. The reason I think he wanted to report
that high entry is that Garrison had requested the autopsy photos and
x-rays (he was denied access) and Fisher [and Ramsey Clark who had
publicly attacked Garrison) wanted to make sure the medical evidence
debunked any multi-gunman scenario that Garrison might propose.

Yes, it's wild but IMO possible...okay, barely.

Once Fisher, who was the God of forensic pathology in those days,
"overruled" HB&F on the entry, the Rockefeller and HSCA gangs who had
very, very close ties with Fisher, rubber stamped his conclusions rather
than endorse Humes'...and that was a no-brainer, IMO...because Humes was a
nobody.

>So, John, were those THREE autopsy physicians so amazingly UNIFIED in
>their desire to keep silent about the stretched scalp that they were
>all willing to take such a secret to their graves?

I think they simply weren't paying attention to the undesireable
ramifications of strethcing the scalp which was that they entry "moved"
[was stretched] from only 2 - 2.5 inches above his hairline (when the
bullet entered) to very roughly 5 - 6+ inches above it. IOW, when they
stretched the scalp all they were concerned with was covering the large
top/right/front hole.....again they paid little attention to the movement
of the entry.

That said, it must have dawned on them by the time the ARRB convened
because that's when they finally said they "undermined" the scalp...still
they didn't offer that as an explanation for why the entry was so high
above the hairline...instead they denied the red splotch was the entry. Go
fifure...I'd love to sit down with H&B and try to wake them up...but
that's impossible now.

There are a few individuals with impressive backgrounds trying to help me
get this scenario reported by the media...with the aspirations that
another re-examination of the medical evidence by a credible institution
would be called for and done.

>Or do you even think Drs. Boswell and Finck knew about the stretching
>of JFK's scalp at all?

I don't know about Finck...he was sort of an outsider being Army and
having his forensic training, but I'm sure H&B and Burkley knew about the
stretching...they testified, "We undermined the scalp..."

>Let me also add these tidbits for additional consideration:
>
>On March 12, 1978, the HSCA tape recorded an interview with Dr. Pierre
>Finck. And during that interview, Dr. Baden of the HSCA's Forensic
>Pathology Panel talks about how the "cowlick" location of the bullet
>entry wound in JFK's head "lays right over" the entry hole in
>Kennedy's skull as seen on an X-ray of the President's head [the
>interview can be heard below].
>

>http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-finck.htm=
>l

Okay.

>Now, after being confronted by Dr. Baden about these discrepancies
>concerning the location of the entry wound, wouldn't you think that
>Dr. Finck would have spoken up at that point and explained to Baden
>and company about the fact that the scalp had been stretched? Or, to
>ask again, are you of the opinion that Dr. Finck was completely
>ignorant of the "stretching" procedure? He never even learned about it
>from Humes? Was he kept completely in the dark about this so-called
>"stretching" of the scalp?

I just can't answer that. If I had been in H&B's shoes I would have told
Finck about the stretching...but, again, I don't think even H and B paid
attention to the undesireable consequences of stretching the scalp...maybe
it never did dawn on them that they caused the entry to move up.

Remember, the ARRB forensic experts refuted the notion there was a cowlick
entry on the x-rays. Also, we can't forget that the HSCA's own Dr. Seaman
(who I interviewed many years ago) reported that, while he saw no entry at
the low location, the existance of one in the cowlick wax not conclusive.
And that's after one of their team of forensic pathologists told them on
the record that there was evidence on the x-rays for Humes' low entry.

Note also that Sturdivan said he could see near the entry (on the
ultra-clear originals) the lateral sinus and cut edge of the
tentorium....and both anatomical features are obviously near the EOP.

Moreover the replication of F8 prove scientifically the entry was near the
EOP....not more than an inch above it...my own replication had it about 3
mm above the EOP.

>And why was Dr. Humes so willing to stay quiet about the stretching--
>even when he was, in effect, being attacked and skewered when he
>testified in front of both the HSCA and the ARRB?

He was transparent about it finally during the ARRB. I think it was never a big
deal because he didn't connect the stretching with the movement of the
entry....the stretching was all about covering the big hole and that was never
an issue. Instead he denied the red splotch was the entry...which is wrong.

I wish he could be reading this now.

>And then there are the Parkland witnesses:
>
>You're claiming, John, that there was only a small "tear" in the right-
>rear (occipital) portion of JFK's scalp, which is a tear that you say
>was stitched up before the red-spot picture was taken, and (amazingly)
>not a HINT of this "stitching" is evident in the photograph.

Yes, that's what I'm claiming. Notice in the photograph the line on the
scalp that extends from the entry towards the front and right...that's the
tear that was sewn up. Boswell finally told the ARRB there was a tear that
extended from the occipital all the way forward...although he said from
the "left" occipital (go figure on that gaff).

As to why you can't notice the stretching, even on the good color copies
there's an apparent difference in the texture of the hair between the
scalp above the EOP and below it....maybe the originals would show that
better.

Also that's the idea of "undermining"...your not supposed to notice that
the scalp was stretched.

Again, David, look at all the hair above the cowlick...ask yourself where
did that come from?...there was supposed to be little hair forward of the
cowlick..but the hair there in the photo is abundant and undamaged.

>But I beg to differ with you on this point, because according to the
>Parkland witnesses, there was actually a HUGE HOLE in the right-rear
>of Kennedy's head when he was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital.
>It wasn't just a small "tear", according to the vast majority of
>Parkland witnesses.

Yes, you make another good point. I believe the scalp in the occipital
(right-rear) was "flapped over"...not missing. In fact Perry stated,
"There was a flap there!" Going from memory, there were a few others who,
once they saw the photos, also suggested there was rear scalp flap.

Also, he was on his back and initially his heart was still pumping blood
out that rear opening, not to mention that the loose brain tissue would
have gravitated toward the opening...meaning the rear of the head would
have been covered with gore and I just don't think anyone got a close
enough look to tell whether the scalp was missing or just "flapped over".
That being said, they certainly got a close enough look to tell there was
a wound there. In fact Grossman said he and Clark Kemp lifted his head to
look at the BOH...both saw a wound.

Oh, I need to mention this before I forget. While Humes never mentioned
seeing cerebellum in the autopsy report, he cleverly injected into his WC
testimony four months later that thay had seen cerebellum when the body
arrived. So why the added info.? Probably because he had read (he
testified he did that) the reports of the PH docs who said they saw
cerebellum (meaning there had to be a low opening in the right rear of his
head)....and he didn't want to refute what they said...because he knew it
was true.

>I, of course, firmly believe that the Parkland witnesses (and, yes,
>some of the Bethesda witnesses too) were wrong. They did not and could
>not have seen a great-big hole in the right-rear of JFK's head on
>November 22nd, because the SCALP of the President is completely INTACT
>in the photographs. And the X-rays fully corroborate the photos as
>well. There was NO LARGE DEFICIT at the right-rear of President
>Kennedy's head.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that.

>And, in my view, those photos and X-rays (in tandem) are, indeed, by
>far the best evidence when it comes to trying to resolve this issue
>concerning the President's head wounds.

Yes, I know that's what you think....others do too.

>And let me also ask you this final question, John:
>
>If JFK's scalp is being stretched by up to four inches, then why
>doesn't Kennedy's head (on the whole) look distorted in some manner in
>this "red spot" BOH picture below?:

>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPuIiynTRkI/AAAAAAAAHwI/zzbCDTLLYlg/s=
>1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

>I.E.:
>
>Via your "stretched scalp" theory, wouldn't it stand to reason that
>the parts of President Kennedy's head that AREN'T being stretched
>would look sort of out of place when compared to just the portion of
>his scalp which is being seriously manipulated by up to four whole
>inches in that picture?
>
>But when I look at that red-spot picture, it looks to me as though
>every part of JFK's head is in proper harmony (and "in-sync") with the
>other portions of his head. The cowlick is where it should be. The
>right ear is where it should be, etc.

It looks in harmony to me too...but I don't see why stretching the scalp
would distort the shape of his skull...there was enough intact skull left
to maintain the shape.

>And, btw, John, where IS the actual "cowlick" area of the President's
>head in that picture via your stretched-scalp theory? Did the cowlick
>just VANISH off of his head when that photo was snapped? Because, per
>your theory, the bullet hole (the red spot) is really at EOP level. So
>this must mean that the cowlick is some four inches HIGHER than the
>red spot in the picture. But where is the cowlick in the picture? Is
>the cowlick just not visible at all in the photo, via your
>interpretation of things?

JFK's actual cowlick, if he did have one that was pronounced enough to
notice, would have to be 3-4 inches or so above the red splotch...I don't
see it...but these are copies and what effects the undermining and
stretching would have on his real cowlick is hard to say.

Last thoughts:

1. Why would they say they "undermined" the scalp (noting that process
dramatically increases the stretchability of the scalp), if they didn't
intend on stretching it a good amount?

2. How likely is it that the autopsists, several medically trained
individuals assisting them, FBI and SSvc agents, and numerous medically
trained doctors could all be wrong about what they said they saw?

3. If the scalp wasn't dramatically stretched, did the scalp beginning
just forward of the entry (see the photos) just move out of the way
(envokes images of the Red Sea parting for Moses) to allow the skull
beginning just forward of the entry [cowlick] to be blasted out into the
limo and/or DP? Note that Clint Hill said he saw a piece of JFK's skull in
the limo "with hair on it".

4. Was it just a coincidence that 12 pictures were added late (handwritten
additions) to the list of photos that Kellerman signed for...noting that
there are a total of 12 pictures in the entire inventory that show a rear
scalp....and why did the SSVC agent (Brouke [sp?] who received the
evidence that night say that he may have received some photos later after
the main group?

5. Why did the photographer leave the morgue after 3:30 AM (unless he was
helping with the clean-up) and put it in writing that, although he
couldn't be sure (it's been too long), he might have taken pictures after
midnight, which is when the morticians began their work?

6. Were Sibert and O'Neill hallucinating when they suggested the BOH
photos were doctored because they don't show the gore hanging out that
they saw?

and 7. Did Siebert, who told me quite frankly he doesn't want to talk
about this case anymore, hit the nail on the head when he said (in a taped
interview), "they must have taken these pictures after they repaired his
head"?

>Anyway, that's just some more food for additional BOH thought.
>
>Thanks, John.

Sorry I didn't proof read this for errors...my bad.

Thank you for your good questions and honesty.

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

bobr

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 5:04:33 PM7/12/11
to
On Jul 12, 6:43 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:


>
> But I beg to differ with you on this point, because according to the
> Parkland witnesses, there was actually a HUGE HOLE in the right-rear
> of Kennedy's head when he was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital.
> It wasn't just a small "tear", according to the vast majority of
> Parkland witnesses.
>
> I, of course, firmly believe that the Parkland witnesses (and, yes,
> some of the Bethesda witnesses too) were wrong. They did not and could
> not have seen a great-big hole in the right-rear of JFK's head on
> November 22nd, because the SCALP of the President is completely INTACT
> in the photographs. And the X-rays fully corroborate the photos as
> well. There was NO LARGE DEFICIT at the right-rear of President
> Kennedy's head.
>
> And, in my view, those photos and X-rays (in tandem) are, indeed, by
> far the best evidence when it comes to trying to resolve this issue
> concerning the President's head wounds.
>

You are not correct in your interpretation. The scalp of the president is
not completely INTACT.

Here is the testimony of Dr. Boswell about this particular wound.

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the
remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect
that.

The part of the skull that is completely detached from the remainder
of the skull but was attached to the scalp is circled in this photo
http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/6.jpg

Also as I have already shown you and you have admitted to, you can see
directly into the presidents skull(no scalp or skull) in this image
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3533/autopsycloseuplabeledpn.png

You have focused on one very small aspect of the case, the autopsy
photos, and you have jumped to some wrong conclusions based on them.


John Canal

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 5:08:29 PM7/12/11
to
In article <4e1b84f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 7/11/2011 4:29 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Long time no locked horns.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>Side note to Marsh...please wait and give DVP a chance to reply before you jump
>> in and mangle this thread. Thanks.
>>

You just couldn't pass up a chance to grab some attention, could you?

Thanks for not respecting my request that you wait for DVP to reply before
juming in with you silly comments.

>Mangle, mangle.

Good job...for you.

>>Look, I know how busy you are and that my posts are too long and wordy, but just
>> this once I'd apprecaite it if you'd read what I have to say...entirely.
>> Thanks...I really do appreciate that.
>>
>>And, probably to your surprise, I don't want to argue with you this time. I just
>>want to ask you a "non-leading" question and say thanks. Hmmm, what comes first?
>> Okay, it's the question.
>>
>> I've got to be careful as what I most recall from our exchanges is that you
>> detest misspellings and typos, etc.
>>
>> Now, I realize (not so much to my surprise, but probably to the surprise of
>>many...are you there Mitch, .john et al.?) that you couldn't tell a photo of the
>> engine of a Dodge Challenger (BTW, I owned one the first year they came
>> out...1970) from one of the "Missile wound in the posterior skull [that'd be
>> JFK's] with the scalp reflected" [F8].........and don't much care that you
>> can't........but I still want to ask you the following question.
>>
>
>I love it when you WC defenders fight with each other so I won't try to
>take sides or break you up. It just confirms that personal attacks are
>your only available tactic when you don't have evidence.

All LNs agree on the major aspects of the case...not like you CTs who are
all over the map.

What's your wacky theory...oh yes, there were no hits to the back of the
head...how's that working for you?

>>If, after you open the link [thank you if you'll be so courteous to do that] and
>>look at the image (AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IT IS...IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
>> YOU THINK IT'S A PICTURE OF A GOOSE), I'd like to know if you can see (near
>>where the red line from the ruler leads to..also in the blow-up) what appears to
>> be a somewhat circular shaped feature/defect/whatever??
>>
>
>How can it be a circular entrance hole when Humes said the only thing
>left on the skull was a SEMI-Circular defect?

Duh, his is a copy of a copy...it's not the original...in this copy it
looks "somewhat" circular...in the originals which are much clearer
evidently show it's semi-circular. I don't know, I haven't seen the
originals but both Zimmerman and Sturdivan told me I'm right about what I
say is the entry...Zimmerman even posted that.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg

>> Okay, thanks on that...I think.
>>
>> Next I want to thank you...really....sincerely....honestly....no-shit.
>>
>>It's taken me 11 years of research to resolve (of course, no one else here will
>>agree that I have..but that's to be expected and not a big deal for me what they
>>[respectfully, and you?] think) two glaring (there are others but these two are
>>the most important) conflicts in the record on the medical evidence........and I
>> owe to you for pointing something out to me that eventually led to me finding
>> the solution/s.
>>
>> Those conflicts, BTW, are the ones Barb J. challenged me to explain some 11
>> years ago.
>>
>>The first one is how on God's green earth could the three autopsy pathologists,
>>and several others assisting them, supposedly mis-identify [BY SOME FOUR INCHES)
>>the location of the wound where the fatal bullet entered the back of JFK's head?
>>
>
>How could the three autopsy doctors miss seeing the semi-circular defect
>on the frontal bone?

No one who saw the body ever mentioned there was a semi-circular defect
(bullet wound) on the frontal bone (except for the exit defect that
articulated with the coronal suture)...duh, genius, ya think that might be
because there was no bullet wound there (above his right eye)?

>>The second one is how the Hell could some 25, mostly medically trained witnesses
>> supposedly be mistaken about seeing a wound (not to mention that 11 said they
>>saw cerebellum), perhaps the size of a small orange, in the right rear of JFK's
>> head?
>>
>
>Because they didn't. And they recanted the cerebellum.

You're B/S is getting worse...you think all 11 recanted...you don't even
know who the 11 are...because you don't know the medical evidence.

>>Before I get to what you said that put me on the right course to resolving these
>> conflicts, let me say something else.
>>
>>Even though, when we were yelling at one another you used to post--ad nauseam I
>>might add--links to the BOH photo and the lateral X-ray as the best evidence the
>>entry was in the cowlick and there was no larger opening in the right-rear BOH,
>> I discounted during my aforementioned quest the x-ray as any serious
>>evidence....and I'll tell you why. I wouldn't mind if you skip over the reasons
>>immediately below to what I have to say the BOH photo if you're getting bored.
>>
>>In any case, first, Boswell aditted he "may have" (Mitch, I said "may have") put
>> back pieces of rear skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken....and I
>> could not find, for the life of me, after going through the complete lists of
>>photos and X-rays any of those that Boswell could have been referring to except
>>the lateral and/or AP X-rays. IMO, this alone diminishes the evidentiary value
>> of the X-rays.
>>
>>Second, the three highly credentialed forensic experts commissioned by the ARRB
>>to re-examine the photos and X-rays found no evidence whatsoever of any entry in
>> the cowlick on the X-rays....conflicting with what Fisher, Baden et al. said.
>>
>
>They all voted on it.

Really, gee the reports of interview were done when they were in different
locations...you think they voted by phone?

Your comments get more and moe bizarre every post....IMO, you've single
handedly diminished the effectiveness of this NG?

>>And third, one of the HSCA's own forensic pathologists, whom I have befriended,
>> BTW, stated on the record there was evidence of a low entry.
>>
>
>You have offered no proof of that statement.

Once again, el factoid Marsh shows he hasn't read the medical record.

>>There are several (scratch "several" and replace it with "many")others but this
>> is getting too long already so I'll not include them.
>>
>> Okay, let's set aside the X-rays and talk about the BOH photo/s (actually the
>>ones of the back wound that show the entry in the cowlick and undamaged BOH are
>> also relative to this explanation).
>>
>>Here's what you said (actually what you asked me) that put me on the right track
>> after I was not seeing, for about seven or eight years, the "forest for the
>>trees" (like everyone else over the past four decades who was trying to resolve
>> these issues):
>>
>> You asked me (paraphrasing now) to explain why the entry in the BOH photo was
>> several (5-6?) inches above JFK's hairline when one's EOP is typically only
>> about 2-2.5 inches above one's hairline?
>>
>> I doubt you'll recall, but unlike me, I didn't respond for quite a
>>while....because I was taken aback by your great question...which is one a whole
>>lot of others trying to resolve these conflicts should have been asking and/or
>>addressing literally decades ago. I was actually disappointed in myself that I
>> didn't see, for myself, the problem with the arguments of the low-entry
>> advocates that you were so observant about and happy to point out.
>>
>>So, based on your great question, I needed to figure out how the heck a bullet
>>hole only 2-3 inches above his hairline (near his EOP) could show up 5-6 inches
>> above it in the photos. There was only one exlanation...and it seemed far
>> out...even to me.
>>
>>They stretched the scalp. That was the only possible/feasible explanation...that
>
>Impossible.

Ah, so all the morticians I interviewed were liars, eh Marsh? Look if you
say it was impossible, then that's another vote of support for my
conclusions. IOW, I don't want you to agree with me because of your
reputation for being wrong.

>> is if the entry in the skull was near the EOP....and, while let's not argue
>> about it, F8 and a ton of other evidence proves that the bullet did in fact
>> enter near the EOP.
>>
>> Then, after re-reading the testimony, one ceratin word the autopsists used
>> seemed unusual and jumped out at me....it was "undermined".
>>
>> Research (the internet is wonderful, isn't it?) revealed that, in layperson's
>>terms, "undermining" dramatically increases the "stretchability" of the scalp.
>
>Not 4 inches. Never.

See above.

>> The process is used in the hair restoration business and by morticians.
>>
>>I was happy when several local morticians, some who I visited and interviewed in
>> person and who were familiar with the process of "undermining", agreed
>> wholeheartedly that JFKs rear scalp could have been stretched three or so
>> inches.
>>
>
>No.

How many morticians have you asked about that? None, right? Or, in your
dreams maybe you are a morticaian and that's where you got your
info......from your imaginary/dreamed mortician...you.

>>Anyway, what happened on 11-22-63 at Bethesda, and probably by now you're tired
>>of rolling your eyes, is that they needed to stretch the rear scalp to cover the
>>large top/right/front area where the scalp and bone had been blown out from...IN
>> PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL...and that's exactly what they did.
>>
>> There was nothing sinister about this....it wasn't part of any cover-up....a
>> tiny bit more on that thought later.
>>
>> That's why you can see a white glob down near his hairline...the top layers
>> (with the hair follicles) were stretched so thin they were slightly torn
>>allowing a piece of the muscle/tissue below the stretched top layers (there are
>> five total layers to the scalp) to exude through.
>>
>
>Not exude. That dab of fat tissue, not cerebellum, was ON TOP of the
>hair, as the HSCA photographic panel determined. Guess again.

Sure, it exuded out the breach in the top layers and some of it ended up
on the hair.

>>Now, also in preparation for an open casket funeral, they had to suture closed a
>> right rear scalp tear that certainly did exist.......previously (in Dealey
>> Plaza, at PH, and at Bethesda when the body first arrived).
>>
>
>Show me the sutures.

They are flourescent orange so every one can see them, right?. Look, you
can't even recognize a bullet hole when you are shown a copy of a
photograph of one...how are you going to see sutures that they meant to
hide?

>> Note that brain had exuded through, and cerebellum was seen by the
>>aforementioned witnesses through, not only that scalp tear, but also through an
>>opening in between the bones in that area (the ones there were disloged by the
>> bullet entering near the EOP).
>>
>
>No.

Well that does it...old "no-hits-to-the-back-of-his-head" Marsh has ruled
I'm wrong....but that's actually exactly what I want to hear from
you...good job!

>> The bottom line is that the photos showing the BOH scalp were taken, not even
>> near to the time when the body was first received, but after midnight...and,
>> more importantly, after the autopsists and morticians had repaired the BOH
>> scalp.
>>
>
>Silly.

I'm glad you think so...really.

>> Someone (IOM, Burkley, clearly a CT until he died) decided that, if any were
>> taken, the photos of the BOH when the body was first received (showing an
>>"exit-like" BOH wound), that as much as even "suggested" there might have been a
>>frontal shot, IN ORDER TO NOT ALARM THE NATION, NOT BE KEPT IN THE RECORD, AND
>> THE ONES INNOCENTLY TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT TO SHOW HOW THE REAR OF HIS
>> HEAD WAS SUCCESSFULLY REPAIRED IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL,
>> SUBSTITUTED [FOR THEM] IN THE RECORD.
>>
>
>So you are accusing Humes of masterminding a cover-up of the conspiracy?

Duh, maybe you can't read...I believe Burkley made sure (giving orders to
HB&F & the morticians and photographer, etc.) that the only pictures of
the back of his head that would survive would be the ones that were taken
after the BOH was repaired.


You know it's no fun to argue with you because your comments are so
foolish they're easy to refute.


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

bobr

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 5:10:19 PM7/12/11
to
On Jul 12, 6:43 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:


Your analysis of the autopsy data is too shallow. It does not explain the
rear ward protrusion and the part of the skull which was attached to the
scalp but completely unattached to the rest of the skull. Instead you say
that the witnesses at the hospital were mistaken.

I submit that someone seeing the portion of the skull that was attached to
the scalp but detached from the rest of the skull in its rearward position
would have said they saw a massive wound at the back of the head.

However, the autopsy photos conceal that massive wound by the way they
pull up the scalp and that detached skull back into place.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 8:12:22 PM7/12/11
to
David,

When I re-read my reply to you I realized that I wasn't clear about an
important point.

I believe--but not certain--that H & B "never" really connected their act
of undermining and stretching the scalp with the fact that, in doing so,
they effectively caused the entry to move from about 2 - 2.5 inches above
his hairline (when he was shot) to about 5 - 6.5 inches above it when the
pictures (that included all the ones showing the rear scalp that were
taken late, after midnight).

If they had connected the stretched scalp with the too high entry they
wouldn't have had to offer the ridiculous suggestion to the ARRB that the
red splotch was not the entry....instead they would have simply explained
that stretching the scalp caused it to move up too high for the photos.

Thanks again for listening and for your comments.


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

bobr

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 8:15:31 PM7/12/11
to
On Jul 12, 3:10 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> read more »

The Moorman photo shows you where the entry was if you would just look
at it.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/717/bohmoormanpng.png

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 8:15:44 PM7/12/11
to

In fact when the autopsy doctors unwrapped the head major pieces of
skull fell out.


David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 8:16:06 PM7/12/11
to

>>> "You are not correct in your interpretation. The scalp of the
president is not completely INTACT." <<<

Bob,

I was referring only to the scalp in the RIGHT-REAR part of JFK's head,
because that is the precise area of discrepancy between the Parkland
witnesses and the autopsy photos/X-rays. (And you knew that, of course.)

And Boswell does not specifically say the scalp was damaged in the
right-rear. He isn't clear at all in that testimony you cited. In fact, in
one aspect we can be sure he's incorrect--when he said "left posterior".
Not even any CTers think that Kennedy had a wound in the LEFT-REAR of his
head. It's always RIGHT-rear they talk about. (And a right-rear wound
isn't there either, as the autopsy pictures and X- rays vividly
demonstrate.)

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 11:36:10 PM7/12/11
to

Addendum to previous BOH discussion (repeating an important point that,
IMO, deserves to be repeated here):

"The red spot might not be TO-THE-MILLIMETER over the area of the
skull that contains the entry hole. Yes, it's possible (or even probable)
that the scalp was in a somewhat "loose" state/condition at the time when
Stringer took the "red spot" picture of the President's head.

"But this is really largely immaterial and a moot point for the most
part....because you, John [Canal], still require a crazy, mobile, and
freely-moving BULLET HOLE (an independent MOVEMENT of the bullet hole
ONLY, that is, in relation to the rest of JFK's scalp, including the
underlying cowlick), in order for your "stretching scalp" theory to be
looked upon as accurate.

"Bottom Line -- The "red spot" (the bullet hole itself) is going
THROUGH THE COWLICK OF JOHN KENNEDY in the autopsy picture. .... Nothing
you could say or theorize can change the above immutable fact regarding
the perfect LINING UP of these two things---1.) The physical bullet
(entry) hole in JFK's head, and 2.) The cowlick in JFK's head." -- DVP;
Apr. 1, 2009

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 11:40:56 PM7/12/11
to
On 7/12/2011 5:08 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4e1b84f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 7/11/2011 4:29 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Long time no locked horns.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Side note to Marsh...please wait and give DVP a chance to reply before you jump
>>> in and mangle this thread. Thanks.
>>>
>
> You just couldn't pass up a chance to grab some attention, could you?
>

No matter how many times you try to silence me, someone needs to refute
your nonsense.

> Thanks for not respecting my request that you wait for DVP to reply before
> juming in with you silly comments.
>
>> Mangle, mangle.
>
> Good job...for you.
>
>>> Look, I know how busy you are and that my posts are too long and wordy, but just
>>> this once I'd apprecaite it if you'd read what I have to say...entirely.
>>> Thanks...I really do appreciate that.
>>>
>>> And, probably to your surprise, I don't want to argue with you this time. I just
>>> want to ask you a "non-leading" question and say thanks. Hmmm, what comes first?
>>> Okay, it's the question.
>>>
>>> I've got to be careful as what I most recall from our exchanges is that you
>>> detest misspellings and typos, etc.
>>>
>>> Now, I realize (not so much to my surprise, but probably to the surprise of
>>> many...are you there Mitch, .john et al.?) that you couldn't tell a photo of the
>>> engine of a Dodge Challenger (BTW, I owned one the first year they came
>>> out...1970) from one of the "Missile wound in the posterior skull [that'd be
>>> JFK's] with the scalp reflected" [F8].........and don't much care that you
>>> can't........but I still want to ask you the following question.
>>>
>>
>> I love it when you WC defenders fight with each other so I won't try to
>> take sides or break you up. It just confirms that personal attacks are
>> your only available tactic when you don't have evidence.
>
> All LNs agree on the major aspects of the case...not like you CTs who are
> all over the map.
>

No, they don't.

> What's your wacky theory...oh yes, there were no hits to the back of the
> head...how's that working for you?
>
>>> If, after you open the link [thank you if you'll be so courteous to do that] and
>>> look at the image (AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IT IS...IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
>>> YOU THINK IT'S A PICTURE OF A GOOSE), I'd like to know if you can see (near
>>> where the red line from the ruler leads to..also in the blow-up) what appears to
>>> be a somewhat circular shaped feature/defect/whatever??
>>>
>>
>> How can it be a circular entrance hole when Humes said the only thing
>> left on the skull was a SEMI-Circular defect?
>
> Duh, his is a copy of a copy...it's not the original...in this copy it
> looks "somewhat" circular...in the originals which are much clearer
> evidently show it's semi-circular. I don't know, I haven't seen the
> originals but both Zimmerman and Sturdivan told me I'm right about what I
> say is the entry...Zimmerman even posted that.
>

Humes wasn't talking about seeing a copy of a copy of a copy. He was
talking about seeing the body up close in person. As Gary Aguilar points
out it was Boswell who let the cat out of the bag:

During his HSCA appearance, Boswell described it this way: They had to
dissect JFK?s scalp to see the entrance wound in JFK?s skull bone, ?But
not too much,? Boswell explained, ?because this bone was all gone and
actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here ? there was a hole
here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this
small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the
interior surface.?[357]

A few minutes later, Boswell elaborated: ?There was a shelf and then a
little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two
fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down
there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.?[358] During a
recorded call in 1994 (a copy of which is available at the National
Archives), Boswell told one of the authors (Aguilar) the same thing: ?The
defect ? the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the
shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion
of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and
replaced.?

Thus, detecting the point the fatal bullet struck the head required some
reconstruction of JFK?s skull, and perhaps a little imagination, too.
Because the presence of a bullet hole was evidently only detected after
two pieces of JFK?s shattered occipital bone were pieced together and a
gap, showing internal beveling, could be made out between them. If a
hands-on, practicing forensic pathologist had come up with this complex
and subtle reconstruction, which is really the only autopsy evidence
proving a bullet had entered the backside of JFK?s skull, then perhaps
great weight could be hung from it. But coming as it does from the
inexperienced backbenchers running the show in JFK?s morgue, it can?t be
said that the forensics proof of a bullet entering the rear of JFK?s skull
is beyond question.

---------

And yet you claim all the occipital bone there is intact and you can see a
complete hole which you call the entrance.

> http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg
>
>>> Okay, thanks on that...I think.
>>>
>>> Next I want to thank you...really....sincerely....honestly....no-shit.
>>>
>>> It's taken me 11 years of research to resolve (of course, no one else here will
>>> agree that I have..but that's to be expected and not a big deal for me what they
>>> [respectfully, and you?] think) two glaring (there are others but these two are
>>> the most important) conflicts in the record on the medical evidence........and I
>>> owe to you for pointing something out to me that eventually led to me finding
>>> the solution/s.
>>>
>>> Those conflicts, BTW, are the ones Barb J. challenged me to explain some 11
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> The first one is how on God's green earth could the three autopsy pathologists,
>>> and several others assisting them, supposedly mis-identify [BY SOME FOUR INCHES)
>>> the location of the wound where the fatal bullet entered the back of JFK's head?
>>>
>>
>> How could the three autopsy doctors miss seeing the semi-circular defect
>> on the frontal bone?
>
> No one who saw the body ever mentioned there was a semi-circular defect
> (bullet wound) on the frontal bone (except for the exit defect that
> articulated with the coronal suture)...duh, genius, ya think that might be
> because there was no bullet wound there (above his right eye)?
>

You mean the one you can't see? You mean the one which anthropologist
Dr. Lawrence Angel and everyone who has seen the autopsy photos can see?

>>> The second one is how the Hell could some 25, mostly medically trained witnesses
>>> supposedly be mistaken about seeing a wound (not to mention that 11 said they
>>> saw cerebellum), perhaps the size of a small orange, in the right rear of JFK's
>>> head?
>>>
>>
>> Because they didn't. And they recanted the cerebellum.
>
> You're B/S is getting worse...you think all 11 recanted...you don't even
> know who the 11 are...because you don't know the medical evidence.
>

I have discussed them several times.

>>> Before I get to what you said that put me on the right course to resolving these
>>> conflicts, let me say something else.
>>>
>>> Even though, when we were yelling at one another you used to post--ad nauseam I
>>> might add--links to the BOH photo and the lateral X-ray as the best evidence the
>>> entry was in the cowlick and there was no larger opening in the right-rear BOH,
>>> I discounted during my aforementioned quest the x-ray as any serious
>>> evidence....and I'll tell you why. I wouldn't mind if you skip over the reasons
>>> immediately below to what I have to say the BOH photo if you're getting bored.
>>>
>>> In any case, first, Boswell aditted he "may have" (Mitch, I said "may have") put
>>> back pieces of rear skull prior to some X-rays or photos being taken....and I
>>> could not find, for the life of me, after going through the complete lists of
>>> photos and X-rays any of those that Boswell could have been referring to except
>>> the lateral and/or AP X-rays. IMO, this alone diminishes the evidentiary value
>>> of the X-rays.
>>>
>>> Second, the three highly credentialed forensic experts commissioned by the ARRB
>>> to re-examine the photos and X-rays found no evidence whatsoever of any entry in
>>> the cowlick on the X-rays....conflicting with what Fisher, Baden et al. said.
>>>
>>
>> They all voted on it.
>
> Really, gee the reports of interview were done when they were in different
> locations...you think they voted by phone?
>

Cite and quote what you think the ARRB experts said about no entry in
the cowlick. We are not going to take your word on it.

> Your comments get more and moe bizarre every post....IMO, you've single
> handedly diminished the effectiveness of this NG?
>

Nice try. I am not impressed.
This newsgroup should be to debate issues. Obviously you don't believe
in debate, only phony argument by authority.

>>> And third, one of the HSCA's own forensic pathologists, whom I have befriended,
>>> BTW, stated on the record there was evidence of a low entry.
>>>
>>
>> You have offered no proof of that statement.
>
> Once again, el factoid Marsh shows he hasn't read the medical record.
>

More evasiveness. Show your evidence.

Yes, they were liars. And you did not report accurately what they said.

Silly. And even your fellow WC defender Artwohl who viewed the originals
said it was NOT brain tissue. Brain tissue is not yellow.

>>> Now, also in preparation for an open casket funeral, they had to suture closed a
>>> right rear scalp tear that certainly did exist.......previously (in Dealey
>>> Plaza, at PH, and at Bethesda when the body first arrived).
>>>
>>
>> Show me the sutures.
>
> They are flourescent orange so every one can see them, right?. Look, you
> can't even recognize a bullet hole when you are shown a copy of a
> photograph of one...how are you going to see sutures that they meant to
> hide?
>

You came up empty yet again.

>>> Note that brain had exuded through, and cerebellum was seen by the
>>> aforementioned witnesses through, not only that scalp tear, but also through an
>>> opening in between the bones in that area (the ones there were disloged by the
>>> bullet entering near the EOP).
>>>
>>
>> No.
>
> Well that does it...old "no-hits-to-the-back-of-his-head" Marsh has ruled
> I'm wrong....but that's actually exactly what I want to hear from
> you...good job!
>
>>> The bottom line is that the photos showing the BOH scalp were taken, not even
>>> near to the time when the body was first received, but after midnight...and,
>>> more importantly, after the autopsists and morticians had repaired the BOH
>>> scalp.
>>>
>>
>> Silly.
>
> I'm glad you think so...really.
>
>>> Someone (IOM, Burkley, clearly a CT until he died) decided that, if any were
>>> taken, the photos of the BOH when the body was first received (showing an
>>> "exit-like" BOH wound), that as much as even "suggested" there might have been a
>>> frontal shot, IN ORDER TO NOT ALARM THE NATION, NOT BE KEPT IN THE RECORD, AND
>>> THE ONES INNOCENTLY TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT TO SHOW HOW THE REAR OF HIS
>>> HEAD WAS SUCCESSFULLY REPAIRED IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL,
>>> SUBSTITUTED [FOR THEM] IN THE RECORD.
>>>
>>
>> So you are accusing Humes of masterminding a cover-up of the conspiracy?
>
> Duh, maybe you can't read...I believe Burkley made sure (giving orders to

> HB&F& the morticians and photographer, etc.) that the only pictures of


> the back of his head that would survive would be the ones that were taken
> after the BOH was repaired.
>

Oh, OK. So Burkley was the mastermind of the assassination and Humes was
just following his orders. Now I get it.
FYI, Burkely never had possession or control of the autopsy photos.

>
> You know it's no fun to argue with you because your comments are so
> foolish they're easy to refute.
>
>

So why can't you answer my questions?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 11:41:23 PM7/12/11
to

I think you mean that we can see his brain where it is not covered by
scalp or skull. But you should be aware that in some of the autopsy photos
we can't see too far in because the wound was packed with gauze squares.

bobr

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 11:45:05 PM7/12/11
to

Again I am going to disagree. Boswell was given a second chance to
define what he mean by "left posterior" and here is what he said...
Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right
frontal area...

Boswell was not mistaken. He was describing a wound track that went
from the right front to the left rear.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 11:47:41 PM7/12/11
to

Why do you spread false stories like this?
Humes, Boswell, and the morticians never said that they stretched the
scalp. You can't quote any of them saying that. It is something that
made up from your imagination and now claim as fact.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 12, 2011, 11:49:05 PM7/12/11
to
In article <e1f2a647-5c96-4fdd...@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
bobr says...
>
>On Jul 12, 3:10=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> read more =BB

>
>The Moorman photo shows you where the entry was if you would just look
>at it.
>http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/717/bohmoormanpng.png

I know where the entry was...I've been at this a long time...you don't
even have what is perhaps the most revealing autopsy photo correctly
orientated.

If you're really interested in where the entry was etc. check out this
link. Several years ago I replicated autopsy photo #45 (otherwise known as
F8) which is titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull with scalp
reflected".

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1521/12101348.jpg

I had the autopsy photographer, John Stringer, who was an expert at and
taught photography for the Navy, examine the graphics documenting my
replication at his home in Florida to make sure he agreed with the
replication technique I used.....and that when he took that photo JFK's
skull was orientated "face-forward"...the way I have it orientated. As you
might be able to see, he endorsed my graphics in writing.

Then Dr. Henry Lee asked me if he could use the same graphics for a visual
aid for his presentation at the 1966 Wecht Symposium....which was attended
by notable individuals involved with this case like Dr. Michael Baden. Of
course I agreed.

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

John Canal

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 7:43:18 AM7/13/11
to
I can't change your mind, David...no one on this group has ever changed their
mind and said they did so beccause someone else's arguments convinced them they
were wrong.....and I never expected you to be the first.

But look at the first words of what you wrote:

>Nothing
>you could say

Then don't listen to me...pay attention to what the forensic radiologist, Dr.
John Fitzpatrick, the forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and the
forensic anthrpologist, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker said....which was there was NO,
NADA, ZILCHO, VOILA, ZERO, evidence on the x-rays of a bullet wound in the
cowlick.

And while you're calling them clowns, liars, or unqualified to say that, you
might want to add the esteemed Dr. Joseph Davis to that list. He was the Chief
Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades....and stated on the
record there was evidence on the x-rays for an entry near the EOP.

And I'll end this exchange hoping you'll try to come up with an explanation for
why on God's green earth your favorite BOH photo shows a bunch of relatively
undamaged scalp over the very large top/right/front area where bone AND SCALP
were blown into DP and/or the limo.

Yes, I really wonder if you'll actually try to explain that to yourself? I
wouldn't though if I were you because you can't be the first here to change
their mind on an important point because of something a few experts said...so
don't get a headache trying to explain that.

Take care,

:-)

John Canal

>or theorize can change the above immutable fact regarding
>the perfect LINING UP of these two things---1.) The physical bullet
>(entry) hole in JFK's head, and 2.) The cowlick in JFK's head." -- DVP;
>Apr. 1, 2009


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

John Canal

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 7:46:16 AM7/13/11
to
In article <ivisg...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Canal says...

>
>In article <e1f2a647-5c96-4fdd...@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>bobr says...
>>
>>On Jul 12, 3:10=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> read more =BB
>>
>>The Moorman photo shows you where the entry was if you would just look
>>at it.
>>http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/717/bohmoormanpng.png
>
>I know where the entry was...I've been at this a long time...you don't
>even have what is perhaps the most revealing autopsy photo correctly
>orientated.
>
>If you're really interested in where the entry was etc. check out this
>link. Several years ago I replicated autopsy photo #45 (otherwise known as
>F8) which is titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull with scalp
>reflected".
>
>http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1521/12101348.jpg
>
>I had the autopsy photographer, John Stringer, who was an expert at and
>taught photography for the Navy, examine the graphics documenting my
>replication at his home in Florida to make sure he agreed with the
>replication technique I used.....and that when he took that photo JFK's
>skull was orientated "face-forward"...the way I have it orientated. As you
>might be able to see, he endorsed my graphics in writing.
>
>Then Dr. Henry Lee asked me if he could use the same graphics for a visual
>aid for his presentation at the 1966 Wecht Symposium


THAT SHOULD HAVE READ, "THE 2006 WECHT SYMPOSIUM...

SORRY.

JOHN CANAL

bobr

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 1:30:29 PM7/13/11
to
On Jul 12, 10:49 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <e1f2a647-5c96-4fdd-a0bb-e1334ec1c...@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Where was the camera? Where is the neck rest?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 4:34:50 PM7/13/11
to

>>> "If a hands-on, practicing forensic pathologist had come up with this
complex and subtle reconstruction, which is really the only autopsy
evidence proving a bullet had entered the backside of JFK's skull." <<<

And Tony Marsh completely ignores (or mangles the meaning of) the red-
spot autopsy photo, which is proof of where the bullet entered, and it
entered high on JFK's head near the cowlick, just as the red-spot photo
indicates and just as the Clark Panel AND the Rockefeller Commission AND
the House Select Committee determined.

If anyone is making up fantasies about the head wounds, it's very likely
Tony Marsh.

And while I do not agree (at all) with John Canal's "scalp-stretching"
theory, I will say that if I had to choose between ANY multi-gun
conspiracy theory and John Canal's theory, that choice would be an easy
one -- John's theory would win hands down. Mainly due to the fact that
John's theory still includes the obvious and provable fact that JFK was
shot only once in the head--and that shot came from ABOVE and BEHIND the
President.

In fact, that very thing is one of the main reasons I think John Canal is
wrong about his theory. Because the bottom line is still identical, either
with or without his theory -- i.e., only one bullet struck JFK's head,
with that bullet coming from behind.

Therefore, since the ultimate conclusion is identical either way you
slice, I cannot see the autopsy doctors (or anyone else) wanting to engage
in the kind of deliberate "under-reporting" of the head wounds that John
C. thinks the autopsy surgeons did engage in.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 4:36:13 PM7/13/11
to

To John Canal,

Well, John, there are some things relating to the JFK assassination case
that I cannot explain (and I probably never will be able to fully explain
them to even my own full satisfaction)--and by far the biggest of these
problems is this one (which I've wrestled with for years):

How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something in
JFK's head (a huge hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his head) that
we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not possibly have
existed?

That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to it.

But let me add this concerning one of those Parkland witnesses--Robert
McClelland:

John, how in the world do you think Bob McClelland was actually able to
see a great-big hole at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head when he admits
that he was STARING DOWN at John Kennedy's face while he (McClelland) was
standing over the President?

McClelland has stated numerous times that he was looking DOWN into a large
wound that he said was at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head....and yet it
would have been physically impossible for him to have done so (given his
position and JFK's face-up position on the stretcher at the time
McClelland says he was observing such a wound).

Seems to me as though McClelland would have been staring down into the
wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. Yes, he would have been in an
ideal position (at the head of the stretcher) to have seen, in great
clarity, the wound that both you and I know WAS there in the right-
front-top portion of JFK's cranium. Right?

And Dr. McClelland's explanation about the pulled-up scalp that he gave to
the PBS cameras in 1988 is just as wacky as his other comments about being
about to stare down into a huge wound that Kennedy must have actually been
lying on. The "pulled up" scalp theory of McClelland's is extremely silly
-- because that piece of scalp is INTACT and undamaged. Therefore, how
could any Parkland people have seen ANY wound through AN INTACT PORTION OF
JFK'S SCALP in the first place. It's physically impossible.

And we all know that Kennedy's scalp had not been "peeled back" or
reflected while he was on the stretcher at Parkland. The autopsy surgeons
are the ones who peeled back the scalp, with loose pieces of skull then
clinging to that scalp. But the Parkland witnesses certainly cannot
utilize that reasoning for seeing a right-rear hole in Kennedy's head.

More about the really weird 1988 tales of 4 of the Parkland doctors here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 4:39:48 PM7/13/11
to
On 7/13/2011 7:43 AM, John Canal wrote:
> I can't change your mind, David...no one on this group has ever changed their
> mind and said they did so beccause someone else's arguments convinced them they
> were wrong.....and I never expected you to be the first.
>
> But look at the first words of what you wrote:
>
>> Nothing
>> you could say
>
> Then don't listen to me...pay attention to what the forensic radiologist, Dr.
> John Fitzpatrick, the forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and the
> forensic anthrpologist, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker said....which was there was NO,
> NADA, ZILCHO, VOILA, ZERO, evidence on the x-rays of a bullet wound in the
> cowlick.
>
> And while you're calling them clowns, liars, or unqualified to say that, you
> might want to add the esteemed Dr. Joseph Davis to that list. He was the Chief
> Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades....and stated on the
> record there was evidence on the x-rays for an entry near the EOP.
>

So you claim, but never prove. We've seen your phony claims before.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 5:24:01 PM7/13/11
to
In article <874f0cd0-0aa8-4cc8...@z39g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
bobr says...
>
>On Jul 12, 10:49=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e1f2a647-5c96-4fdd-a0bb-e1334ec1c...@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> bobr says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 12, 3:10=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> read more =3DBB

>>
>> >The Moorman photo shows you where the entry was if you would just look
>> >at it.
>> >http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/717/bohmoormanpng.png
>>
>> I know where the entry was...I've been at this a long time...you don't
>> even have what is perhaps the most revealing autopsy photo correctly
>> orientated.
>>
>> If you're really interested in where the entry was etc. check out this
>> link. Several years ago I replicated autopsy photo #45 (otherwise known a=

>s
>> F8) which is titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull with scalp
>> reflected".

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1521/12101348.jpg

>> I had the autopsy photographer, John Stringer, who was an expert at and
>> taught photography for the Navy, examine the graphics documenting my
>> replication at his home in Florida to make sure he agreed with the
>> replication technique I used.....and that when he took that photo JFK's

>> skull was orientated "face-forward"...the way I have it orientated. As yo=


>u
>> might be able to see, he endorsed my graphics in writing.
>>

>> Then Dr. Henry Lee asked me if he could use the same graphics for a visua=
>l
>> aid for his presentation at the 1966 Wecht Symposium....which was attende=


>d
>> by notable individuals involved with this case like Dr. Michael Baden. Of
>> course I agreed.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>Where was the camera? Where is the neck rest?

If I thought you were asking those questions so you could learn more about
the photo I'd give you my opinion about what you asked....but you're
obviously questioning the face-on orientation.

That being said, I suggest you submit a request to the National Archives
to see the originals. I'm told you can see many details in the photo that
you can't see in the copies, such as in the copy I posted.

These details that show up on the originals include the cut edge of the
tentorium and lateral sinus which, not only place the entry near the EOP,
they also make the face-on orientation a no-brainer, no pun intended.

Also suggest you bring a stereo-scopic viewer to look at the "twin,
stereo" pictures, nos. 44 & 45 simultaneously.

In the meantime, on Dr. McAdams' website, under headwounds, you might be
able to find a colorized visual aid for orientating the photo...it's far
from being 100% accurate, but it's close enough to help....those who are
looking for it.

Of course, it's not there for those who think their own orientation is
correct.


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

bobr

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 9:59:08 PM7/13/11
to
On Jul 13, 4:24 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <874f0cd0-0aa8-4cc8-9001-b2130d902...@z39g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,

I really was asking where, in your interpretation the camera was
located and where would the neck rest be.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 10:01:01 PM7/13/11
to

They're not going to allow conspiracy believers to see the originals.

> These details that show up on the originals include the cut edge of the
> tentorium and lateral sinus which, not only place the entry near the EOP,
> they also make the face-on orientation a no-brainer, no pun intended.
>
> Also suggest you bring a stereo-scopic viewer to look at the "twin,

> stereo" pictures, nos. 44& 45 simultaneously.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 10:03:11 PM7/13/11
to
In article <6c051ab6-0357-46cc...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>

>To John Canal,
>
>Well, John, there are some things relating to the JFK assassination case
>that I cannot explain (and I probably never will be able to fully explain
>them to even my own full satisfaction)

Frankly David, and I'm not trying to be a smart ass, the list of things
you can't explain when you try to defend the cowlick entry and
no-BOH-wound conclusions, is as long as your arm.

>and by far the biggest of these
>problems is this one (which I've wrestled with for years):
>
>How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something in
>JFK's head (a huge

Let me interrupt..."huge"? McClelland and a few others seem to have
described one that was pretty big, but Grossman said it was about the size
of a quarter. Many others are in between...so who's to say who was
right...we'll never know. While there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind
(there's little if anything related to this issue I don't have some
explanation for that some would agree is reasonable) that there was a
right-rear wound, besides the entry, which was along the lower margin of
the larger wound, there's no way with all that blood and gore
hanging/pouring out that anyone could have seen exactly how big it was or
its exact nature...like was there actually bone missing, etc.

>hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his head) that
>we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not possibly have
>existed?

You "best evidence" is weak....do you even foggiest idea when that photo
was taken...I hope you don't think it even remotely reflects how JFK's BOH
looked when his body arrived at Bethesda.

Now the X-rays are even weaker because Boswell testified he replaced bone,
possibly even ones in the rear, before x-rays or photos were taken.
Moreover, the three highly credentialed forensic experts disputed outright
Baden et al.'s claim that an entry could be seen on the x-rays...and
that's not to mention we have one of the HSCA's most highly recognized
forensic pathologistat telling his colleagues there indeed was evidence
(that Baden said didn't exist) for a low entry on the x-rays.

There's more but what I'm saying is probably going in one ear and out the
other. You've got your mind made up on these issues and you're surely not
going to change it because of my arguments.

>That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to it.

>But let me add this concerning one of those Parkland witnesses--Robert
>McClelland:
>
>John, how in the world do you think Bob McClelland was actually able to
>see a great-big hole at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head when he admits
>that he was STARING DOWN at John Kennedy's face while he (McClelland) was
>standing over the President?
>
>McClelland has stated numerous times that he was looking DOWN into a large
>wound that he said was at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head....and yet it
>would have been physically impossible for him to have done so (given his
>position and JFK's face-up position on the stretcher at the time
>McClelland says he was observing such a wound).
>
>Seems to me as though McClelland would have been staring down into the
>wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. Yes, he would have been in an
>ideal position (at the head of the stretcher) to have seen, in great
>clarity, the wound that both you and I know WAS there in the right-
>front-top portion of JFK's cranium. Right?
>
>And Dr. McClelland's explanation about the pulled-up scalp that he gave to
>the PBS cameras in 1988 is just as wacky as his other comments about being
>about to stare down into a huge wound that Kennedy must have actually been
>lying on. The "pulled up" scalp theory of McClelland's is extremely silly
>-- because that piece of scalp is INTACT and undamaged. Therefore, how
>could any Parkland people have seen ANY wound through AN INTACT PORTION OF
>JFK'S SCALP in the first place. It's physically impossible.

Okay, David, let's just scratch McClelland from "the" (make that "your")
list of BOH wound witnesses...let's just forget McClelland.....but what
about the other two dozen or so BOH witnesses, who included Humes. You're
spending a lot of time on McClelland and ignore the others? It's like
you're standing on a hill of fire ants and you're stomping the hell out of
one.

>And we all know that Kennedy's scalp had not been "peeled back" or
>reflected while he was on the stretcher at Parkland. The autopsy surgeons
>are the ones who peeled back the scalp, with loose pieces of skull then
>clinging to that scalp.

Another interruption. Re. the bones falling out, that's just another point
that you can't explain. If the bone (and we must be talking about the bone
beginning at the rear margin of the large hole where the bone was blown
out from, right?) fell out when they reflected the scalp, that bone that
fell out would have included the entire entry...if it had been in the
cowlick....so why can even you see at least part of that entry standing
tall in the intact skull...IOW why isn't on the table in one of those
bones that came loose?

BTW, not only did Boswell testify that the bone fell out down to the base
of JFK's ear, the schematic drawing he made shows loose rear bone that
would have totally encompassed any cowlick entry....so, I guess you think
he was not only so careless he misidentified the entry location by four
inches, I guess you also think he misremembered when he said bone came out
down to the base of JFK's ear...and when he drew the loose pieces at the
back of the head drawing?

Lastly, again, where did all that relatively undamaged scalp come from
that shows up in the BOH photos?...you know that undamaged scalp that is
right over the area (that begins only a few cm forward of the cowlick)
where the bone and scalp was blown out from?

Not possible in your mind that H &B "weren't" lying, misremembering, or
mistaken when they said the undermined and stretched the scalp, eh?

Do you think that's fake hair..or a wig?

:-)

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

John Canal

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 10:03:48 PM7/13/11
to
[...]

Canal:

>> And while you're calling them clowns, liars, or unqualified to say that, you
>>might want to add the esteemed Dr. Joseph Davis to that list. He was the Chief
>> Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades....and stated on the
>> record there was evidence on the x-rays for an entry near the EOP.

Marsh:

>So you claim, but never prove. We've seen your phony claims before.

Canal: You haven't read where Davis stated there was evidence of a low
entry because you've spent almost all of your time on this case posting
and little of it reading....which is precisely why, IMO, the guy who
claimed he was abducted by aliens has a more believable claim than yours
about there being no, nada, none, zilcho, voila, hits to the back of JFK's
head.


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

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 10:05:33 PM7/13/11
to
On 7/13/2011 4:36 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> To John Canal,
>
> Well, John, there are some things relating to the JFK assassination case
> that I cannot explain (and I probably never will be able to fully explain
> them to even my own full satisfaction)--and by far the biggest of these
> problems is this one (which I've wrestled with for years):
>
> How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something in
> JFK's head (a huge hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his head) that
> we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not possibly have
> existed?
>
> That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to it.
>
> But let me add this concerning one of those Parkland witnesses--Robert
> McClelland:
>
> John, how in the world do you think Bob McClelland was actually able to
> see a great-big hole at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head when he admits
> that he was STARING DOWN at John Kennedy's face while he (McClelland) was
> standing over the President?
>
> McClelland has stated numerous times that he was looking DOWN into a large
> wound that he said was at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head....and yet it
> would have been physically impossible for him to have done so (given his
> position and JFK's face-up position on the stretcher at the time
> McClelland says he was observing such a wound).
>

Oh, do you mean the Dr. McClelland who said JFK was hit in the LEFT temple?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 10:05:43 PM7/13/11
to


So, it doesn't matter to you where the bullet hole was. Cowlick and EOP
are exactly the same thing to you?


David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 11:29:52 PM7/13/11
to

>>> "So, it doesn't matter to you where the bullet hole was. Cowlick and
EOP are exactly the same thing to you?" <<<

The main point being: BOTH are in the BACK of the head. Mr. Kennedy,
therefore, WAS shot in the BACK of the head.

Funny, isn't it? Marsh has two possible points of entry to choose from
when it comes to the entry wound in the back of JFK's cranium--and he
chooses to eliminate BOTH of those options, in favor of his absurd "No
Wound In The Back Of The Head At All" theory.

Too funny.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 13, 2011, 11:33:01 PM7/13/11
to
In article
<6c051ab6-0357-46cc...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> To John Canal,
>
> Well, John, there are some things relating to the JFK assassination case
> that I cannot explain (and I probably never will be able to fully explain
> them to even my own full satisfaction)--and by far the biggest of these
> problems is this one (which I've wrestled with for years):
>
> How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something in
> JFK's head (a huge hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his head) that
> we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not possibly have
> existed?
>
> That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to it.

It is? I thought that one was resolved a long time ago. Oh well, I'll
give another go at it.

The answer is really quite simple: the people at Parkland primarily saw
only the rearmost damage to the skull, the same damage that was also
seen at Bethesda, except at Bethesda they saw all of it instead of just
some of it. There is really quite a bit of evidence to support that.
First of all it is obvious in the Zapruder film that immediately after
frame 313 there is a massive amount of damage to the head forward of the
right ear; what might be described as appearing to be massive pinkish
flaps of scalp and/or bone have been laid open. Much of this is
directly on the side of the head. This is painfully clear especially
around frames 335-337. Obviously these were closed before the limousine
reached Parkland, otherwise we'd have more statements about those flaps
being open at the hospital. And only one person could have folded them
closed: Jackie. She's the only person who touched his head from the
time it was hit until after the car had come to a stop at Parkland.
Clint Hill was the only other person close enough to have done so, and
he was hanging on to the trunk for dear life, and I don't think he would
have dared to touch the President's head at that time anyway. But
Jackie had her head in his lap practically the whole way there, and she
was hardly thinking clearly at the time, understandably. We've already
had the suggestion for years that she climbed onto the trunk to grab a
piece of his head, perhaps with the wild desperate idea that if it could
be placed back in his head his life might be saved. Thus it's hardly
implausible that while she cradled his head in her lap she folded back
those open flaps on the side of his head. Clint Hill, of course, would
be our only witness to her having JFK's head in her lap, since no one
else in the limo would have been in a position to see that, except maybe
Nellie, but I think she was a bit preoccupied with her own husband by
then. And Hill did indeed say that after he got Jackie back in her seat
she did have JFK's head in her lap:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. Now, what action did you take specifically with respect to
placing Mrs. Kennedy back in the rear seat?
Mr. HILL. I simply just pushed and she moved--somewhat
voluntarily--right back into the same seat she was in. The
President--when she had attempted to get out onto the trunk of the car,
his body apparently did not move too much, because when she got back
into the car he was at that time, when I got on top of the car, face up
in her lap.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was, after she was back in the rear seat?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.

**********

Then we have further confirmation from other witnesses at the hospital
after the limousine arrived but before JFK was taken out of the car that
she was cradling his head in her lap and at first didn't seem to want to
let go of him. Also they had to get Connally out of the car first. I
don't remember any of them at this moment saying the flaps were open on
the right side of his head at that time either. And since his face was
described consistently at Parkland as being more or less intact this
would further indicate that the flaps were closed by then, and again
only one person had the opportunity to have already done that.

I hope you understand the point I'm making: had Jackie not done this,
the more forward damage to his skull would have been more obvious to the
doctors and nurses at Parkland.

Also there's the matter of damage that was more on the top of the head
and forward. But in that case there was still enough hair and scalp
left to cover most of that, plus a lot of blood congealing in the hair,
making it even more difficult to see any hole in the skull on top and
more to the front of the right hemisphere of his head. Remember that
his hair was long and thick on top, but cut much shorter in the back, a
typical hairstyle for many men at that time, and still fairly common
today. And if any of this had been laid open by the shot, doubtless
Jackie would have done her best to close that up too. She's the only
one who could have before he was taken out of the limo.

Now for the rearmost damage. I seem to be rather unusual in that I
agree with many of the CTs that there is a very real "protrusion" or
"blowout" in the upper right rear of the head that can be seen in the
Zapruder film, most clearly in frames in the 330s. I do not, however,
agree with them that this was caused by a shot from the front. All of
the damage to the head, from the foremost to the rearmost, was caused by
one bullet fired from the TSBD. I do not believe for a moment that that
protrusion is an illusion caused by an artifact of photography, or
tricks of light, shadow, and angle. It stays there in just a few too
many frames for that to be plausible. And we've got way too many
witnesses who recalled an obvious hole in the upper right rear of his
head through which they could see his brain. I do not at all agree with
the line that some LNs take, that this many witnesses were all
"mistaken." That is nonsense. A mere child, without a day of medical
training, can easily tell the difference between the front and the back
of a person's head without the slightest possibility of being mistaken.
These people are consistently describing this hole, and I'll once again
start with Clint Hill:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on
arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying
in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and
bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy
was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not
tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large
gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

**********

This is also to some extent confirmation of what I said above, with him
saying that there was so much blood that the only "gaping wound" that
was obvious to him was in the right rear; otherwise, with the thick hair
on top of JFK's hair full of congealing blood, it would have of course
been more difficult to tell if the opening in the skull extended farther
forward. Mostly someone looking at that gory mess would see a lot of
bloody hair.

That this hole was really there, but was only the most rearward part of
the total damage to his skull is also confirmed by other evidence, which
additionally confirms why this would be the most obvious part of the
damage to anyone who saw it prior to the autopsy. Paul Seaton explained
it quite well back in 2002: one large piece of the skull in the upper
right rear was cracked so badly that it was no longer attached directly
to any other bone in the skull, but was still partially attached to the
scalp. This flap of bone and scalp could open and close, rather like a
door on a hinge. This piece of skull can clearly be seen in the lateral
x-ray. I have posted that, drawing an outline around the fissure that
separated that piece from the rest of the skull. You will also notice
that I have tilted the image somewhat to give the proper orientation,
since in the original the skull is actually tilted forward somewhat:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5170/lateralxrayhinge.jpg

It can also be seen that at the very back of that piece it does not line
up with the back of the skull below it, further evidence that it is no
longer firmly attached to any other bone. Also notice that the fissure
surrounding that piece is at its widest near the most forward part of
it. When he was lying on his back, or even was placed with his head
tilted back, that could fall open, revealing the rearmost part of the
hole in the skull, and actually in a sense making it a larger hole than
when that piece of skull was pushed back into place.

Robert Harris has also explained this quite well, although I don't agree
with his claim that this damage was caused by a second shot to the head.
Other than that, he also believes, like me, that the rearward hole is
very real, and he explains quite well about the way that detached piece
could open and close since it was still attached to the scalp, but not
to any other bone.

But please, don't just take my word for it, or Paul's, or Robert's.
Thornton Boswell himself, one of the three autopsists, clarified this
matter many years later for the ARRB. This was in the midst of a
discussion of one of the now famous (or "infamous," depending on your
point of view) autopsy photographs in which the entire back of the head
appears intact, with someone's fingers pressing onto the scalp:

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/2.jpg

I do not recall at this moment if Boswell had clarified this matter in
earlier years, but I think it was simply time to finally clarify it once
and for all. At the time the WC volumes were issued in 1964 very few of
the public had yet seen these photos, and even by the time of the HSCA
in the late 1970s had still not been all that widely seen. But by the
time Boswell was interviewed by the ARRB in 1996, the movie "JFK" had
been out for five years, these photos were becoming available on the
Internet and also had by this time appeared in a number of books, so
that many more people saw them than had ever seen them before, and thus
these photos were even more controversial than ever before. By this
time there had been so many charges of conspiracy, coverup, alterations
to x-rays and autopsy photos, etc., that had built up over more than
three decades, that the ARRB naturally felt compelled to lay this matter
to rest, if it could. And to them, Thornton Boswell explained it quite
plausibly:

**********

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from
the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably
reflect that.

..........

Q. Can you tell me approximately when during the course of the autopsy
that those photographs were taken?
A. Very early.
Q. I'd like to ask you a question first about the scalp, although that's
not the center of the photograph, and ask you whether the scalp had been
pulled up in any way in order to keep any flaps from hanging down over
the back. I don't know if that question was--
A. Yes, I understand.
Q. Maybe if we could look at that photograph in conjunction with one
from the third view.
A. Where the flap is coming down?
Q. Yes.
A. I know this--the flap is stretched forward here, because if this fell
back down--with him in this sort of recumbent position, yes, this scalp
would fold down and cover this wound.
Q. So you're saying that on the fourth view, which are the photographs
that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and
folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way
that they appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that fair?
A. In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's
pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead.
Q. Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp for the photograph to be
taken?
A. There are about three of us involved here, because there are two
right hands on that centimeter scale. I think that I probably was
pulling the scalp up.

**********

He also said here that he thought he was probably the one holding that
part of the scalp and bone in place.

I think this also might explain why Humes measured the "defect" in the
skull to be 13cm from front to back, whereas Boswell measured it at
17cm: Humes was measuring it with that piece of skull folded back in
place, whereas Boswell was measuring it with it folded away from the
head, which, as I said above, made the hole in the skull larger.

And of course the most important part of all to make is that the hair
and scalp were never peeled back to expose all of the damage to the
skull at Parkland. No one there would have dreamed of doing that. It
was not their place. They were working in a vain attempt to save his
life, as that was their job. This was not an autopsy. The hair and
scalp were not peeled back until Bethesda, making that the first time
anyone saw all of the damage to the skull, instead of only some of it.

> But let me add this concerning one of those Parkland witnesses--Robert
> McClelland:
>
> John, how in the world do you think Bob McClelland was actually able to
> see a great-big hole at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head when he admits
> that he was STARING DOWN at John Kennedy's face while he (McClelland) was
> standing over the President?

It is misleading to describe it as "far right rear." It is more
accurately described as "upper right rear." Look again at that lateral
x-ray. The lowermost part of the piece of skull is not quite halfway
down the back of the head, and the uppermost part of includes a little
of the top of the head. Now imagine him lying on his back and that
piece falling open, still hanging onto the scalp, but otherwise not
attached. And this business of it being in the upper right rear also is
corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland, although they used
various terminology, such as upper right posterior and right
occipitalparietal. Let's look at what some of them said. Dr. Akin:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was
shattered, with brain substance extruding."

If you know where the occipital and parietal bones are, you'll know that
they join to each other at certain points more than halfway up the back
of the head. It is clear that he meant the same thing as upper right
rear, not merely right rear. Now Dr. Carrico:

"The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right
occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size,
more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue."

Dr. Perry:

"I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in
which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe
laceration of underlying brain tissue."

Of course it is also true that several of the others merely indicated
the right rear, not necessarily upper, and I'm also seeing some that
merely said the hole was in the back of the head, without clarifying
right or left, upper or lower. But I think this, together with the
Zapruder film, the x-ray, and Boswell, makes it fairly plain.

And apparently not quite everyone was fooled by the mass of bloodsoaked
hair obscuring the more forward damage on top of the skull, or by Jackie
having apparently closed the flaps on the right front of his face. Dr.
Baxter described the damage this way:

"We then gave him or Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark alternated giving him
closed chest cardiac massage only until we could get a cardioscope
hooked up to tell us if there were any detectible heartbeat electrically
present, at least, and there was none, and we discussed at that moment
whether we should open the chest to attempt to revive him, while the
closed chest massage was going on, and we had an opportunity to look at
his head wound then and saw that the damage was beyond hope, that is, in
a word-- literally the right side of his head had been blown off."

I'm also seeing several of them saying that there was a lot of damage to
his head, period.

> McClelland has stated numerous times that he was looking DOWN into a large
> wound that he said was at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head....and yet it
> would have been physically impossible for him to have done so (given his
> position and JFK's face-up position on the stretcher at the time
> McClelland says he was observing such a wound).

I do not agree. That piece of skull extends well into the upper right
of the head. With that open one could indeed be standing over Kennedy
while he is laying on his back and be able to see into at least some of
that hole.

> Seems to me as though McClelland would have been staring down into the
> wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. Yes, he would have been in an
> ideal position (at the head of the stretcher) to have seen, in great
> clarity, the wound that both you and I know WAS there in the right-
> front-top portion of JFK's cranium. Right?
>
> And Dr. McClelland's explanation about the pulled-up scalp that he gave to
> the PBS cameras in 1988 is just as wacky as his other comments about being
> about to stare down into a huge wound that Kennedy must have actually been
> lying on.

I do not agree with that either, and Boswell, one of the autopsists, and
probably the one pulling up that very piece of scalp in that photo,
corroborates McClelland.

> The "pulled up" scalp theory of McClelland's is extremely silly
> -- because that piece of scalp is INTACT and undamaged.

The scalp was intact only from the neck up to near the top of the head,
but it was lacerated and separated from the remaining scalp at that
point, allowing all of that to fall open with that same piece of bone
I've been talking about attached to the scalp. It could all then be
folded back in place giving an appearance of a totally intact scalp in a
photo with the camera pointed directly at the rear of the head.

> Therefore, how
> could any Parkland people have seen ANY wound through AN INTACT PORTION OF
> JFK'S SCALP in the first place. It's physically impossible.

I hope I have clarified that that is not what they saw.

> And we all know that Kennedy's scalp had not been "peeled back" or
> reflected while he was on the stretcher at Parkland.

Not intentionally, no. But forward of that piece of bone I've been
talking about was a great deal of lacerated scalp along the top right of
his head, which was difficult to see at Parkland because of all the mass
of bloody hair. As I said earlier, however, the hair was not nearly as
long in the back, plus there was nothing to keep gravity from making
that back "hinge" fall open.

> The autopsy surgeons
> are the ones who peeled back the scalp, with loose pieces of skull then
> clinging to that scalp.

Exactly, and one of those loose pieces of skull still clinging to the
scalp was the very one described by Boswell, and the very one which I
outlined in the lateral x-ray.

> But the Parkland witnesses certainly cannot
> utilize that reasoning for seeing a right-rear hole in Kennedy's head.

But there's another reason they can use, and Boswell confirmed it for
them. Many years later than they would have liked, perhaps, but quite a
few years ago now, as of today, 15 years ago in fact. And I say again,
a mere child, without a day of medical training, can recognize with
absolute reliability the difference between the front and the back of a
person's head. There's no way that many medically trained adults could
all be "wrong" when they say there was a hole in the back of his head.
There was a hole in the back of his head. They were merely seeing the
most rearward part of the damage that was seen in its entirety at
Bethesda. At Bethesda they saw exactly the same damage that the people
at Parkland saw, plus all the other damage that was not seen at Parkland
as well.

It's long overdue to lay this myth to rest, just like the myth of the
motorcade route being changed "at the last minute," the myth that Jack
Ruby "never explained" why he wanted to be taken to Washington, and the
and the myth that Nelson Delgado had the slightest idea how well Oswald
could shoot when he was actually *trying* to shoot well. Too many LNs
still believe that it is necessary to deny a hole anywhere in the rear
of the head to remain consistent with a single shooter firing from the
rear. It is not. Too many CTs still believe that a hole anywhere in
the rear of the head is confirmation of a frontal shot and rear exit.
It is not.

--
"...the difference between rightwingers and
leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 12:08:11 AM7/14/11
to
In article
<90ca1c83-d901-49f8...@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "You are not correct in your interpretation. The scalp of the
> president is not completely INTACT." <<<
>
> Bob,
>
> I was referring only to the scalp in the RIGHT-REAR part of JFK's head,
> because that is the precise area of discrepancy between the Parkland
> witnesses and the autopsy photos/X-rays. (And you knew that, of course.)

Yes, in the right rear it was intact. But it was just above and forward
that it was not. That allowed the scalp of the right rear of his head to
fold downward, with a large piece of skull still attached to the scalp, or
to be pulled back upward into place, which is what is seen in at least two
of the photos. And I see that bobr in the first photo he produced,

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/6.jpg

circled that same piece of skull. So did I, in a photo I gave in a
lengthy reply that I just posted to another of your articles in this
thread. That piece of bone, with the scalp attached to it, could open and
close rather like a hinge. This is obvious from the x-ray alone, where it
is seen that the crack fissure between that piece of bone and the rest of
the skull is at its widest along the more forward portion of that piece of
skull.

> And Boswell does not specifically say the scalp was damaged in the
> right-rear.

I'm looking carefully at the article to which you responded, and I do
not see bobr claiming that scalp was damaged in the right rear either,
so you are arguing with something bobr didn't say.

> He isn't clear at all in that testimony you cited.

In my earlier reply to you I quoted the same passage that bobr did, plus
quite a bit more of that testimony, and I find him to be clear enough. I
think you're misunderstanding what bobr is trying to tell you.

> In fact, in
> one aspect we can be sure he's incorrect--when he said "left posterior".
> Not even any CTers think that Kennedy had a wound in the LEFT-REAR of his
> head. It's always RIGHT-rear they talk about.

I think you're also misunderstanding what Boswell meant by "left
posterior," and also what he meant by "wound."

> (And a right-rear wound
> isn't there either, as the autopsy pictures and X- rays vividly
> demonstrate.)

Ok, I think I see what the problem is here. There is no wound in the
upper right rear of the *scalp*. Well, except for the small entry in the
scalp that's somewhere around in there. But the bone *underneath* the
scalp is considerably damaged. No, there is not much *missing* bone under
the scalp there, as there was a great deal of bone missing from the right
hemisphere of his head further forward. But there is a large piece of
bone in the upper right rear of the skull that has a large crack all
around it and is no longer attached to any other bone in the skull. This
is obvious in the lateral x-ray that bobr showed you and which I've also
cited above, in which there is a circle around that piece of bone. I hope
you understand the orientation of that x-ray. The head is not perfectly
upright, but instead is tilted forward about 20 degrees. When you get a
chance to read my other reply, you'll see that I have rotated the image
about 20 degrees counterclockwise to put it in a more "upright"
orientation, and you'll see that I've circled that same cracked piece of
bone. In the proper orientation it is plain that the lowest part of that
piece of bone is almost halfway down the back of his head, and the
uppermost part of it also extends a fair amount forward. Past the forward
edge of that piece of bone there was indeed wounding in the scalp,
considerable laceration, some missing scalp, etc. This allowed that piece
of bone we're talking about (that bobr and I have circled) to flop
downward, since it was still attached to the scalp, but not to any other
bone, exposing a more rearward "hole" in the skull that was mostly in the
right rear. It could then be pulled back up and put into place, covering
that "hole," and making it appear that there's no "wound" there, since the
damage was not on the surface, not on the scalp, in the upper right rear.
That's what Boswell is doing in that BOH photo, pulling the scalp, with
that piece of bone attached, back up, obviously for the purpose of
displaying the small entrance wound in the scalp to the camera. That's
what he was explaining to the AARB.

Now, let me try to explain what he meant by this sentence:

"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior
to right anterior."

First of all by "wound" he does not mean surface wounding of the scalp.
He means damage to the skull. And indeed the rearward damage to the skull
did extend a little bit into the rear of the left hemisphere of the skull.
I don't mean necessarily that skull was completely *missing* there, I mean
that the *cracks* in the skull extended into the left hemisphere. He's
saying that then, going forward, the damage to the skull was more and more
into the right hemisphere of the skull, with obviously the greatest amount
of damage, and completely missing skull, being in the right hemisphere,
and of course the most forward damage is just above his right eyebrow.
So "transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior" is
indeed fairly accurate.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 2:57:38 PM7/14/11
to
In article
<425abdf5-57ae-4af2...@y13g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
bobr <neo...@gmail.com> wrote:

It might be even better to also explain that a good deal of the rearmost
damage to the skull was in the right rear, but that some of it was in
the left rear, and as the damage went forward, more and more of it was
on the right, until forward of the right temple, a very large amount of
the damage was on the right side of the skull.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 2:59:58 PM7/14/11
to

Jackie said that she tried to put the head back together.

> Clint Hill was the only other person close enough to have done so, and
> he was hanging on to the trunk for dear life, and I don't think he would
> have dared to touch the President's head at that time anyway. But
> Jackie had her head in his lap practically the whole way there, and she
> was hardly thinking clearly at the time, understandably. We've already
> had the suggestion for years that she climbed onto the trunk to grab a
> piece of his head, perhaps with the wild desperate idea that if it could
> be placed back in his head his life might be saved. Thus it's hardly

At Parkland Jackie stepped forward and gave the doctor some brain matter
and asked if it would help.

And we know exactly what the head looked like when they got to Parkland
because of the photo the little boy took. Oops, forgot that Curry ripped
it out of the camera and destroyed it.

bobr

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 3:01:07 PM7/14/11
to
On Jul 13, 11:08 pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

>
> "There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior
> to right anterior."
>
> First of all by "wound" he does not mean surface wounding of the scalp.  
> He means damage to the skull.  And indeed the rearward damage to the skull
> did extend a little bit into the rear of the left hemisphere of the skull.  
> I don't mean necessarily that skull was completely *missing* there, I mean
> that the *cracks* in the skull extended into the left hemisphere.  He's
> saying that then, going forward, the damage to the skull was more and more
> into the right hemisphere of the skull, with obviously the greatest amount
> of damage, and completely missing skull, being in the right hemisphere,
> and of course the most forward damage is just above his right eyebrow.  
> So "transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior" is
> indeed fairly accurate.
>
> --
> "...the difference between rightwingers and
> leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
> Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11

This is what he said.


A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was
folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the
wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back
posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp
but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts
back here probably reflect that.

And this is what it looked like after the second shot.
The rearward protrusion you see in this photo is not seen in the
Moorman photo because it has not happened yet. The rearward protrusion
is not seen in the autopsy photos because the doctors have put
everything back in place when the took their pictures.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5396/z337wpng.png

John Canal

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 3:01:40 PM7/14/11
to
In article <caeruleo1-2D390...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
says...

>
>In article
><90ca1c83-d901-49f8...@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> "You are not correct in your interpretation. The scalp of the
>> president is not completely INTACT." <<<
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I was referring only to the scalp in the RIGHT-REAR part of JFK's head,
>> because that is the precise area of discrepancy between the Parkland
>> witnesses and the autopsy photos/X-rays. (And you knew that, of course.)
>
>Yes, in the right rear it was intact. But it was just above and forward
>that it was not.

Intact? So the 11 witnesses who testified or stated they saw cerebellum were
mistaken?

Also, Grossman, a neurosurgeon, said he and Dr. Clark, another neurosurgeon,
lifted JFK's head and saw a wound about the size of a quarter near the EOP. He
also said he saw cerebellum.

John Canal

[...]


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

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 3:02:30 PM7/14/11
to

>>> "That this hole was really there, but was only the most rearward part of the total damage to his skull is also confirmed by other evidence..." <<<

Then where is it in the pictures below?

Answer: It doesn't exist. There is simply NO right-rear hole at
all....either in the scalp or in the underlying skull of President
Kennedy. And no amount of attempting to reconcile the Parkland
observations will ever suddenly make a huge right-rear hole appear in
these two photos:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

Dr. Robert McClelland, btw, did another "hands on his own head"
demonstration for the Skype camera during an interview in April 2011,
and here's where he places the wound:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fqnNwDJTyCI/Th6PXlLDEgI/AAAAAAAAc1s/kYXgsb0Yv10/s1600/McClelland.png

Now, I challenge anyone who doesn't possess X-ray vision or a big 'S'
on his chest to see a big hole in that part of a person's head when
the patient is lying face-up on a stretcher and the observer (sans X-
ray vision) is looking down at the patient's face, as Dr. McClelland
has always maintained he was doing when he observed the huge blasted-
out hole in JFK's head (which, of course, would HAVE to mean that the
SCALP in the right-rear portion of JFK's head was blasted away too--
which we know just ain't so). His scalp is fully intact in that
occipital area of the head. So, McClelland was flat-out wrong. Period.
And so were the other Parkland witnesses.

IOW, the wound being described by McClelland is in a location that
would be impossible to peer DOWN INTO as he was looking straight down
at JFK's face at Parkland. Why this isn't obvious (to even Dr.
McClelland) is a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.

And another mystery is why the many interviewers who have talked at
length with Dr. McClellend over the years have never once (to my
knowledge) confronted McClellend about this obvious incongruity in his
observations. Not even Vincent Bugliosi confronted him on that
partuicularly issue. And Vince talked to McClelland by telephone on
multiple occasions. Unbelievable.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 14, 2011, 11:00:53 PM7/14/11
to

Tell that to Barb. She calls me a kook when I point out the same thing.

> And another mystery is why the many interviewers who have talked at
> length with Dr. McClellend over the years have never once (to my
> knowledge) confronted McClellend about this obvious incongruity in his
> observations. Not even Vincent Bugliosi confronted him on that
> partuicularly issue. And Vince talked to McClelland by telephone on
> multiple occasions. Unbelievable.
>


Some people suck up to authority.


Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 9:07:15 AM7/15/11
to
In article
<e6d2b3f0-b932-4e63...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "That this hole was really there, but was only the most rearward part of
> >>> the total damage to his skull is also confirmed by other evidence..." <<<
>
> Then where is it in the pictures below?
>
> Answer: It doesn't exist. There is simply NO right-rear hole at
> all....either in the scalp or in the underlying skull of President
> Kennedy. And no amount of attempting to reconcile the Parkland
> observations will ever suddenly make a huge right-rear hole appear in
> these two photos:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

David, I am very disappointed in this reply. You are acting as if I did
not explain this in great detail in my article to which you are here
replying. Let me try again.

I and bobr have quoted to you Thornton Boswell's testimony to the ARRB
that in that first photo you cite above, that is probably his hand
holding the scalp in place. He said that that back part of the scalp
could then fold down and expose a hole behind it. He also said that
there was a piece of bone still attached to the scalp, but not attached
to the rest of the skull. This is the very piece of bone that is
plainly seen in the second photo you have cited above, the lateral
x-ray, with the very large crack around it, that is obviously no longer
attached to any other part of the skull. Bobr and I both produced our
versions of that x-ray in which we outlined that piece of bone, and I
will again give the URL for mine:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5170/lateralxrayhinge.jpg

Again, as I told you before, I rotated that image about 20 degrees
counterclockwise because in the original the skull is tilted forward. I
have also circled the piece of bone that I am talking about. It is
obvious that that piece of bone is no longer attached to the rest of the
skull. In the first photo that you posted above, Dr. Boswell's hand is
holding that very piece of bone, with the scalp attached, in place so
that the bullet entry can be seen in the scalp. But since that piece of
bone was no longer attached to the rest of the skull, that back area of
scalp could be pulled down, with the bone, to expose a hole in the upper
right rear of his skull. At Parkland this flap of scalp and bone was
open, revealing that rearward hole. At the autopsy that flap of scalp
and bone was pushed back into place for the lateral x-ray, and for the
BOH photo.

Do you finally understand what I am saying?

> Dr. Robert McClelland, btw, did another "hands on his own head"
> demonstration for the Skype camera during an interview in April 2011,
> and here's where he places the wound:
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fqnNwDJTyCI/Th6PXlLDEgI/AAAAAAAAc1s/kYXgsb0Yv10/s160
> 0/McClelland.png

Yes, and I've seen another photo of him, much younger, from the 1970s as
I recall, putting his hand on a higher part of the head, the upper right
rear, and photos of at least three of the other Parkland doctors putting
their hands at exactly the same place on their heads, the upper right
rear.

I will once again make a similar statement as I made to you yesterday,
similar to what I have said many times in this newsgroup since 2002:

The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, can
easily identify which part of a person's head is the back of the head,
or the rear of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even
slightly mistaken.

You are proposing an absurdity: that adults numbering in the double
digits (that would be ten or more) who had years (plural) of medical
training, "didn't know" the difference between the back or rear of a
person's head, and the side of a person's head, and were all "mistaken"
in exactly the same way when they said they saw a hole in the back of
JFK's head. And it doesn't require a day of medical training. I know
perfectly well that if I saw a hole in either side of a person's head
that the chances are a million to one that I'd confuse that with the
rear of the head. Wouldn't you say the same of yourself? Or will you
make the astonishing claim that if the hole was on the right or left
side of the person's head, you'd confuse that with the back of the head?

I've never seen you make such an absurd claim before, in this newsgroup
or on your blog, and I am confident that you will not make it now.
Correct?

> Now, I challenge anyone who doesn't possess X-ray vision or a big 'S'
> on his chest to see a big hole in that part of a person's head when
> the patient is lying face-up on a stretcher and the observer (sans X-
> ray vision) is looking down at the patient's face, as Dr. McClelland
> has always maintained he was doing when he observed the huge blasted-
> out hole in JFK's head (which, of course, would HAVE to mean that the
> SCALP in the right-rear portion of JFK's head was blasted away too--
> which we know just ain't so).

Sigh. You are acting as if I did not explain this substantively in my
previous article, when in fact I did. It appears that you only briefly
glanced through my article but did not read the whole thing carefully at
all. I've already corrected you on this "right-rear portion" business.
It was the ***UPPER*** right rear, not merely the right rear, period.
That quite obviously makes a difference. Let's look at what McClelland
actually said to the WC:

**********

Then, as I took my post to help with the tracheotomy, I was standing at
the end of the stretcher on which the President was lying, immediately
at his head, for purposes of holding a tracheotom, or a retractory in
the neck line.

**********

Ok. So as you've said, he said he was at this point standing at the end
of the stretcher by JFK's head. Now let's look at what he said just a
little further on:

**********

As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already
described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position
that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the
right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had
been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the
parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be
fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the
occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open
the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look
down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so,
at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the
cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of
bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in
the skull which had been blasted open.

**********

I am seeing numerous things here which confirm what I told you, which
you apparently did not read in my article, or if you did, you obviously
didn't understand what what I was saying. It's the "right posterior"
portion that he said was blasted, not merely "posterior." Obviously, if
the hole in the head extends partly over to the right side of the head,
then standing above the person one would be able to see into the hole
through the right side of the hole. He also said that some "parietal"
bone was protruded up through the scalp. Do you know where the parietal
bone is? It's definitely nowhere close to all the way to the rear of
the head. And he said that parietal bone was fractured along its
*right* posterior half. Not posterior, period. *Right* posterior.
That obviously means that some of that could be seen on the side, even
with the back of JFK's head laying on the stretcher, but it would still
be obvious that it was to the rear of the head, or in the rear half of
the head might be a better way of putting it, rather than in the front
half. Finally he was saying that he could see down into the hole, and
he described it in detail. With that much detail, I have great
difficulty in believing that he was "mistaken" about which part of the
head this was.

I am superbly confident that if I saw a hole in the upper right rear of
a person's head, horrified as I'd be to see it, I'd still not be even
slightly mistaken as to where on the head the hole was. And I've not
had a day of formal medical training in my life, except for my one-day
CPR class 15 years ago or so. You will surely not make the astounding
claim that you would not also easily be able to identify, easily, which
part of the head it was either, correct?

A mere child can easily tell, without the slightest possibility of being
even slightly mistaken, which part of the head is the "back."


> His scalp is fully intact in that
> occipital area of the head.

Sigh. I've explained that to you also. Yes, of course, the ***SCALP***
was intact in that photo, except for the small entry wound. It's the
bone ***UNDERNEATH*** that same part of the scalp that was completely
detached from the rest of the skull, as is proven by the lateral x-ray
beyond all possible doubt, the same x-ray you cited above. But that
piece of skull was still attached to that scalp. So the scalp, with the
piece of bone attached, could be ***FOLDED*** ***DOWN*** to expose what
would look like a hole in the ***UPPER*** right rear of the skull.

Do you FINALLY understand what I'm saying?

> So, McClelland was flat-out wrong. Period.
> And so were the other Parkland witnesses.

What an absurd statement. More than 10 adults with years of medical
training don't know the difference between the side of a person's head
and the back of a person's head. Nonsense. A mere child, without a day
of medical training, can easily, easily tell the difference. So can I.
So can you. Clint Hill, as I've already told you, saw a hole in the
rear of his head too. Hill didn't know the difference between the side
of JFK's head and the back of JFK's head?

I also see that you made no mention of what I said about huge gory flaps
of scalp/bone/whatever being horrifically visible in the Zapruder film,
flaps that are in front of JFK's right ear, compared to very little
notice of such a thing at Parkland, and my explanation of the obvious
reason for this, the only plausible reason in fact. Did you not read
that part either?

> IOW, the wound being described by McClelland is in a location that
> would be impossible to peer DOWN INTO as he was looking straight down
> at JFK's face at Parkland. Why this isn't obvious (to even Dr.
> McClelland) is a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.

Oh dear. One eventually becomes weary of pointing out the obvious. If
only McClelland had made this claim of where the hole in the skull was,
it would be one thing. But he is corroborated by witnesses numbering in
the double digits, with a much smaller number expressing even an
appearance of even partial disagreement. The likelihood of this many
adult medical professionals being "mistaken" about where the hole was,
when a mere child could have identified the location just as easily, in
fact with absurd ease, is so incredibly remote that it cannot be given
serious consideration.

I'll try yet again:

In the BOH autopsy photo the scalp and bone are being held in place over
the hole in the skull (not the scalp, the skull) that was seen at
Parkland by witnesses numbering in the double digits. Likewise, in the
lateral x-ray, that scalp and bone have been put back into place. It's
been years since I looked at it, but I clearly recall at least one
statement in the autopsy report and/or in the testimony of people
present at the autopsy that when that x-ray was taken, more than one
piece of bone had been pushed back into place. Do you not recall such a
statement as well? I would think you would, as knowledgeable about the
documentation of this case as I have many times seen you to be on your
blog.

> And another mystery is why the many interviewers who have talked at
> length with Dr. McClellend over the years have never once (to my
> knowledge) confronted McClellend about this obvious incongruity in his
> observations. Not even Vincent Bugliosi confronted him on that
> partuicularly issue. And Vince talked to McClelland by telephone on
> multiple occasions. Unbelievable.

Possibly because it is a myth that such an incongruity exists in the
first place.

David, I have great respect for you. For example, just yesterday, I
found the answer to something on your blog that I have been wondering
about for years, whether it is really true that Harry Holmes incorrectly
cited postal regulations about how long the post office must keep part 3
of the application for a P.O. box. I had never seen a copy of those
postal regulations for myself, and yesterday I found it right there on
your blog. Sure enough, the postal regulations don't say anything about
part 3, which is the part where the applicant may put down others who
may receive mail and packages at that P.O. box. You successfully
destroyed this myth, and you did so by meticulous detail to the
documentation.

I want you to understand that I, just like you, with no difference
whatsoever, am trying to destroy another myth, another factoid, about
the case, using exactly the same degree of meticulous scrutiny of the
evidence. This myth is the "discrepancy" between the Parkland
observations and the autopsy observations. They were not "mistaken" at
Parkland. Neither is the CT claim true either, that the BOH autopsy
photos that seem to show the entire rear of the head intact evidence of
a conspiracy to cover up an exit hole in the rear. It was nothing of
the sort. Those photos are merely for the purpose of showing the
entrance wound in the scalp. That's why the scalp is being pulled up by
someone's hand, probably Boswell's, as he himself said.

But that scalp, with a large piece of bone attached, could also be
folded down, or allowed to drop down, to expose a hole in the upper
right rear of the skull. Just because they didn't take a photo of the
BOH that way also doesn't mean it isn't true.

I hope that if you respond to this article you will respond
substantively, just as I did with you. The way you responded this time
was only in generalities. You addressed practically none of the
specific points I raised. I'm surprised and disappointed, because you
did so much better in your discussion of the postal regulations. Maybe
you did read my previous article carefully, but your reply makes it
unclear that you did. Judging by your reply, you appear to have only
briefly glanced at one, or two, or three sentences that I wrote,
abruptly decided without reading any further that I was "wrong," and
gave a reply in which you merely repeated what I've seen you say before
to others.

Please post a more substantial reply this time. I know you can, because
I've seen you do it so many other times. If you think I'm wrong, that's
fine, but tell me in detail why I am wrong. Address the exact points
that I made in detail, demonstrating in cogent argument, not in vague
generalities, why my points are wrong.

Thanks.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 11:55:42 AM7/15/11
to
In article
<c2c3d3f8-0df7-4442...@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
bobr <neo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 13, 11:08?pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> > "There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior
> > to right anterior."
> >

> > First of all by "wound" he does not mean surface wounding of the scalp. ?
> > He means damage to the skull. ?And indeed the rearward damage to the skull
> > did extend a little bit into the rear of the left hemisphere of the skull. ?


> > I don't mean necessarily that skull was completely *missing* there, I mean

> > that the *cracks* in the skull extended into the left hemisphere. ?He's


> > saying that then, going forward, the damage to the skull was more and more
> > into the right hemisphere of the skull, with obviously the greatest amount
> > of damage, and completely missing skull, being in the right hemisphere,

> > and of course the most forward damage is just above his right eyebrow. ?


> > So "transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior" is
> > indeed fairly accurate.
> >
> > --
> > "...the difference between rightwingers and
> > leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
> > Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11
>
> This is what he said.
> A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
> posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was
> folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the
> wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back
> posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp
> but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts
> back here probably reflect that.
>
> And this is what it looked like after the second shot.

I do not agree that there was a second shot to the head. I see no second
explosion of material from his head. And I do not agree with your claim
in the other thread that blood pressure, or lack of it, had anything to do
with it. There was still plenty of blood still left in his cranium even
at Parkland.

> The rearward protrusion you see in this photo is not seen in the
> Moorman photo because it has not happened yet.

As of yesterday I had not yet seen you reply to my posting of two versions
of the Moorman photo, one of which was yours, in which I circled what I
think might be that very protrusion that you say isn't there yet. I'll
post both of those again now:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7254/moormanprotuberance.jpg

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/4580/moormanprotuberance1.jpg

If you have already replied in that other thread to my postings of those
I have not seen that reply yet.

> The rearward protrusion
> is not seen in the autopsy photos because the doctors have put
> everything back in place when the took their pictures.

That part I agree with.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 12:01:00 PM7/15/11
to

Hi Caeruleo,

I don't know how much plainer I can make my position -- but unless you
want to argue that the autopsy pictures AND X-rays are total frauds/
fakes, then you really don't have a leg to stand on re this "BOH" matter.

And that's because the best evidence (those autopsy pics and X-rays) just
simply do not support the Parkland "BOH" witnesses--at all. It's as simple
as that. They don't support them.

How anyone can look at the BEST evidence (which are those pictures and
X-rays) and then try to make a cogent case for there being a wound
here.....

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/198BOHWoundWitnessesMontage.jpg

.....is beyond me. There simply IS NO WOUND where those people have placed
their hands. It does not exist, and never did.

Therefore, an alternative explanation for why those people thought they
saw what they saw must be available. And, very likely, that explanation is
this one (which is the explanation I tend to believe, although I'm still
not 100% satisfied with it):

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I 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...that's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine
things like this. 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. But clearly, from the autopsy
X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the
exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect
or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in
the upper right part of the head.' " -- Pages 407 and 408 of Vincent
Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

John Canal

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 12:02:07 PM7/15/11
to
[...]


>I am seeing numerous things here which confirm what I told you, which
>you apparently did not read in my article, or if you did, you obviously
>didn't understand what what I was saying. It's the "right posterior"
>portion that he said was blasted, not merely "posterior." Obviously, if
>the hole in the head extends partly over to the right side of the head,
>then standing above the person one would be able to see into the hole
>through the right side of the hole. He also said that some "parietal"
>bone was protruded up through the scalp. Do you know where the parietal
>bone is? It's definitely nowhere close to all the way to the rear of
>the head.

He drew on his chematic drawings the lowest piece of rear skull that was
loose. It had the top hemisphere of the entry hole in it and its lower
margin was indeed near the EOP.

By the time that picture was taken no piece of skull were still attached
to the rear scalp.....do you even know the circumstances surrounding the
taking of the BOH photo?

The testimony and evidence is clear that the bone was loose and when they
reflected the scalp that loose bone fell out (or stuck to the scalp) all
the way back to the base of the ear.

When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
(there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
opening had to be that low for them to see it.

None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.

Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.

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

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 3:07:04 PM7/15/11
to


Well, since you are the expert maybe you can answer a question on anatomy
for me. Does the occipital bone start as far back on the skull in every
person? Or are there variations in the way the pieces of the skull are
located in different people?

How many laypeople can locate the EOP at a glance?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 8:47:23 PM7/15/11
to

Silly. You base impossible theories on discredited statements.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 8:48:16 PM7/15/11
to
On 7/15/2011 12:01 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Hi Caeruleo,
>
> I don't know how much plainer I can make my position -- but unless you
> want to argue that the autopsy pictures AND X-rays are total frauds/
> fakes, then you really don't have a leg to stand on re this "BOH" matter.
>
> And that's because the best evidence (those autopsy pics and X-rays) just
> simply do not support the Parkland "BOH" witnesses--at all. It's as simple
> as that. They don't support them.
>
> How anyone can look at the BEST evidence (which are those pictures and
> X-rays) and then try to make a cogent case for there being a wound
> here.....
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/198BOHWoundWitnessesMontage.jpg
>
> .....is beyond me. There simply IS NO WOUND where those people have placed
> their hands. It does not exist, and never did.
>

Not my theory, but it might be Canal's that by the time JFK got into the
ER his scalp had slid down at the back of his head whereas the autopsy
doctors pulled it way up to take the autopsy pictures.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 8:52:12 PM7/15/11
to
David, I am sorry, I am trying to be nice, because I respect you a lot,
but I am once again disappointed in your reply, and worse, I'm now
starting to become annoyed as well. I've seen you do so much better than
this on so many other occasions here and on your blog where you have
addressed issues substantially and in great detail. I do not understand
why you are doing precisely the opposite in your two replies to me. Once
again your reply below gives the impression that at the very most you read
only one percent of my article, only two or three lines, abruptly stopped
reading any further, immediately decided I was just "wrong" without even
trying to understand what I was saying, and then posted the same rebuttals
you've already posted. Nothing reinforces that impression more strongly
than your first sentence, which includes the phrase "unless you want to
argue that the autopsy pictures AND X-rays are total frauds/fakes." This
addresses nothing, absolutely nothing, that I said in my two previous
articles, and makes abundantly clear that you did not understand what I
was saying at all. It makes it appear that you did not even read more
than one of the many sentences that I wrote about that matter alone. If
you did read more of those sentences, why is there no evidence of that in
your reply? Then there's your picture of the fourteen witnesses, and what
you say below immediately above and below that link gives a very strong
impression that you did not read even one sentence of my lengthy
explanation of all that. If you did, why did you not address a single
point that I made? I'm starting to get the impression that you're just
blowing me off, refusing to look at anything I've written, anything, after
I took all the time and trouble to post those articles, refusing to read
any of it, except to look at barely enough of the first two or three lines
to determine that it is some sort of rebuttal to you, immediately deciding
that I'm "wrong" merely because it is some sort of rebuttal and for no
other reason, and posting your second reply when you still have no earthly
idea of any of the content of even my first article, much less the second.
If you really did read every sentence of both articles I am sorry, but I
honestly see no sign of that in either of your replies. And if you really
have read them carefully, I ask you please to prove it by going back and
posting replies that actually address each point that I made in detail,
point by point, in at least half the detail that I addressed each of your
points. All you're doing here, for the second time, is just saying I'm
wrong without explaining precisely why I'm wrong. To demonstrate that I'm
wrong you have to directly address something I actually said. I am still
waiting for you to do that for the first time. My rebuttals to your
articles were many times more substantial than yours have been to me. I
actually addressed directly, and in great detail, each and every point you
raised. Why can't you show me the same courtesy?

In article
<8edd2e09-da55-4554...@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,


David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

--

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 11:03:11 PM7/15/11
to
In article
<2b10e7ff-b3a4-4875...@z14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> And while I do not agree (at all) with John Canal's "scalp-stretching"
> theory, I will say that if I had to choose between ANY multi-gun
> conspiracy theory and John Canal's theory, that choice would be an easy

> one -- John's theory would win hands down. Mainly due to the fact that

> John's theory still includes the obvious and provable fact that JFK was
> shot only once in the head--and that shot came from ABOVE and BEHIND the
> President.

So does mine. And neither does mine include any hogwash such as fakery of
autopsy materials. But you wouldn't know, because you've apparently not
read more than four or five lines total out of each of my three most
substantial responses to you, even though one of them was 109 lines,
another was 298, and another was 400. But in your replies to two of them,
yours were 42 and 44 lines. Just looking at how much shorter your replies
were, I suspected before opening them that you would not have addressed
much of what I said, especially since one of your replies was barely more
than one-tenth the length of the article you were replying to. But then,
when looking at the content of your replies, I was even more disappointed.
So many other times, here, and on your blog, I have seen you tackle
superbly various issues of the assassination with wonderful cogent,
detailed, and substantive analysis. But your replies to me were precisely
the opposite. You merely trotted out the same things you'd already said
to Mr. Canal, and from several of your comments it was obvious that you
did not even read anything I wrote on several issues, because nothing in
your text mentioned or addressed anything I said. If you did really read
at least half the lines in my articles I apologize, but as yet I have seen
no evidence. I find your replies unconvincing because you do not address
anything I said. Anything. And even if you do subsequently claim that
you did read my articles thoroughly I will have trouble believing you
until you address at least half the points I raised point by point in at
least half the substantial detail that I addressed every one of your
points. Until then it is obvious that I read your articles at least
one-hundred times more thoroughly and carefully than you read mine, which
I proved beyond all possible doubt by discussing every point you made with
an obvious understanding of what you meant, and adding plenty of cogent,
logical, and reasonable comments about what you said, very much unlike the
way you treated me. I also demonstrated very convincingly that one of
your arguments in particular is patently absurd.

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because you didn't even read my
articles before you replied to them.

If I'm wrong, prove it: name each of the primary points I made in those
articles. If you can't, you obviously haven't read them.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 15, 2011, 11:03:31 PM7/15/11
to
In article
<7f46ef73-780a-42c1...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> The main point being: BOTH are in the BACK of the head. Mr. Kennedy,
> therefore, WAS shot in the BACK of the head.

Indeed. That's what I think too. But you wouldn't know that because you
never read my articles before you replied to them, otherwise you would
have addressed at least one of the things I said in them, instead of
addressing entirely things I never said in your two replies.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:02:02 AM7/16/11
to
Oh, I see you don't have me in your killfile anymore. I just took you
out of mine a few minutes ago. I put you in when you made that false
statement about me personally a while back. You said that I "don't pay
attention," and that is why you were putting me in your killfile. What
you neglected to mention was that at the time you said that I was only
posting here very infrequently, and often did not post here for months
at a time, so naturally I cannot "pay attention" to articles I haven't
seen. I'm looking at the Google Groups archives now, and I'm seeing an
example of what you might have been talking about. In March, 2010, I
see you posted a reply to one of my articles and I never responded to
you. But what you seem not to have noticed is that I left the newsgroup
immediately after that and did not post here again until June, so of
course I did not see your reply. And after June I did not post here
again until September. But months later, when you said you were putting
me on killfile for "not paying attention," you seemed to be implying
that even when I am here posting regularly, such as during these past
several weeks, I still do not pay attention to the replies made to me,
and if so that is patently false. I look at every reply made to me -
when I'm here - and in most cases I reply in quite detailed fashion,
proving that I am indeed paying quite close attention to the content of
what is said in replies to me. I am sorry, John, that I did not answer
you in March of last year, but it was not purposeful.

Anyway, let's see how well I pay attention to you today. ;-)

In article <ivluv...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <caeruleo1-2D390...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
> says...
> >
> >In article
> ><90ca1c83-d901-49f8...@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> "You are not correct in your interpretation. The scalp of the
> >> president is not completely INTACT." <<<
> >>
> >> Bob,
> >>
> >> I was referring only to the scalp in the RIGHT-REAR part of JFK's head,
> >> because that is the precise area of discrepancy between the Parkland
> >> witnesses and the autopsy photos/X-rays. (And you knew that, of course.)
> >
> >Yes, in the right rear it was intact. But it was just above and forward
> >that it was not.
>
> Intact? So the 11 witnesses who testified or stated they saw cerebellum were
> mistaken?

No, and I have explained my position on that in extensive detail in
these three articles in this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/160d726354e90ac1
?dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/440b93924419c0d2
?dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a257e5144ef01b65
?dmode=source

One can clearly see that I did indeed pay meticulous attention to what
David said as I addressed each of his points in great detail.

> Also, Grossman, a neurosurgeon, said he and Dr. Clark, another neurosurgeon,
> lifted JFK's head and saw a wound about the size of a quarter near the EOP. He
> also said he saw cerebellum.

Indeed.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:04:05 AM7/16/11
to
Let's see how well I "pay attention" to this article. ;-)

In article <ivplf...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> [...]
>
> >I am seeing numerous things here which confirm what I told you, which
> >you apparently did not read in my article, or if you did, you obviously
> >didn't understand what what I was saying. It's the "right posterior"
> >portion that he said was blasted, not merely "posterior." Obviously, if
> >the hole in the head extends partly over to the right side of the head,
> >then standing above the person one would be able to see into the hole
> >through the right side of the hole. He also said that some "parietal"
> >bone was protruded up through the scalp. Do you know where the parietal
> >bone is? It's definitely nowhere close to all the way to the rear of
> >the head.
>
> He drew on his chematic drawings the lowest piece of rear skull that was
> loose. It had the top hemisphere of the entry hole in it and its lower
> margin was indeed near the EOP.

Yes.

> >Sigh. I've explained that to you also. Yes, of course, the ***SCALP***
> >was intact in that photo, except for the small entry wound. It's the
> >bone ***UNDERNEATH*** that same part of the scalp that was completely
> >detached from the rest of the skull, as is proven by the lateral x-ray
> >beyond all possible doubt, the same x-ray you cited above. But that
> >piece of skull was still attached to that scalp. So the scalp, with the
> >piece of bone attached, could be ***FOLDED*** ***DOWN*** to expose what
> >would look like a hole in the ***UPPER*** right rear of the skull.
> >
> >Do you FINALLY understand what I'm saying?
>
> By the time that picture was taken no piece of skull were still attached
> to the rear scalp.....

Could you give me your source for that? Thanks.

> do you even know the circumstances surrounding the
> taking of the BOH photo?

Obviously I do, since I have described those circumstances explicitly in
other articles in this thread.

> The testimony and evidence is clear that the bone was loose and when they
> reflected the scalp that loose bone fell out (or stuck to the scalp) all
> the way back to the base of the ear.

Indeed.

> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
> opening had to be that low for them to see it.

Actually more than eleven, but otherwise yes, you and I are more or less
in agreement.

> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>
> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.

Right.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:06:16 AM7/16/11
to
Lemme see if I can "pay attention" to this one too. ;-)

In article <ivj77...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> I can't change your mind, David...no one on this group has ever changed their
> mind and said they did so beccause someone else's arguments convinced them
> they
> were wrong.....and I never expected you to be the first.

*cough*

Oh, no one before in this newsgroup has ever changed their mind because
someone else convinced them they were wrong? I beg to differ.

> But look at the first words of what you wrote:
>
> >Nothing
> >you could say
>
> Then don't listen to me...pay attention to what the forensic radiologist, Dr.
> John Fitzpatrick, the forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and the
> forensic anthrpologist, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker said....which was there was NO,
> NADA, ZILCHO, VOILA, ZERO, evidence on the x-rays of a bullet wound in the
> cowlick.


>
> And while you're calling them clowns, liars, or unqualified to say that, you
> might want to add the esteemed Dr. Joseph Davis to that list. He was the
> Chief
> Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades....and stated on the
> record there was evidence on the x-rays for an entry near the EOP.
>

> And I'll end this exchange hoping you'll try to come up with an explanation
> for
> why on God's green earth your favorite BOH photo shows a bunch of relatively
> undamaged scalp over the very large top/right/front area where bone AND SCALP
> were blown into DP and/or the limo.

Hmmm, I hope I'll be getting to the answer for that, since some of the
articles in this thread I'm going through for the first time now. ;-)

> Yes, I really wonder if you'll actually try to explain that to yourself? I
> wouldn't though if I were you because you can't be the first here to change
> their mind on an important point because of something a few experts said...so
> don't get a headache trying to explain that.

I'm still waiting for David to address anything I've written for the
first time ever in this thread. In his two replies to me that he's
posted so far, he argued only with things that I didn't say and did not
mention a single thing that I did say.

You see John, David doesn't "pay attention."

:P

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:07:24 AM7/16/11
to

Hi again Caeruleo,

Sorry for being so abrupt and short on previous occasions in this
forum thread.

You did, indeed, write up multiple lengthy posts about JFK's head
wounds, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing them specifically
to me. My responses to you were probably too short and too abrupt. My
apologies.

Upon re-reading (slowly) your first post in this thread (dated July
13, 2011), I see that you have made some good points indeed,
particularly regarding the "hinged" piece of skull that is quite clear
on one of JFK's autopsy X-rays. In fact, I've discussed that
particular piece of "loose bone" with Robert Harris on a few occasions
in the past.

And I, like you, totally disagree with Mr. Harris' theory about a
second shot to JFK's head being the thing that caused that "hinged"
piece of skull at the very top of the President's head.

Regardless of how much damage was done to JFK's head on 11/22/63, we
can know with 100% certainty (at least I am certain of this fact) that
ALL of that damage was caused by one single bullet that came from
ABOVE and BEHIND President Kennedy. The evidence of only one bullet
hitting JFK in the head is too overwhelming to toss aside in favor of
ANY theory that a person might be willing to cling to. There's the
autopsy report, the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons, and the
autopsy photographs and X-rays. And all of those things corroborate
each other with respect to the number of shots that struck JFK in the
head. And that answer is "one".


>>> "Look again at that lateral x-ray. The lowermost part of the piece of skull is not quite halfway down the back of the head, and the uppermost part of [it] includes a little of the top of the head. Now imagine him lying on his back and that piece falling open, still hanging onto the scalp, but otherwise not attached. And this business of it being in the upper right rear also is corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland, although they used various terminology." <<<

Yes, I suppose you could be right about this. But I'm still having a
difficult time envisioning the top-of-the-head skull flap (if it was
"open" when JFK was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital) causing
virtually all of the witnesses to think that the large head wound was
in the BACK part of JFK's head. The orientation of WHERE that loose
skull flap would have fallen, given those circumstances, just doesn't
seem to add up to me.

Here's the best autopsy photo we have to illustrate the exact posture
that JFK was in when the Parkland witnesses saw him in Dallas:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Now, it's possible that the President's head wounds didn't look
EXACTLY like the picture above when JFK was at Parkland. And I agree
with you 100% that it's quite likely that Jackie "closed up" the flap
on the upper-right portion of his head, thereby possibly concealing
that wound to a large extent from the Parkland observers.

I've speculated about that very thing in the past as well, theorizing
that Jackie's handling of JFK's head might very well be the reason why
virtually nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing the large right-front
exit wound.

But if JFK's head looked anything like the above autopsy photo while
he was lying in that exact same position (flat on his back) at
Parkland Hospital, I'm then back to my original stance of scratching
my head and wondering: How could the Parkland people say that
Kennedy's large wound was in the VERY BACK of his head--or UPPER-REAR
or LOWER-REAR of his head.

It seems to me that if the top "hinged" part of JFK's head had opened
up, then this would have caused the Parkland witnesses to see a huge
hole at the VERY TOP of his head--not the REAR of the head (or the
right-rear, which is where many witnesses, Dr. McClelland for one,
said it was).

So, even if the theory is correct about the top part of JFK's head
"opening up" at Parkland, it appears to me that we have a very similar
situation regarding the Parkland witnesses that I have brought up
before -- i.e., it would seem as though those Parkland witnesses STILL
would be wrong about where the actual wound really was.

Because I want to know how a big opening at the VERY TOP of Kennedy's
head would equate to the Parkland people seeing a huge hole in the far-
right-rear or even HIGH-right-rear portion of his head?

And if the hinged skull flap ITSELF is supposed to be the thing that
is confusing the Parkland personnel (instead of the big HOLE that has
now been exposed IN THE SKULL of Kennedy via this "hinged flap"
theory), I'd have to ask: How did that hinged piece of skull/scalp
manage to tuck itself UNDER the head of the President, in order to
appear to be at the very BACK (or occipital) part of his head?

I would think that such a loose chunk of skull/scalp from the very top
of his head would have fallen on the stretcher, and would not have
given the appearance of being a HOLE in the BACK of his head. It would
have just been lying there, somewhat flat on the stretcher (it seems
to me). But maybe you have other thoughts on what exactly such a piece
of loose skull or scalp would have looked like to an observer at
Parkland.

But, anyway, via the autopsy photo linked above, I still find it hard
to envision a scenario which would have virtually all of the Parkland
witnesses somehow seeing what they think is a great-big hole in ANY
portion of the VERY BACK of President Kennedy's head. Because, as I've
stressed previously (and it's still true today), the autopsy photos
and X-rays indicate that there was no hole in the BACK of JFK's head.
It is not there. Period. And a hole in the VERY BACK of Kennedy's head
IS what the vast majority of Parkland witnesses said they saw. And, I
admit, that incongruity is still #1 on my list of things that just do
not add up about this murder case (particularly the Bethesda "BOH"
witnesses).


>>> "There's no way that many medically trained adults could all be "wrong" when they say there was a hole in the back of his head." <<<

Well, I disagree with you here. Because from the hard (and best)
evidence that is available, it's fairly obvious to me that all of
those Parkland witnesses did, indeed, get it wrong. Because there
simply is no great-big hole in JFK's head in the location where those
witnesses said there was a big hole.

Now, let me clarify:

I'm not saying that the Parkland witnesses were all a bunch of dumb
stumps and I'm not saying that they couldn't tell the front of a
person's head from the back of the head.

Although, incredibly, some researchers do seem to want to believe that
all of the Parkland witnesses did, somehow, get confused and weren't
able to tell the difference between the "back" and "front" and "side",
merely due to the fact that JFK was lying flat on his back. Jim Moore
seems to be one of those researchers:

http://Conspiracy--Of--One.blogspot.com

But I don't agree at all with some of the things Jim Moore said in his
1990 book, "Conspiracy Of One". I think a much more reasonable answer
is that the Parkland witnesses* did not mis-identify the portion of
JFK's head that they thought (incorrectly) contained the massive hole,
but instead they saw the large amount of blood and brain and gore
"pooling" in that exact area of his head (the right-rear-occipital
area), and that gore gave the false impression to those witnesses that
a big HOLE was located there. When, in fact, it wasn't a deficit or
hole at all. It was merely a great-big mess of blood/brain/tissue.

* = But I cannot totally reconcile the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses via
the above argument, so I have to put them in a different "unsolved"
category. I haven't the foggiest idea why people like Custer, Riebe,
etc., said they saw a big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
That's a huge head-scatcher for me, that I doubt can ever be fully
resolve. But there's no doubt in my mind that Custer, et al, were
wrong too, because there simply is no HOLE in the head where those
people claimed to have seen one.


>>> "There was a hole in the back of his head." <<<

I'll have to (strongly) disagree with you again. There is no "hole" in
the BACK (i.e., "occipital") part of JFK's head, which is where those
Parkland/Bethesda witnesses said they saw a "hole".

I'll admit that the fractured (or "hinged", as we've been calling it)
part of the skull at the TOP of the head does extend into what we
could call the BACK (or upper-back) of the head. But as I pointed out
to Robert Harris in past posts, that TOP-OF-THE-HEAD wound does not
corroborate or substantiate the observations of the Parkland/Bethesda
witnesses, even it is was hanging down and hinged-open when JFK was at
Parkland Hospital. Because that top-of-the-head piece of skull is
certainly not anywhere near the "occipital" area of President's
Kennedy's head:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

So, in the final analysis, I'd say I'm pretty much back to where I was
prior to reading your lengthy post of July 13th -- i.e., I'm still of
the opinion that the Parkland witnesses were incorrect when they said
that President Kennedy had a large-sized hole in the back of his
head.

And I still hold that opinion even if your theory is correct about the
top-of-the-head skull piece being "hinged open" at Parkland. Either
way, the Parkland witnesses did not correctly identify the TRUE
LOCATION of the large wound they said they saw in President Kennedy's
head on November 22, 1963.

Thank you for your posts, Caeruleo. You've given me additional food
for "BOH" thought. But even with that additional food in my stomach, I
still think the Parkland people got it wrong.

David Von Pein
July 15, 2011

John Canal

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:08:20 AM7/16/11
to
[...]

I was going to reply to this when it dawned on me that you must have used the
same logic to arrive at whatever you wrote here that you used to arrive at the
ultra-wacky conclusion JFK was not hit anywhere in the back of his head.......so
maybe I'll not bother to waste my time addressing what would surely be more
illogical thoughts.

John Canal

>> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
>> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
>>
>
>Silly. You base impossible theories on discredited statements.
>
>> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>>
>> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
>> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.


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

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 9:08:56 AM7/16/11
to
In article
<9a78551c-150c-477d...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> I, of course, firmly believe that the Parkland witnesses (and, yes,
> some of the Bethesda witnesses too) were wrong.

Yes, and that is an absurd claim. The average ten-year-old child,
without a day of medical training, can easily determine which part of
the head is the "rear" without the slightest possibility of being even
slightly mistaken. Yet you claim that adults numbering in the double
digits who had years of medical training didn't know which part of the
head is the "rear."

Of course, if you'd actually read those two lengthy articles of mine
when you replied to them, which you obviously didn't since you didn't
address a single point I made, or make any reference at all to anything
I said, and instead argued only with things I didn't say, you would have
seen that I presented a very detailed and substantial case that provides
would could possibly be a very plausible, sensible, and mundane
explanation for the mythical "discrepancy." My explanation does not
require any wild stretches such as dismissing adult medical
professionals who supposedly "can't tell" which part of a human head
they're looking at, or such hogwash as "faked" photos and x-rays, or a
big hole in the rear scalp where there was none. Nor am I proposing any
other shot to the head but one from the TSBD. In fact, I've explained
the "discrepancy" between Parkland and Bethesda in quite a common sense
fashion.

But you wouldn't know that, because you didn't read what I wrote.
Obviously not, because your two replies do not address a single point
that I made, although they address several points that I didn't.

I believe that's called a "strawman."

Oh, here are those two articles again, plus a third one that you haven't
replied to yet, in which I give possibly the most succinct explanation
of my views of the three articles:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/160d726354e90ac1
?dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/440b93924419c0d2
?dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a257e5144ef01b65
?dmode=source

Even if you don't agree that I'm right in those, I would be astonished
if after really reading them carefully you would not say to yourself
something like, "Oh, ok, NOW I understand what he's saying; I
misunderstood before."

Right now, you may think I'm wrong, but you don't actually know, because
you haven't understood a single point that I made; in other words, you
have no idea what I'm wrong about.

> They did not and could
> not have seen a great-big hole in the right-rear of JFK's head on
> November 22nd, because the SCALP of the President is completely INTACT
> in the photographs.

I explained in great detail in those three articles how they could
indeed see a big hole there, and yet without this conflicting in the
slightest with those photographs. My explanation makes them right in
what they saw, and also makes the photos accurate as well. It's really
quite simple: the hole they saw at Parkland in the right rear was not a
hole in the scalp, exactly. And yes, you are right also that the scalp
is intact in the BOH photos. Of course it was. So how on earth,
Caeruleo, you may ask, did you manage to reconcile Parkland with that?
It was quite simple, actually, and quite plausible. But you'll never
know until you actually read those three articles. ;-)

> And the X-rays fully corroborate the photos as
> well. There was NO LARGE DEFICIT at the right-rear of President
> Kennedy's head.

Hehehe. Well, in a sense you're right, but there is obviously a crucial
issue there that you do not yet understand.

> And, in my view, those photos and X-rays (in tandem) are, indeed, by
> far the best evidence when it comes to trying to resolve this issue
> concerning the President's head wounds.

Sure they are. And the Parkland witnesses do not conflict with that.
They only seem as if they do when you fail to examine a crucial part of
the evidence.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 1:03:43 PM7/16/11
to
In article <caeruleo1-000F6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
says...

I'm not in the habit of giving out citations but, Boswell to ARRB, p. 166.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the BOH photos were taken after
the morticians had stretched and repaired the BOH scalp.

>> do you even know the circumstances surrounding the
>> taking of the BOH photo?
>
>Obviously I do, since I have described those circumstances explicitly in
>other articles in this thread.

So, about what time on 11-22-63 or 11-23-63 do you think those pictures
were taken?

>> The testimony and evidence is clear that the bone was loose and when they
>> reflected the scalp that loose bone fell out (or stuck to the scalp) all
>> the way back to the base of the ear.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
>> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
>> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
>> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
>> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
>
>Actually more than eleven, but otherwise yes, you and I are more or less
>in agreement.

Okay, I gave you one citation...how about in return you check to see if
you really have more than 11 cerebellum eyewitnesses and citations for
each....if you do have more than 11, I'd like to compare your list with
mine. I'd be pleased to find out that there were more than 11.

>> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>>
>> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
>> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.
>
>Right.

Are you a CT?

Other than probably being too large and indicating there was scalp and/or
bone actually "missing", do you agree with where the BOH wound is in the
McClelland drawing?

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

John Canal

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 5:17:03 PM7/16/11
to
In article <caeruleo1-D7705...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
says...

>
>Lemme see if I can "pay attention" to this one too. ;-)
>
>In article <ivj77...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't change your mind, David...no one on this group has ever changed their
>> mind and said they did so beccause someone else's arguments convinced them
>> they
>> were wrong.....and I never expected you to be the first.
>
>*cough*
>
>Oh, no one before in this newsgroup has ever changed their mind because
>someone else convinced them they were wrong? I beg to differ.

You know of someone here who admits that someone elses arguments convinced
them they were wrong about an important issue...and identified that
person? I've been posting here only for about 11 years but I can't recall
an instance like that. How about informing me of one...I'd be wrong, but
it'd be refreshing to know that there are individuals who'd admit
something like that.

BTW, where do you think the fatal bullet entered?

>> But look at the first words of what you wrote:
>>
>> >Nothing
>> >you could say
>>
>> Then don't listen to me...pay attention to what the forensic radiologist, Dr.
>> John Fitzpatrick, the forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and the
>> forensic anthrpologist, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker said....which was there was NO,
>> NADA, ZILCHO, VOILA, ZERO, evidence on the x-rays of a bullet wound in the
>> cowlick.
>>
>> And while you're calling them clowns, liars, or unqualified to say that, you
>> might want to add the esteemed Dr. Joseph Davis to that list. He was the
>> Chief
>> Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades....and stated on the
>> record there was evidence on the x-rays for an entry near the EOP.
>>
>> And I'll end this exchange hoping you'll try to come up with an explanation
>> for
>> why on God's green earth your favorite BOH photo shows a bunch of relatively
>> undamaged scalp over the very large top/right/front area where bone AND SCALP
>> were blown into DP and/or the limo.
>
>Hmmm, I hope I'll be getting to the answer for that, since some of the
>articles in this thread I'm going through for the first time now. ;-)

Do you know the answer to that? David and others have put that on their
"well, everything can't be explained" list....along with about a two dozen
other problems they have with their "cowlick entry" and "no BOH wound
larger than the entry" myths.

>> Yes, I really wonder if you'll actually try to explain that to yourself? I
>> wouldn't though if I were you because you can't be the first here to change
>> their mind on an important point because of something a few experts said...so
>> don't get a headache trying to explain that.
>
>I'm still waiting for David to address anything I've written for the
>first time ever in this thread. In his two replies to me that he's
>posted so far, he argued only with things that I didn't say and did not
>mention a single thing that I did say.
>
>You see John, David doesn't "pay attention."

When he can't explain something...he doesn't.

I wish, instead of providing a link to an article you've written, you'd
just briefly answer the questions. That is because when the person you are
exchanging thoughts with sees that link, he or she has no idea how large
the article is and how long it'd take to read through it to find the
answer he's looking for.

I rarely open such links myself.

But your methods are at least better than David's...he just clips the
questions he can't answer or the requests for explanations he can't
provide an explanation for.

Typically, David will search through a post and find one thing the person
said he thinks he can provide a good enough answer to or explanation for
and cut and paste that one thing, cutting the rest.

I used to call him David "Cut & Paste" Von Pein.


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

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 5:19:20 PM7/16/11
to


Run away.


John Canal

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 8:55:29 PM7/16/11
to
In article <3780462e-178d-4a3b...@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

David,

I know this wasn't for me but I just couldn't sit back and read your
amazing take on JFK's head wounds. You'll of course either ignore this or
simply reply with links to the x-lateral ray and BOH photos....SO THIS IS
MAINLY FOR OTHERS WHO HAVEN'T YET MADE UP THEIR MINDS ON WHAT HAPPENED.

ANYWAY, do you realize that if your take is correct on the non-existance
of a right-rear opening, the misidentification of the entry wound, and the
notion that the scalp wasn't undermined or stretched, the total number of
mostly medically trained eyewitnesses who were misremembering or lying,
literally, must be around 40?

Do you realize according to your theories dozens of doctors either
couldn't tell the right-rear of JFK's from the top, didn't know what
cerebellum looked like, were hallucinating or lying when they said they
lifted his head, didn't know his EOP from his cowlick, mistakenly thought
they undermined and stretched the scalp, and didn't call PH or didn't know
about the throat wound until the next AM??

You said these guys weren't tree stumps, but if your theories are even
close to being correct they were just as smart as stumps.

How about this: virtually no one lied or was hallucinating at PH or at
Bethesda?

It's just that the x-rays and some of the photos do not reflect what most
of you assume they do.

BTW, several PH docs said the large wound was occipital-parietal.

In any case, I'm not going to change your mind (virtually an
impossibility?) and tell you all the evidence I've compiled during an
appx. 11-year long frustrating (and fascinating) study of the medical
evidence (that I undertook in response to Barb J.'s challenge) that
clearly and convincingly reveals that the photos that you and so many
others think reflect the state of JFK's head when the body was first
received at Bethesda were taken after the morticians repaired the rear
scalp.

Here are a few statements (I'm keeping some under wraps for future
publication)that are clues to why this mess with the medical evidence has
existed for so long (I'm going from memory, so the quotes might not be
exact):

1. Finck: "We had heard there had been shots from the front."

2. Burkley: "I do not care to comment on that". That was his response when
asked if two bullets hit JFK in the head.

3. Sibert: "They must have taken these [photos] after they [the
morticians] reconstructed his head."

4. Both Sibert & O'Neill: Suggested the BOH photos were fakes.

5. Humes: The FBI were kept in the ante room...they were not in the
autopsy room. The FBI was essentially kept in the dark about what they
found (e.g. the trajectory of the upper back [lower neck] bullet path, the
BOH wound, etc.)...ask yourselves why that might be true. The Secret
Service knew what was happening beacuse they [mainly Kellerman] refused to
leave the President's body unguarded.

6. Peters: We found out almost immediately [from Bethesda] there had been
a back wound. A FEW HOURS later we found out from them the shots had been
fired from the rear.

7. Humes we saw cerebellum [flocculus].

8. Stringer: I took photos whenever I was told. I didn't get home until
after 4 AM. The entry that I took pictures of was about 2.5 cm to the
right of the EOP. I might have taken pictures after midnight, but I can't
be sure.

9. SSA Brouk: I think some of the photos came in separately [late].

10. Boyers (chief of the lab on 11-22-63): "I didn't say that!" Response
to being told his report of interview said he simply saw a wound in the
BOH. What he really said he said was that he saw a wound to the right of
the EOP.

11. Boswell: "I think maybe some of these back here". His response when
asked which pieces of bone he replaced before some of the photos and/or
x-rays.

12. Karnei (the resident physician on duty on 11-22-63, who "was in and
out of the autopsy room") "What you [me to him about the stretched scalp
theory] say is logical...".

" I could go on and on and on....but hopefully all this will be published
eventually....and I'm not going to argue about this with anyone
here....especially with anyone who thinks I'm nuts...which is almost
everyone here. You all have your theories..no one's going to cahnge their
mnds...me included..so let's not argue.

Anyway, in short Burkley panicked on 11-22-63...and thought he should keep
pictures of an "exit-like" wound in the right-rear from being taken (or if
they were taken, kept in the record) because they might be interpreted as
or actually be evidence of a conspiracy at a time when this nation did not
need to hear that. He probably also had Boswell push loose piece of bone
in the right-rear (still attached to the right-rear torn scalp) back into
place before the X-rays.

Furthermore, when they undermined and stretched the rear scalp to cover
the huge top/right/front opening (in preparation for an open casket
funeral) an unwanted consequence of that, that they didn't think of
(probably never did figure that out), was that the entry effectively moved
from about 2.5 inches above his hairline to appx. 5-6 inches above it.

Of course all of you (except maybe Barb and her opinion around here is
what really counts for me) think this scenario is crazy....would evidently
rather think that 40 or so credible, mostly medically trained eyewitnesses
were hallucinating about one thing or another...based on x-rays and photos
that were taken under undocumented circumstances and not time-stamped.

Now that later scenario is what I call a crazy theory!

And Marsh, few intelligent people here are going to take your sure-to-come
(as sure as death and taxes) attacks on this seriously because more and
more (I'm trying to help on this) posters are finding out about your
off-the-charts, ultra-wacky theory that JFK was not hit even once in the
back of his head....and consider that anything you say is born from the
same illogical interpretation of the evidence that your
"no-hits-to-the-BOH" was born from.

Sorry I didn't proof read this...we promised my grandson we'd take him to
see the new Harry Potter movie...and have to leave now.

John Canal

>>>> "Look again at that lateral x-ray. The lowermost part of the piece of s=
>kull is not quite halfway down the back of the head, and the uppermost part=
> of [it] includes a little of the top of the head. Now imagine him lying o=
>n his back and that piece falling open, still hanging onto the scalp, but o=
>therwise not attached. And this business of it being in the upper right re=
>ar also is corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland, although they use=


>d various terminology." <<<
>
>Yes, I suppose you could be right about this. But I'm still having a
>difficult time envisioning the top-of-the-head skull flap (if it was
>"open" when JFK was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital) causing
>virtually all of the witnesses to think that the large head wound was
>in the BACK part of JFK's head. The orientation of WHERE that loose
>skull flap would have fallen, given those circumstances, just doesn't
>seem to add up to me.
>
>Here's the best autopsy photo we have to illustrate the exact posture
>that JFK was in when the Parkland witnesses saw him in Dallas:
>

>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s=

>>>> "There's no way that many medically trained adults could all be "wrong"=

>* =3D But I cannot totally reconcile the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses via


>the above argument, so I have to put them in a different "unsolved"
>category. I haven't the foggiest idea why people like Custer, Riebe,
>etc., said they saw a big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
>That's a huge head-scatcher for me, that I doubt can ever be fully
>resolve. But there's no doubt in my mind that Custer, et al, were
>wrong too, because there simply is no HOLE in the head where those
>people claimed to have seen one.
>
>
>>>> "There was a hole in the back of his head." <<<
>
>I'll have to (strongly) disagree with you again. There is no "hole" in
>the BACK (i.e., "occipital") part of JFK's head, which is where those
>Parkland/Bethesda witnesses said they saw a "hole".
>
>I'll admit that the fractured (or "hinged", as we've been calling it)
>part of the skull at the TOP of the head does extend into what we
>could call the BACK (or upper-back) of the head. But as I pointed out
>to Robert Harris in past posts, that TOP-OF-THE-HEAD wound does not
>corroborate or substantiate the observations of the Parkland/Bethesda
>witnesses, even it is was hanging down and hinged-open when JFK was at
>Parkland Hospital. Because that top-of-the-head piece of skull is
>certainly not anywhere near the "occipital" area of President's
>Kennedy's head:
>

>http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK=


>-RELATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg
>
>So, in the final analysis, I'd say I'm pretty much back to where I was
>prior to reading your lengthy post of July 13th -- i.e., I'm still of
>the opinion that the Parkland witnesses were incorrect when they said
>that President Kennedy had a large-sized hole in the back of his
>head.
>
>And I still hold that opinion even if your theory is correct about the
>top-of-the-head skull piece being "hinged open" at Parkland. Either
>way, the Parkland witnesses did not correctly identify the TRUE
>LOCATION of the large wound they said they saw in President Kennedy's
>head on November 22, 1963.
>
>Thank you for your posts, Caeruleo. You've given me additional food
>for "BOH" thought. But even with that additional food in my stomach, I
>still think the Parkland people got it wrong.
>
>David Von Pein
>July 15, 2011
>


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

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 10:31:57 PM7/16/11
to
Finally! At last! A reply from you that, for the first time, shows
evidence that you actually understand what I am proposing to resolve the
mythical "discrepancy" between Parkland and Bethesda, a substantive
response to the actual primary points of my argument!

:P

Ok, I'll be nice now.

Maybe.

;-)

Now David, in seriousness, if you reply to this article that I am now
posting, I would appreciate it if you would address each point I make in
it very specifically. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine - I've been
wrong many times before and I'll be wrong many times in the future - but
please tell me, in specific detail, precisely why you think I am wrong,
and please make reference to the precise issue that you think I'm wrong
about. If you don't have time to do that, please wait until you do have
time. Thanks.

I say this because, of all the issues of the assassination, this is one of
the most crucial of all that needs to be resolved, and I do believe we can
resolve it. But that will never succeed unless all points and issues are
addressed substantively and carefully.

In article
<3780462e-178d-4a3b...@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,


David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> Hi again Caeruleo,
>
> Sorry for being so abrupt and short on previous occasions in this
> forum thread.
>
> You did, indeed, write up multiple lengthy posts about JFK's head
> wounds, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing them specifically
> to me. My responses to you were probably too short and too abrupt. My
> apologies.

Thank you so much for saying that. :)

> Upon re-reading (slowly) your first post in this thread (dated July
> 13, 2011), I see that you have made some good points indeed,
> particularly regarding the "hinged" piece of skull that is quite clear
> on one of JFK's autopsy X-rays. In fact, I've discussed that
> particular piece of "loose bone" with Robert Harris on a few occasions
> in the past.
>
> And I, like you, totally disagree with Mr. Harris' theory about a
> second shot to JFK's head being the thing that caused that "hinged"
> piece of skull at the very top of the President's head.

Yes. Have you watched Robert's video on this matter? Aside from the two
shots to the head business, he demonstrates it rather well. I believe it
begins about 55 minutes into the video. Where he and I converge, and
remain converged in our views, is of course not on how many shots caused
the head damage, but on what was observed from then onward to the end,
starting with Clint Hill getting his first close look at JFK's head while
hanging onto the trunk, through all the witnesses at Parkland, through all
the witnesses at Bethesda and all photographs and x-rays. In other words
he and I are in complete agreement that once the damage to his head was
caused, however it was caused, the observations of the majority of
witnesses, no matter where they were when they saw that damage, are
consistent with the realities of that damage and with the photographic and
x-ray evidence of the autopsy. By doing this, we are obtaining much more
consistency in the evidence that requires rejecting the fewest elements of
that evidence, and most especially does not require us to reject witnesses
numbering in the double digits who were the first witnesses to see the
head damage, and should be considered valuable witnesses instead of
"mistaken" witnesses since they are the only witnesses to see him prior to
the autopsy, and thus the only witnesses to the wounding as it originally
appeared when the limo came to a stop at Parkland.

David, what motivated me to start this discussion with you was this that
you said this on Wednesday:

"How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something in
JFK's head (a huge hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his head) that
we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not possibly have
existed? That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to
it."

This gave me the impression that this was another conundrum about the
assassination that you wanted badly to resolve, the same way you have done
so well to resolve so many other things on your blog, such as the reality
of the 1963 postal regulations, etc. Now do you remember how I began my
reply to that article of yours?

"It is? [meaning "it is a toughie?"] I thought that one was resolved a
long time ago."

Do you know why I said that? Because it was indeed resolved at least as
early as 2003. Unfortunately it seemed to receive little attention at
that time.

> Regardless of how much damage was done to JFK's head on 11/22/63, we
> can know with 100% certainty (at least I am certain of this fact) that
> ALL of that damage was caused by one single bullet that came from
> ABOVE and BEHIND President Kennedy. The evidence of only one bullet
> hitting JFK in the head is too overwhelming to toss aside in favor of
> ANY theory that a person might be willing to cling to. There's the
> autopsy report, the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons, and the
> autopsy photographs and X-rays. And all of those things corroborate
> each other with respect to the number of shots that struck JFK in the
> head. And that answer is "one".

I agree.

> >>> "Look again at that lateral x-ray. The lowermost part of the piece of
> >>> skull is not quite halfway down the back of the head, and the uppermost
> >>> part of [it] includes a little of the top of the head. Now imagine him
> >>> lying on his back and that piece falling open, still hanging onto the
> >>> scalp, but otherwise not attached. And this business of it being in the
> >>> upper right rear also is corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland,
> >>> although they used various terminology." <<<
>
> Yes, I suppose you could be right about this. But I'm still having a
> difficult time envisioning the top-of-the-head skull flap (if it was
> "open" when JFK was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital) causing
> virtually all of the witnesses to think that the large head wound was
> in the BACK part of JFK's head. The orientation of WHERE that loose
> skull flap would have fallen, given those circumstances, just doesn't
> seem to add up to me.

Ok, but this is a very important question that must be answered to resolve
this: if this is not the most plausible explanation for what they saw,
what explanation would be more plausible?

That this many witnesses were merely "mistaken" all in the same way is
most definitely not plausible. I will once again make the most potent
statement of all regarding why rejecting these witnesses cannot be
considered in any reasonable assessment of this issue, and I would like
you to comment on this statement very specifically, please, if you post
any reply at all to this article, that this statement be given high
priority:

The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, will
know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head,

without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.

David, is this statement true or false? You do realize that if you were
to say "false" that most people would find that to be quite an astonishing
answer, correct? Now let's try it in a slightly different form:

The average person, without a day of medical training, will know which
part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the

slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.

True or false? Rather obviously, an answer of "false" given in
seriousness by an adult would naturally elicit a reaction of amazement
among most other adults present, and from many older children as well.
Correct?

You and I cannot make any further progress in discussing this issue
meaningfully until you have addressed both of those statements in a
plausible manner. Not what I alone think is plausible. Not what you
alone think is plausible. What most humans on this planet, in every
country, in every culture, would consider to be plausible.

> Here's the best autopsy photo we have to illustrate the exact posture
> that JFK was in when the Parkland witnesses saw him in Dallas:
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s160
> 0/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Yes, and I've of course seen that many times, and also in color, as I
gather have you.

> Now, it's possible that the President's head wounds didn't look
> EXACTLY like the picture above when JFK was at Parkland. And I agree
> with you 100% that it's quite likely that Jackie "closed up" the flap
> on the upper-right portion of his head, thereby possibly concealing
> that wound to a large extent from the Parkland observers.

Yes, because that is the most plausible explanation. All other
explanations would be less plausible. Had she not touched his head at
all, it would be more likely that more people at Parkland would have been
able to see into the cranium at other points more forward in the his head.
This is where a combination of the Zapruder film and the very autopsy
photo you produce above lend further credibility to this view. We can see
those huge, nasty, gory flaps of scalp/bone/flesh/whatever open forward of
his right ear from the instant the blood spatter clears, and they remain
horrifically visible from then until he finally falls on his left side as
Jackie climbs onto the trunk. That exit damage is so huge, in fact, that
they block the entire right side of his face from the camera the whole
time, correct? But nothing even remotely like this was described even by
Clint Hill, who was the first person to see JFK close up after the bullet
strike, and he got a much closer look than he would have liked, and this
was mere seconds after Jackie got back in her seat. This strongly
suggests that she immediately closed all that up at the earliest possible
moment as she put his head in her lap. I believe that this was because of
the same irrational hysteria that motivated her to climb onto the trunk to
grab a piece of his brain as well. She was not thinking clearly. Her
mind was dominated by one hysterical, desperate thought:

"If I can put his head back together then maybe, just maybe, he can be
saved."

How many other thousands upon thousands of examples can be produced of
people who have, in the first seconds after seeing someone they dearly
love sustain a mortal injury, done tremendously irrational things in a
vain attempt to safe that person's life, when the more rational mind would
immediately see it is hopeless? This to me is a plausible explanation for
what Jackie did. More to the point, it is the most plausible explanation
for why everyone who saw JFK's head starting with Clint Hill and going all
the way through everyone at Parkland and in fact all the way to when the
body was first unwrapped at Bethesda, saw something quite different from
the Zapruder film. Not one of these people, not one, described open flaps
so huge that they completely covered the right side of his face.

And there's the photographic evidence to prove it, the very photograph you
gave above, which had to be one of the first photographs taken at the
autopsy because it is obvious that the peeling back of the hair and scalp
to reveal the extent of damage to the skull had not yet begun. There is
nothing like what is seen in the Zapruder film in that photo, not even
close. Oh yes, there's an open flap of bone on the right side of his
head. But nothing even remotely large enough to cover the entire right
side of his face. It's obvious why: that was all closed up. And there's
the proof of why no one at Parkland saw a hole in the skull in any part of
the front half of the head.

But what about a hole in the right rear? Let's get to that below.

> I've speculated about that very thing in the past as well, theorizing
> that Jackie's handling of JFK's head might very well be the reason why
> virtually nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing the large right-front
> exit wound.
>
> But if JFK's head looked anything like the above autopsy photo while
> he was lying in that exact same position (flat on his back) at
> Parkland Hospital, I'm then back to my original stance of scratching
> my head and wondering: How could the Parkland people say that
> Kennedy's large wound was in the VERY BACK of his head--or UPPER-REAR
> or LOWER-REAR of his head.

Well, notice that in the photo quite a bit of his hair is swept directly
backward, along with that gory mess in the hair. Because of that we can't
really see any part of the back of his head at all, not even the side of
the back of his head, even though the viewpoint is from the right side.
But I don't remember any description of his hair being quite like that at
Parkland. My impression has been that his hair wasn't swept backward like
that on the operating table, but instead was just a tangled, bloody mess,
not primarily going in any one particular direction. Not only would that
sort of thing obscure the more forward damage to his skull even more, it
might mean also that there was less hair in the way of a view into a hole
in the right rear of the skull, since his hair was much shorter in the
back than on the top.

> It seems to me that if the top "hinged" part of JFK's head had opened
> up, then this would have caused the Parkland witnesses to see a huge
> hole at the VERY TOP of his head--not the REAR of the head (or the
> right-rear, which is where many witnesses, Dr. McClelland for one,
> said it was).

Well, but that would still be at almost the very rear of the top of the
head, correct? And I hope you did finally notice carefully what I said to
you about this very issue. As is plainly seen in the lateral x-ray, the
most forward part of that bone was on the top of the skull, yes, but but
still rather close to the rear of the top of the skull. But it's also
that very bone that encompasses the downward curve going into the rear of
the head, and the most rearward part of that piece of bone, as I've
already told you, is almost halfway down the back of the head.

The best way to say it is this: that same piece of bone was part of the
top of the skull, and also part of the back of the skull.

I assume you understand the significance of that.

> So, even if the theory is correct about the top part of JFK's head
> "opening up" at Parkland, it appears to me that we have a very similar
> situation regarding the Parkland witnesses that I have brought up
> before -- i.e., it would seem as though those Parkland witnesses STILL
> would be wrong about where the actual wound really was.

Part of the confusion is merely semantics, David. They had different ways
of wording what they saw. Some said "occipital-parietal." Some said
"right posterior." Some said "upper right posterior." Some said "upper
right rear." Some said "right rear." Some said "rear." Some said
"back." And so on and so on. And it wasn't just words either. That is
demonstrated clearly by that famous collage of 14 of the witnesses which
you produced the other day. Every last one of them is placing their right
hand on the rear of their head. But there are some differences. Some
place their hands higher, some place their hands lower, some a bit more to
the right, and so forth. Here we are seeing more of the typical
unreliability in variations seen in claims of individual witnesses. And
of course this was years later as well when memories weren't as fresh.
They're not quite in consensus on where in the rear of the head the hole
was, but they were in complete consensus that it was the right rear.

> Because I want to know how a big opening at the VERY TOP of Kennedy's
> head would equate to the Parkland people seeing a huge hole in the far-
> right-rear or even HIGH-right-rear portion of his head?

David, that piece of bone is both part of the top AND part of the rear of
his skull, and it is furthermore almost entirely within the right
hemisphere of the skull. To say "very top" only, as you have done above,
is misleading. Only about half of that bone was part of the "very top" of
the skull. The other half of it was in the "very rear" of the skull.
You will continually misunderstand this entire issue, and you will never
be able to resolve it, until you understand exactly where in the skull
that bone is. I'm wondering if you yet understand that in that lateral
x-ray the skull is tilted significantly forward. This is obvious by
looking carefully at the top of the skull, which is at a significant
downward angle from left to right. You need to rotate the image
counterclockwise 20 to 25 degrees to get an "upright" orientation. See
what your impression of where that bone is then. Yes, some of it's on the
"very top." But only some of it.

> And if the hinged skull flap ITSELF is supposed to be the thing that
> is confusing the Parkland personnel (instead of the big HOLE that has
> now been exposed IN THE SKULL of Kennedy via this "hinged flap"
> theory), I'd have to ask: How did that hinged piece of skull/scalp
> manage to tuck itself UNDER the head of the President, in order to
> appear to be at the very BACK (or occipital) part of his head?

I'm not sure where you're getting "tucked under" from. You still seem
to be misunderstanding exactly where this piece of bone is in the skull,
and thus where the Parkland "hole" in the upper right posterior of the
head was.

> I would think that such a loose chunk of skull/scalp from the very top
> of his head would have fallen on the stretcher, and would not have
> given the appearance of being a HOLE in the BACK of his head.

David, it was not a "loose chunk of skull/scalp." That piece of bone,
though no longer attached to the rest of the skull, was still firmly
attached to the scalp. In addition, the scalp of the entire back of the
head was intact from his neck all the way up to the rearmost part of the
top of his head. It could not have "fallen on the stretcher." But it
could open and close like a door on a hinge, as I've told you before.

> It would
> have just been lying there, somewhat flat on the stretcher (it seems
> to me). But maybe you have other thoughts on what exactly such a piece
> of loose skull or scalp would have looked like to an observer at
> Parkland.

I do. Look at this image:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/piks1/boh1.jpg

That's using the same BOH photo we've been talking about, but added to
that in yellow is the area of the head outlined by Boswell that would
open and close. In the photo, it is of course being held closed. Also,
Mr. Seaton has clarified something I had forgotten about, which makes
all of this a bit clearer, and I could kick myself for not having
noticed this before:

At least some of the time he was on the operating table at Parkland his
head was turned somewhat to the left, thereby exposing to view more of
the right rear of the head.

Dammit, I KNEW about this way back in 2003 and had forgotten all about
it!

Look at this from the ARRB reports:

**********

Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head
wound. After asking Dr. Perry ?where is the wound,? she said he turned the
President?s head slightly to the President?s anatomical left, so that she
could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as
occipital in both her oral remarks, and in her drawings;

-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound,
but could not tell what type of brain tissue it was;

-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President?s
head, and the top of his head, were intact, which is why she had to ask
Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place.

**********

The "she" in this is Audrey Bell. "...she turned the President's head
slightly to the President's anatomical left..."

Well, duh, no wonder. And yes, if the head was still turned somewhat left
as McClelland stood over JFK, he'd damned well be able to see into that
hole. In addition, did it ever occur to you that just because McClelland
said he stood there at JFK's head, that doesn't mean he stood absolutely
motionless like a statue the entire time. How do you know he didn't at
one point bend over and look closely at the right rear of JFK's head?
Because the exact words "bend over" don't appear in his WC testimony?

Let's look carefully at what he said:

"As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already
described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that
I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted."

The crucial words are "I was in such a position that I could very closely
examine the head wound." A natural thing to do when one "closely
examines" any object is to bend over and take a closer look. How do we
know he didn't do exactly that? Because he didn't specifically say "I
bent over"?

Furthermore, if JFK's head was also turned a little to the left, and
McClelland bent over a little to the right, he'd be able to see the
rightmost part of the hold quite easily.

Perfectly logical explanation. I'd be astonished if you or anyone else
says it isn't.

> But, anyway, via the autopsy photo linked above, I still find it hard
> to envision a scenario which would have virtually all of the Parkland
> witnesses somehow seeing what they think is a great-big hole in ANY
> portion of the VERY BACK of President Kennedy's head. Because, as I've
> stressed previously (and it's still true today), the autopsy photos
> and X-rays indicate that there was no hole in the BACK of JFK's head.
> It is not there. Period.

But a hole would be ***CREATED*** by flipping ***OPEN*** that piece of
bone. The reason "it is not there, period," in the BOH photos and the
lateral x-ray is because at those times it is ***CLOSED***.

It's like a DOOR on a HINGE, David. Open. Close. Open. Close. Like a
door. When you open the door, there's a hole there. When you close the
door, there's no hole.

I'm sorry David, but I'm just not understanding why you are still not
getting this concept. It seems childishly simple to me.

> And a hole in the VERY BACK of Kennedy's head
> IS what the vast majority of Parkland witnesses said they saw.

I wish you would stop saying "very back." It was in the RIGHT REAR.

> And, I
> admit, that incongruity is still #1 on my list of things that just do
> not add up about this murder case (particularly the Bethesda "BOH"
> witnesses).

Exactly. This is one of the most crucial issues of all to resolve. Ok,
once again, I ask you one of the most important questions of all. Please
do not reply to my article without answering this very specifically. It
is crucial that you answer this, because without this answer you cannot
present a plausible argument:

IF THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WASN'T WHERE THEY SAID IT WAS, THEN WHERE ON HIS
HEAD WAS THE HOLE THEY SAW?

Unless you're going to dismiss these witnesses even further and claim that
not only were they mistaken about where the hole was, they were mistaken
about there being ANY hole (in which case I'll never take you seriously
again), you realize that you or anyone else doubting what they said
absolutely MUST answer this question plausibly to produce an even remotely
plausible argument.

This is one of the parts of this article I SURE hope you don't skip over.

> >>> "There's no way that many medically trained adults could all be "wrong"
> >>> when they say there was a hole in the back of his head." <<<
>
> Well, I disagree with you here. Because from the hard (and best)
> evidence that is available, it's fairly obvious to me that all of
> those Parkland witnesses did, indeed, get it wrong.

Then where on his head was the hole that they saw? Because they
obviously saw a hole, David. Unless you're planning to dismiss that
claim too, in which case I'm outta here, and I will try to find a more
reasonable person to present this case to.

> Because there
> simply is no great-big hole in JFK's head in the location where those
> witnesses said there was a big hole.

Oh good lord. Like a door. Open. Close. Open. Close. Close the door,
there's no hole. Open the door, there's the hole.

Another way of thinking of it is you're sorta increasing the *size* of the
overall hole in his skull, which of course extended far forward, when you
open this "door." When you "close the door" your decreasing the size by
making the rearward margin closer to the forward margin of the overall
giant hole in the right hemisphere of his skull. When Humes measured the
opening in the skull he did it with the "back door closed" and measured it
at 13cm. When Boswell measured it he did it with the "back door open" and
measured it at 17cm. I hope that will make sense to you when you read it.
WHEN you read it, David, not IF.

> Now, let me clarify:
>
> I'm not saying that the Parkland witnesses were all a bunch of dumb
> stumps and I'm not saying that they couldn't tell the front of a
> person's head from the back of the head.

A mere child, without a day of medical training, can easily tell the
difference between the front and back of a person's head without the

slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.

True or false?

Yer darned right they could tell the difference between the front and back
and left side and right side of a head at Parkland, and also be able to
name the correct anatomical term for each of those. They'd be about the
last people on earth would be even slightly likely to get this wrong. If
a mere child can get it right, then they're at least one-hundred times
more likely to have gotten it right.

Or where do you think on JFK's head the hole was that they saw? Do you
see any hole in his head in that first autopsy photo with him laying on
his back? I sure don't. And in that photo the area where they said there
WAS a hole is completely covered by his hair.

> Although, incredibly, some researchers do seem to want to believe that
> all of the Parkland witnesses did, somehow, get confused and weren't
> able to tell the difference between the "back" and "front" and "side",
> merely due to the fact that JFK was lying flat on his back. Jim Moore
> seems to be one of those researchers:
>
> http://Conspiracy--Of--One.blogspot.com
>
> But I don't agree at all with some of the things Jim Moore said in his
> 1990 book, "Conspiracy Of One". I think a much more reasonable answer
> is that the Parkland witnesses* did not mis-identify the portion of
> JFK's head that they thought (incorrectly) contained the massive hole,
> but instead they saw the large amount of blood and brain and gore
> "pooling" in that exact area of his head (the right-rear-occipital
> area), and that gore gave the false impression to those witnesses that
> a big HOLE was located there.

I do not see how even I, who am not medically trained, could make a
mistake like that. Too many of them described being able to see his brain
down in there, and blood pooling isn't going to look at all like a hole
because it won't have any depth.

> When, in fact, it wasn't a deficit or
> hole at all. It was merely a great-big mess of blood/brain/tissue.

No, that is not a plausible explanation.

> * = But I cannot totally reconcile the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses via
> the above argument, so I have to put them in a different "unsolved"
> category.

Why? Paul Seaton solved this years ago. We badly need more websites than
only his explaining away this myth. I don't think there's any other issue
now where the CTs laugh more at the LNs than when they deny this hole.
It used to be the SBT, but recent research and computer graphics have
turned the laughter the other way. Wouldn't you agree. But I don't blame
the CTs for still laughing at the LNs about this hole. That's because
most LNs are still trying to explain it away by implausibly dismissing far
too many inconvenient witnesses. Help to turn the laughter the other way
on this issue, just like with the SBT. Help to demonstrate how, when the
CTs claim the discrepancy proves conspiracy, it actually doesn't. I'm
trying as hard as I can, but all by myself I'm not going to make much
headway. If your blog, however, presented this issue properly, however,
just as you've debunked so many other myths there, more people will become
aware that this too is a myth than have ever been aware of it before.
Isn't that what you want? I sure do. I would think all LNs would.

> I haven't the foggiest idea why people like Custer, Riebe,
> etc., said they saw a big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
> That's a huge head-scatcher for me, that I doubt can ever be fully
> resolve. But there's no doubt in my mind that Custer, et al, were
> wrong too, because there simply is no HOLE in the head where those
> people claimed to have seen one.

Ok David, I'm getting really frustrated. You say you read my article much
more carefully this time, but then you make a comment like that and it
still seems like you only skimmed through parts of it. This impression is
reinforced by the fact that you have only quoted a very few lines of my
text in your reply. See how all my replies to you, including this one,
are extremely different? I'm quoting your entire text, and inserting my
arguments point by point into your text. Why can't you do it that way
too? I know it's time-consuming, but I'm taking the time, as you can see,
and this issue is more than important enough to make it worth it.

> >>> "There was a hole in the back of his head." <<<
>
> I'll have to (strongly) disagree with you again. There is no "hole" in
> the BACK (i.e., "occipital") part of JFK's head, which is where those
> Parkland/Bethesda witnesses said they saw a "hole".

I am wondering how many more times I will have to explain this before it
will finally sink in. This is like pulling teeth. You seem to have
some mental block in understanding this concept. It is a childishly
simple concept.

When the door in the back of the head is open, there's a hole.

When the door in the back of the head is closed, there's no hole.

Which part of this do you not understand?

> I'll admit that the fractured (or "hinged", as we've been calling it)
> part of the skull at the TOP of the head does extend into what we
> could call the BACK (or upper-back) of the head. But as I pointed out
> to Robert Harris in past posts, that TOP-OF-THE-HEAD wound does not
> corroborate or substantiate the observations of the Parkland/Bethesda
> witnesses, even it is was hanging down and hinged-open when JFK was at
> Parkland Hospital. Because that top-of-the-head piece of skull is
> certainly not anywhere near the "occipital" area of President's
> Kennedy's head:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

Once again, when you look at that x-ray, are you looking at it with the
understanding that the head is tilted forward? I do not at all agree
with you that it is not "anywhere near the 'occipital' area."

> So, in the final analysis, I'd say I'm pretty much back to where I was
> prior to reading your lengthy post of July 13th -- i.e., I'm still of
> the opinion that the Parkland witnesses were incorrect when they said
> that President Kennedy had a large-sized hole in the back of his
> head.
>
> And I still hold that opinion even if your theory is correct about the
> top-of-the-head skull piece being "hinged open" at Parkland. Either
> way, the Parkland witnesses did not correctly identify the TRUE
> LOCATION of the large wound they said they saw in President Kennedy's
> head on November 22, 1963.

Then to support that argument you have to answer where the hole was that
they saw, and you have to answer WHY they got the location wrong. Just
saying they were mistaken doesn't cut it. WHY were they mistaken?

Ok David, I'm sorry, but I'm out of patience. If I don't see you answer
that question specifically very soon, I may have to give you up as a lost
cause. You cannot possibly support your argument that they were wrong
without answering that.

> Thank you for your posts, Caeruleo. You've given me additional food
> for "BOH" thought. But even with that additional food in my stomach, I
> still think the Parkland people got it wrong.

To continue to support that, you have to answer some tough questions.

1. True or false: The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical
training, can easily identify which part of a person's head is the "back"
or "rear" without the slightest possibility of being even slightly
mistaken. If your answer is "false," please explain in detail why you
think it's false.

2. True or false: An adult with years of medical training is even more
likely to correctly identify any part of a person's head, no matter what
part that is, than the average ten-year-old child. If your answer is
"false," please explain in detail why you think it's false.

3. If the Parkland witnesses, including not only hospital personnel, but
also others who saw JFK at Parkland such as the SS agents, and would also
include Clint Hill who saw JFK's wounds before Parkland, were all mistaken
about where the hole in his head was, where on his head was the hole that
they saw? Please explain your answer in detail.

4. If there really was a hole in the right rear of JFK's head, AND his
head was turned somewhat to the left while on the operating table, would
witnesses be able to see the hole? If your answer is "no" please explain
in detail why they couldn't.

5. When the "back door" in the head was open, there was a hole in the back
of the head. When the "back door" in the head was closed, there was no
hole in the back of the head. Do you understand this concept? If your
answer is "no," please explain in detail what it is about this concept
that you don't understand.

No argument you can present about this issue, David, no matter what that
argument is, will be plausible unless you give plausible answers to every
one of these questions. If even one answer is implausible, then you
destroy your whole argument. Also the answers must have an internal
consistency with each other. Obviously, if they don't, then your whole
argument will be undermined by internal inconsistency.

I'm still not convinced that you're reading every sentence in my replies
to you. I'm reading every sentence of your replies to me. And certainly
if you reply to this article but fail to answer all five of those
questions that will make it appear even more certain that you merely
skimmed the article. This issue is much too important to be treated in a
slipshod manner.

Please tell me I'm not going to have to post these questions to you

every

single

day

until you answer them. Please answer them in your reply to this article.

Thank you.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 10:33:20 PM7/16/11
to
In article <4e21af13$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Run from what? How your studies of the meticulous evidence have helped you
conclude that JFK was not hit ANYWHERE in the BOH?

I wouldn't say I'm running away from your goofy theories...let's just say
I'm not wasting my time listening to them....others, who don't know too
much about this case, seem to be entertained by them, though, so that's
good news for you as you're still gettng the attention you crave.


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

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 16, 2011, 10:47:34 PM7/16/11
to
In article <ivplf...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> [...]
>
> >I am seeing numerous things here which confirm what I told you, which
> >you apparently did not read in my article, or if you did, you obviously
> >didn't understand what what I was saying. It's the "right posterior"
> >portion that he said was blasted, not merely "posterior." Obviously, if
> >the hole in the head extends partly over to the right side of the head,
> >then standing above the person one would be able to see into the hole
> >through the right side of the hole. He also said that some "parietal"
> >bone was protruded up through the scalp. Do you know where the parietal
> >bone is? It's definitely nowhere close to all the way to the rear of
> >the head.
>
> He drew on his chematic drawings the lowest piece of rear skull that was
> loose. It had the top hemisphere of the entry hole in it and its lower
> margin was indeed near the EOP.

Yes.

> >> His scalp is fully intact in that
> >> occipital area of the head.
> >
> >Sigh. I've explained that to you also. Yes, of course, the ***SCALP***
> >was intact in that photo, except for the small entry wound. It's the
> >bone ***UNDERNEATH*** that same part of the scalp that was completely
> >detached from the rest of the skull, as is proven by the lateral x-ray
> >beyond all possible doubt, the same x-ray you cited above. But that
> >piece of skull was still attached to that scalp. So the scalp, with the
> >piece of bone attached, could be ***FOLDED*** ***DOWN*** to expose what
> >would look like a hole in the ***UPPER*** right rear of the skull.
> >
> >Do you FINALLY understand what I'm saying?
>
> By the time that picture was taken no piece of skull were still attached
> to the rear scalp.....

Yes, sorry, I'd forgotten that, and I had stupidly asked you for a cite
in another article for that, but I don't need it now. Sigh...my brain
cells are warped. Of course, that still does not change the overall
explanation of why people at Parkland and also a few others such as SS
agents, etc. saw a hole in the right rear of the head but none is seen
on the BOH photos or lateral x-ray: the flap was open at Parkland, it
was closed for the x-ray (while the bone was still attached to the
scalp), and the flap (this time of scalp only) was again closed for the
BOH photos.

> do you even know the circumstances surrounding the
> taking of the BOH photo?

I did give you an answer to that as well in another article in this
thread, but I realized afterward that the answer was insufficient. My
apologies. Anyway, if you mean by "circumstances" the "reasons" the
photos were taken, I am aware of three reasons that have been claimed:

1. To show the entry hole in the scalp.

2. To attempt to line up the entry in the scalp with the entry in the
skull (although there may be some problems with that)

3. The scalp is being pulled forward to measure how far it would stretch
regarding whether or not it would cover enough of the damaged skull for
the body to be presentable in an open casket viewing.

How did I do?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of that was wrong, and I think if anyone
would know the facts it would be you, so corrections are welcome.

> The testimony and evidence is clear that the bone was loose and when they
> reflected the scalp that loose bone fell out (or stuck to the scalp) all
> the way back to the base of the ear.

Ok, I hadn't been as well-informed about that as I should have been.
Thank you.

> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
> opening had to be that low for them to see it.

Ok. Have I been placing the flap or opening too high in my replies to
David?

> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>
> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.

Yes, that I did know.

Thanks for your reply, John.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 8:20:50 AM7/17/11
to
In article <caeruleo1-ABF69...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
says...

Better than most. The picture was taken after the scalp was "undermined" (that's
a special process used todramatically increase the "stretchability" of the
scalp--both H & B testified they "undermined" the scalp) and stretched. The
picture was taken after midnight and after the morticians had sewn up a tear in
the rear scalp and stretched it.

While all that was done as you correctly stated to prepare the body for an open
casket funeral, they used the picture to show the entry in the posterior scalp.
The problem was that in stretching the scalp they didn't allow for the entry to
go from 2.5 inches above his hairline to appx. 5-6 inches above it. I believe
Humes died not realizing they caused the bullet hole in that photo to move
up.....so far up he denied to the ARRB it was a bullet hole....sad.

>I wouldn't be surprised if some of that was wrong, and I think if anyone
>would know the facts it would be you, so corrections are welcome.
>
>> The testimony and evidence is clear that the bone was loose and when they
>> reflected the scalp that loose bone fell out (or stuck to the scalp) all
>> the way back to the base of the ear.
>
>Ok, I hadn't been as well-informed about that as I should have been.
>Thank you.
>

Okay.

>> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
>> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
>> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
>> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
>> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
>
>Ok. Have I been placing the flap or opening too high in my replies to
>David?

Are you really willing to say you might have placed it too high? Incredible...if
you're serious I congratulate you for being willing to admityou could be wrong.

But yes, the fact that so many, including Humes, said they saw cerebellum means
the lowest margin of the opening was at the level of the EOP. It makes sense
that the piece of skull Boswell drew with the top hemisphere of the entry broke
loose (it staed loosely attached to the scalp until it was refected) and
dislodged when the bullet entered slightly above the EOP......where photo #45
shows it to be. Note that the wound-ballistic experts Larry Sturdivan examined
the originals and sid he could see (photro #45) the lateral sinus and cur edge
of the tentorium near the entry in the skull...both anatomical features are near
the EOP.

Also, look closely at the photo...imagine the entry which is 5-6 inches above
his hairline (in the photo) down about an inch to the right of his EOP (appx.
2-2.5 inches above the hairline..where one's EOP is typically)......then look at
that "line-type" defect in his scalp extending from the entry forward and to his
right....that "line" or "defect in his scalp" was a tear in the scalp that was
sutured closed by the time they took that picture. IOW, the scalp tear and the
dislodged pieces of bone beneath t made for a right-rear opening through with
brain exuded, bood poured (for a while), and cerebellum could be seen.

Note also that Boswell said that line-type defect extending from the entry (in
the end, Boswell, like Humes denied that was actually the entry because he
couldn't explain how it was so high up)....was a scalp tear. On that part he was
right....it was a tear which was sutured closed by the morticians around the
time they stretched the scalp.

>> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>>
>> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
>> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.
>
>Yes, that I did know.
>
>Thanks for your reply, John.

You're welcome...I think. I was prepared for you to argue against what I said
and I was simply going to say, "let's agree to disagree." Amazing. You caught me
off guard.

John Canal


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

mainframetech

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 1:43:16 PM7/17/11
to
On Jul 16, 10:31 pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:


Just as a note of interest...it appears that we think a lot alike.
Check my comments in the topic "Misc. Topics Of Interest -- JFK'S HEAD
WOUNDS "

Chris


David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 1:43:44 PM7/17/11
to

"CAERULEO" SAID:

>>> "That this many witnesses were merely "mistaken" all in the same way is most definitely not plausible. I will once again make the most potent statement of all regarding why rejecting these witnesses cannot be considered in any reasonable assessment of this issue, and I would like you to comment on this statement very specifically, please, if you post any reply at all to this article, that this statement be given high priority: The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, will know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. David, is this statement true or false? You do realize that if you were to say "false" that most people would find that to be quite an astonishing answer, correct? Now let's try it in a slightly different form: The average person, without a day of medical training, will know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. True or false? Rather obviously, an answer of "false" given in seriousness by an adult would naturally elicit a reaction of amazement among most other adults present, and from many older children as well. Correct?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

True. True. And correct.

And my theory about the Parkland witnesses has NEVER been that any of
them somehow mislabelled the area of JFK's head where they said they
saw the wound. I have a feeling that you still think I'm in the "Jim
Moore camp" with respect to this issue. But I'm certainly not.

But have you read Jim Moore's theory on this? He thinks all the
Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify the part of JFK's head that
contained the large exit wound, simply because Kennedy was lying on
his back in the emergency room.

Here's what Moore said in his book:

"The explanation for this [head wound] discrepancy is so simple
few will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President
Kennedy in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his
forehead might have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a
wound on the right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at
the rear of the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of
"Conspiracy Of One"

And, incredibly, even Vincent Bugliosi (in "Reclaiming History") gives
partial credence to Moore's absurd theory that I just quoted above.

But I hope that you don't think that **I** myself subscribe to Jim
Moore's theory about the Parkland witnesses, because I do not. And I
blasted Moore's theory quite vigorously in my review of his book,
here:

http://Conspiracy--Of--One.blogspot.com

But the explanation of the blood, brain, and gore "pooling" to the
right-rear part of JFK's head at Parkland DOES make a good deal of
sense to me -- particularly since we know (via the Zapruder Film
footage alone) that the large exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's
bullet WAS, indeed, on the RIGHT side of the President's head. It is
therefore quite logical, in my opinion, to believe that the Parkland
personnel would have seen a large amount of blood and tissue
collecting (or "pooling") at the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL area of
President Kennedy's head in Trauma Room 1.

And I think this "pooling" theory is still valid (and on the table for
serious consideration) even when we consider the fact that Jacqueline
Kennedy had most likely "closed up" the flap of skull/scalp prior to
JFK arriving at Parkland. (In fact, the "Jackie Closed Up The Wound"
theory makes the "pooling blood" theory even MORE valid, in my view.
See the end of this post for the reason why I say that.)

Jackie might have "closed" up the flap, but she certainly wasn't
capable of stopping the blood from flowing from the margins of that
wound she had closed up. So a lot of blood is still coming from that
wound on the RIGHT side of his head. And we know that JFK's heart WAS
still beating, and pumping some blood through his veins, for several
minutes after he was wheeled into Trauma Room 1.

And with JFK lying flat on his back (face up) on the stretcher, the
blood coming from his right-frontal head wound would have had nowhere
else to go but toward the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL portion of his head
(since we know that gravity was still in effect on 11/22/63 at
Parkland Memorial Hospital).

I assume you think that both Michael Baden of the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel AND author Vincent Bugliosi of "Reclaiming History"
fame are BOTH totally out of their minds for believing in the
"pooling" theory I just outlined, correct? Because here is what Mr.
Bugliosi and Dr. Baden had to say on this issue:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I [Vince Bugliosi] 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. "That's why we have autopsies,


photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. 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. But clearly, from the autopsy
X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons,
the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no
defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance

wound in the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." --
Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


As I stated in an earlier post, you could possibly be correct about
your theory concerning the "hinged" skull at the (mostly) top of JFK's
head springing "open" while he was lying on his back at Parkland
Hospital. I fully admit it: You could be correct. But I certainly
think that the "pooling" theory could very well be the correct answer
to this 48-year-old mystery about the Parkland doctors too (but not
necessarily the answer to why some of the BETHESDA witnesses said they
saw the same "occipital" wound in Kennedy's head at the autopsy).

But your theory needs the hinged skull flap to MASQUERADE AS AN
OCCIPITAL WOUND for several minutes at Parkland Hospital on November
22, 1963.

Can the top-of-the-head "hinged flap" actually make its way to the
OCCIPITAL part of President Kennedy's head, in order to fool many
witnesses into thinking that a large HOLE was really residing in the
right-rear-occipital part of Kennedy's head? I'm not so sure it can.
(But, maybe you are correct, and maybe that flap COULD have seemed to
be a large hole in the occipital to several witnesses. But I'm still a
bit dubious about that.)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Also:

Is there any verification in the existing literature or doctors'
testimony that would indicate for certain that the fractured top
portion of JFK's head was, in fact, in such a condition that it could
conceivably have "sprung open" like a hinge on a door?

There might very well be testimony of that nature in Humes', Finck's,
or Boswell's various testimony sessions over the years, but right now
I cannot specifically recall such testimony.

In other words, are we just GUESSING about whether it's even POSSIBLE
for the top part of JFK's damaged skull to have behaved in the
"swinging door"-like method which your theory certainly requires?

Also: Even if the "door hinge" theory is correct, how can we be
certain WHICH DIRECTION the skull flap would have "swung"? I can't
really tell from the X-ray below where any such "hinge" would be
attached. Can you?....

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

What I mean is: If there is anything at all that still attached the
FRONTAL MOST (nearest Kennedy's face) portion of that top-of-the-head
skull/scalp piece to JFK's head, then such an attachment, of course,
would negate your "hinged door" theory altogether, because there's no
way (via those conditions) that the top skull flap could have been
flopping around on his head to begin with.

Plus: Your theory most definitely requires the top skull flap to
somehow seem to be a major deficit (a hole) in a specific part of
JFK's head to many of the Parkland witnesses -- i.e., the OCCIPITAL
area of the head (although, yes, some of the witnesses place the wound
a little higher and more "central" on the back of the head).

So, it seems to me that your theory requires the top-of-the-head
"flap" or "hinge" to somehow ADHERE itself to the right-rear
(occipital) part of JFK's cranium. And I just don't see how that flap
can do that.

But in the "pooling blood" theory, the right-rear-occipital part of
Mr. Kennedy's head would most CERTAINLY be the portion of his head
where the blood/brain/tissue/whatever would definitely have been
heading straight toward (or "pooling" at).

And I would think that such streaming blood would have a tendency to
STICK or ADHERE to the occipital area of the head too, as it followed
the natural curved contour and shape of JFK's head.

Whereas, via your theory, you've got a hanging piece of skull bone
flapping around that wouldn't have ADHERED itself to any particular
one spot on the President's head.

So, while I do think you've raised some good points about the "hinged
flap" theory, I think your theory is still a bit weak in some areas.

And here's another weak area (that I don't think you addressed in your
previous posts):

What about the "cerebellum" comments made by some of the Parkland
witnesses?

You surely aren't suggesting that there really WAS a large-sized (or
even small) "hole" in the "occipital" area of JFK's head--are you?

Your "hinged flap" is located at the top of the head (and, yes, it
certainly extends toward the BACK of the head too--I admit that fact).
But it certainly is a long way from the "occipital" bone.

So I'm wondering how the doctors at Parkland could be correct when
some of them said they saw "cerebellum" oozing from the wound in the
back of Mr. Kennedy's head? Dr. Paul Peters and Dr. Pepper Jenkins
have, of course, totally reversed themselves on this "cerebellum"
topic. In 1988 on PBS-TV, they each said that it wasn't cerebellum
they saw, and that they must have been mistaken about that issue.

Of course, I must also say, that I really don't put very much faith in
what ANY of those doctors had to say during that NOVA PBS special in
1988. Because their comments about the wounds in that program are
totally crazy and contradictory to their 1963 observations, IMO.
Here's why:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html


>>> "You still seem to be misunderstanding exactly where this piece of bone is in the skull, and thus where the Parkland "hole" in the upper right posterior of the head was." <<<

So, right there, you're admitting that several Parkland people did get
it wrong. You're claiming that the "hole" that was seen at Parkland
was in the "upper right posterior" portion of JFK's head. But "upper
right" does not match the "occipital". Occipital is very low on the
head:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4EaHx7zR23A/TiLWgRyxS9I/AAAAAAAAc74/iIqBPocSQSc/s1600/Skull.jpg

So, some (or even many) witnesses must certainly have been wrong, even
via your theory. Or have I totally misunderstood you (again)?


>>> "Ok, once again, I ask you one of the most important questions of all. Please do not reply to my article without answering this very specifically. It is crucial that you answer this, because without this answer you cannot present a plausible argument: IF THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WASN'T WHERE THEY SAID IT WAS, THEN WHERE ON HIS HEAD WAS THE HOLE THEY SAW? Unless you're going to dismiss these witnesses even further and claim that not only were they mistaken about where the hole was, they were mistaken about there being ANY hole (in which case I'll never take you seriously again), you realize that you or anyone else doubting what they said absolutely MUST answer this question plausibly to produce an even remotely plausible argument." <<<


Well, since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best
evidence in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the
autopsy report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that
the major wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in
the "occipital" (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I
can legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY
DID see a wound in the occipital area of his head.

And, yes, I realize that Humes' autopsy report does say that the large
wound in JFK's head extended "somewhat" into the "occipital" region of
his head. But that "somewhat" is a far cry from placing the major
portion of that wound in a place where virtually everyone at Parkland
placed it.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/198BOHWoundWitnessesMontage.jpg

Via your "hinged flap" theory, I would think that more people at
Parkland would have placed the wound nearer the TOP of JFK's head, vs.
the BACK of the head. (But maybe I'm "misunderstanding" things
again.) :-)

This leaves the REAL wound of exit in Mr. Kennedy's head for the
Parkland witnesses to ACTUALLY see, quite obviously.

But, since I've already stated that it's my belief that it is highly
likely that the REAL wound of exit (or at least the major portion of
that wound) in the right-front of the head was "closed up" by Jackie
Kennedy during the high-speed drive to Parkland Hospital, I'm going to
actually have to suggest to you a theory that is probably going to
cause you to lose all respect for me entirely and, hence, you will
never take me seriously again (as you just said):

I'm going to suggest to you, via the previously discussed "pooling"
theory, that the Parkland witnesses actually saw NO PART of the major
exit wound that existed in John F. Kennedy's head on 11/22/63.

I had never really thought about this issue from this particular point-
of-view prior to today, but that theory I just laid on the table is
also almost CERTAINLY the exact theory that people like Dr. Michael
Baden and Vincent Bugliosi must believe as well.
Otherwise, we would have Baden and Bugliosi "pulling a Jim Moore" on
us and suggesting that the Parkland witnesses actually DID see the one
and only large right-frontal wound in John Kennedy's head, but
(somehow) they all became disoriented as to the real location of that
wound, due to Kennedy's supine posture while in the emergency room.

But Baden and Bugliosi are NOT suggesting such a ludicrous thing at
all. Instead, they are saying what I have said in the past as well --
that the Parkland people DID know JFK's "front" from his "back", but
they interpreted a lot of blood and brain tissue adhering to the right-
rear of Kennedy's head as being an actual/physical WOUND residing in
the location of all that blood and tissue.

But since we know that a large wound was NOT located in that right-
rear-occipital area (and Baden and Bugliosi don't think ANY sort of
wound resided in that location either), this must, therefore, indicate
that both Baden and Bugliosi must legitimately believe that most of
the Parkland witnesses saw NO REAL WOUND in President Kennedy's head.

And, stopping to think about this scenario a tad longer, that theory
of the Parkland people seeing no large wound at all DOES make some
sense indeed, due to the fact that Jackie Kennedy, in effect,
CONCEALED that large exit wound from the view of the Parkland
witnesses before JFK's limousine reached the hospital. So, what "real"
wound WOULD there have been to see at Parkland under these conditions
(and via the "pooling blood" theory I've spoken of)?

But we must also realize that the Parkland people were not there to
perform an autopsy on President Kennedy's body. They were there to try
and save his life if they could. They did not closely inspect or
examine ANY of the President's wounds. Nor was it their job to do any
such extensive examination. Once the President was pronounced dead,
Trauma Room 1 cleared out quickly, and very few people even saw the
President's body after that point at Parkland.

So, while it might be hard to believe that the massive wound in JFK's
head could go completely unnoticed by many, many trained doctors and
nurses at a major U.S. hospital, given the circumstances and
conditions outlined above concerning Mrs. Kennedy's probable handling
of her husband's head before the car got to Parkland (and even you,
yourself, say that you believe it's true that Jackie most certainly
DID close up the open flaps on JFK's head), such a theory about the
Parkland personnel not being able to see any of the actual wounds in
the President's head seems quite possible and palatable, in my
opinion.

>>> "Where do you think on JFK's head the hole was that they saw? Do you see any hole in his head in that...autopsy photo with him laying on his back? I sure don't. And in that photo the area where they said there WAS a hole is completely covered by his hair." <<<

You have just confirmed the point I made above.

I.E.,

You just admitted (inadvertently) that a situation could, indeed,
exist whereby the head of President Kennedy (after he had been shot)
could appear to a witness to have NO HOLES IN IT WHATSOEVER (via the
autopsy picture you mentioned).

So, via the "pooling blood" theory that I still maintain is likely the
correct theory (even though I cannot reconcile that theory with ALL of
the Parkland/Bethesda witnesses, and probably will never be able to do
that), why would it be considered so outlandish to postulate that the
Parkland witnesses saw the President's body in approximately the same
condition in which it appears in this autopsy photo?:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_yl7Svx2bvI/TiD75gyEpQI/AAAAAAAAc10/gHtRW5oAg5w/s1600/00h.%2BJFK%2BAutopsy%2BPhoto.JPG

Hence, those Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head,
and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was
the only physical wound in his head.

David Von Pein
July 17, 2011

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 1:44:33 PM7/17/11
to
In article <ivsl2...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article
> <3780462e-178d-4a3b...@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
> David,
>
> I know this wasn't for me but I just couldn't sit back and read your
> amazing take on JFK's head wounds. You'll of course either ignore this or
> simply reply with links to the x-lateral ray and BOH photos....SO THIS IS
> MAINLY FOR OTHERS WHO HAVEN'T YET MADE UP THEIR MINDS ON WHAT HAPPENED.
>
> ANYWAY, do you realize that if your take is correct on the non-existance
> of a right-rear opening, the misidentification of the entry wound, and the
> notion that the scalp wasn't undermined or stretched, the total number of
> mostly medically trained eyewitnesses who were misremembering or lying,
> literally, must be around 40?

That's apparently what he thinks, and sadly, he seems to be nowhere
close to the only LN who has actually fallen for such abysmally obvious
absurdities. I've seen LNs justifiably accuse CTs of ignoring credible
evidence on many issues, but here the CTs are justified in ridiculing
the LNs, although the ultimate theory they're leading to with that is
actually a fallacy. But at least with the dismissal of practically
every person who saw the wounding prior to anything being done with his
head at the autopsy (and I think you're right, we're talking about c.40
people) there the CTs are entirely justified in ridiculing the LNs.

> Do you realize according to your theories dozens of doctors either
> couldn't tell the right-rear of JFK's from the top, didn't know what
> cerebellum looked like, were hallucinating or lying when they said they
> lifted his head, didn't know his EOP from his cowlick, mistakenly thought
> they undermined and stretched the scalp,

I've devised ten questions for those who are proposing that this many
people "didn't know" what part of the head they were looking at when
they saw a hole in his head. I'm rapidly losing patience, and I'm
almost at the point of posting these questions every single day until I
get plausible and consistent answers to them.

> and didn't call PH or didn't know
> about the throat wound until the next AM??

Ah, now I have a question about that. I agree that everything in most
of that sentence is ridiculous for him to assume, but I think I'm
interpreting you rightly that in this final part you're proposing that
it's also ridiculous to assume that PH wasn't called until the next day
and to assume that no one at the autopsy knew about the bullet wound to
the throat until the next day?

> You said these guys weren't tree stumps, but if your theories are even
> close to being correct they were just as smart as stumps.

Apparently Clint Hill was dumber than dirt, according to David and too
many other LNs, because although Mr. Hill was the first person to get a
close look at the head wounding besides Jackie, and in fact was the only
person besides Jackie to get a close look before the limo arrived at
Parkland, he's a blithering idiot because he said there was a hole in
the back of JFK's head, and he's obviously so unutterably, laughingly
imbecilic that he was confusing a hole in the side or top with a hole in
the back, even though a mere child would know what part of the head it
would be in an instant, without the slightest possibility of being even
slightly mistaken. Roy Kellerman was obviously dumber than dirt too,
because he saw a hole in the back of JFK's head too when JFK was being
lifted out of the limo, but Kellerman was so stupid he didn't actually
know where the back of a human head is; he just "must" have been seeing
a hole on some other part of the head. Oh and it gets better. A lot
better. Then there are doctors and nurses numbering in the double
digits with years of medical training who not only had known since early
childhood (long, long, long before they had received their first day of
medical training) which part of a person's head is the "back," but who
by 11-22-63 not only knew how to identify every part of a human head,
but could also give the correct anatomical term for each part of the
head, terms that the average person isn't as good at. But oh no,
suddenly, for the first time ever, on 11-22-63, an astonishing thing
happened: an evil wizard, Voldemort perhaps (since Rowling says he was
already very powerful in dark magic by 1963), waved his wand, casting a
terrible curse, and every one of these medical professionals in an
instant became dumber than dirt, forgot all of their medical training,
forgot their childhoods when mummy and daddy and kindergarten teacher
taught them what the words "front," "right," "back," "left," "side,"
"top," and "bottom" meant, and thought they saw a hole in the "back" of
his head which was really on the "right" or "top."

Oh, and it still gets better after this, because there were even more
people who saw JFK's head, including quite a few more when he was
brought to Bethesda, and they were dumber than dirt too, because
practically all of them said they saw a hole in the back of his head
before any of the scalp and hair were peeled away to expose the total
damage to the skull. This is very strange. The average kindergarten
student can identify at the very least which part of a person's head is
the "back," which part is one "side" or the other, which part is the
"front," and which part of the head is the "top." But apparently
(according only to David and some other LNs) these c.40 people didn't
learn that in kindergarten like all the rest of us did. Didn't David
and these LNs know which part of a person's head was the "back"? I know
I did. In fact, I know I did well before kindergarten.

Hell, I knew that when I was three.

I've decided this is my favorite one of all. Let's all join hands and
look at this:

"I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in
which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe
laceration of underlying brain tissue."

Hmmm, right parietal occipital area...dagnabbit, that's that thar
medical terminologee...um, er, ain't that somewhars kindasorta around
the "back" of the haid? Upper right rear, ain't it? Oh yeah, "rear"
means "back." I think I learned that in kindergarten too.

Now David and you other LNs, who was I quoting there? Lemme give ya a
clue. He also said this about another wound:

"This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the neck,
approximately 5 mm. in diameter."

Anterior...oh lordy, now what do that thar mean? Oh yeah, "front." I
knew "front" when I was three also.

Know who it is now? No? I'll give y'alls another clue: he took one of
them little doctor's knives, you know what I'm talkin' about? And he
cut right across that darned "front" wound.

You're right, Dr. Malcolm Perry! Oh y'all are so good! Yes, you're
right about that too, he did the tracheotomy across that bullet wound in
the "front" of the "neck." Whew. Good thing he knew where the front of
the neck was, or he would have been cuttin' up the wrong place on JFK!

But now wait a minute, what's that? Say that again? You're telling me
he knew where the front of a human neck is, but he didn't know where the
back of a human head is?

David and the other LNs find Perry entirely credible when he identified
a hole in the front of JFK's neck. They all agree that's the correct
location of that hole. Suddenly, without giving any plausible reason
for it, they find this same doctor entirely lacking in credibility when
he identified a much larger hole in the back of JFK's head. But they
never say where that hole really was on his head, nor do they ever
explain why Perry would mistake a hole in the back of his head with a
hole in some other part of his head. They never explain that about any
of these other c.40 people either.

All we ever get is essentially coughing and sputtering and pointing to
the lateral x-ray and BOH photos and, "But, but, but there's no hole in
the back of the head there!"

Sheesh.

The explanation for all of this is childishly simple, and doesn't
involve dismissing a single witness who said there was a hole in the
back of the head, and doesn't involve charges of fakery in the x-ray and
BOH photos. The witnesses were correct. The lateral x-ray and BOH
photos are also correct. The "discrepancy" is a myth, and it was
conclusively debunked more than a decade ago, and this past week is
hardly the first time that was mentioned in this newsgroup, nor are John
Canal and I anywhere close to the first posters to talk about this here.
Thornton Boswell clarified this issue back in the '90s for the ARRB.
David Mantik clarified it in 2000. Paul Seaton has had it up on his
website since at least 2003 when I first saw it, and it may have already
been on there long before that. All this is by now old, old news. It's
fascinating to me that many LNs are so up to date on the most recent
research regarding the SBT, and yet are woefully behind on this issue,
even though certain aspects of both were clarified at about the same
time, in the 1990s.

> How about this: virtually no one lied or was hallucinating at PH or at
> Bethesda?

Oh John, THAT must be it! They were all hallucinating! They were all
on an LSD trip! Every one of those 40+ people decided to drop acid that
day! No wonder they were confused! That hole must have been wandering
around on his head and finally settled in the back! It was an illusion!
It was the '60s! It was just a bunch of bead-swinging,
rose-colored-glasses-wearing bunch of hippies running Parkland!

> It's just that the x-rays and some of the photos do not reflect what most
> of you assume they do.

Exactly.

> BTW, several PH docs said the large wound was occipital-parietal.
>
> In any case, I'm not going to change your mind (virtually an
> impossibility?) and tell you all the evidence I've compiled during an
> appx. 11-year long frustrating (and fascinating) study of the medical
> evidence (that I undertook in response to Barb J.'s challenge) that
> clearly and convincingly reveals that the photos that you and so many
> others think reflect the state of JFK's head when the body was first
> received at Bethesda were taken after the morticians repaired the rear
> scalp.

I think if anyone is accurate about that, you would be. I do have a
question though. Why would photos be taken at that point, which seems
to be after the autopsy was over, and presented as if they were autopsy
photos?

Not me. ;-)

Ooo, that's right, it's out. I'll be waiting till the lines die down a
bit, and then I'm going too.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 1:45:42 PM7/17/11
to
In article <ivtkp...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Ah, ok. I hope you see this reply before you see another reply I just
posted to you, because there I asked why such photos would be taken that
late and presented as if it was merely another autopsy photo when the
autopsy would have essentially been "over" at this point, but you've
already given me the answer.

> The problem was that in stretching the scalp they didn't allow for the entry
> to
> go from 2.5 inches above his hairline to appx. 5-6 inches above it. I believe
> Humes died not realizing they caused the bullet hole in that photo to move
> up.....so far up he denied to the ARRB it was a bullet hole....sad.

Yes, he waffled on several things over the years as I recall.

> >> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
> >> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
> >> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
> >> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
> >> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
> >
> >Ok. Have I been placing the flap or opening too high in my replies to
> >David?
>
> Are you really willing to say you might have placed it too high?
> Incredible...if
> you're serious I congratulate you for being willing to admityou could be
> wrong.
>
> But yes, the fact that so many, including Humes, said they saw cerebellum
> means
> the lowest margin of the opening was at the level of the EOP.

Oh. Well maybe I wasn't placing it too high, or at least not by much.
The way I said it to David was that the bottom of it, or lowest margin,
was "almost halfway down the back of the head." So I guess that is
about at the EOP.

> It makes sense
> that the piece of skull Boswell drew with the top hemisphere of the entry
> broke
> loose (it staed loosely attached to the scalp until it was refected) and
> dislodged when the bullet entered slightly above the EOP......where photo #45
> shows it to be.

Ok, and regarding that same piece of skull, have I been identifying the
correct piece to David and others, the piece that I have circled in blue
in this image?

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5170/lateralxrayhinge.jpg

Also, you posted an image a few days ago, the photo showing the inside
of the skull, and pointed an arrow at a small hole which seems to show
obvious inward beveling, and saying that was the entry. Is that entry
near the bottom margin of that same piece of skull indicated above?

> Note that the wound-ballistic experts Larry Sturdivan
> examined
> the originals and sid he could see (photro #45) the lateral sinus and cur
> edge
> of the tentorium near the entry in the skull...both anatomical features are
> near
> the EOP.
>
> Also, look closely at the photo...imagine the entry which is 5-6 inches above
> his hairline (in the photo) down about an inch to the right of his EOP (appx.
> 2-2.5 inches above the hairline..where one's EOP is typically)......then look
> at
> that "line-type" defect in his scalp extending from the entry forward and to
> his
> right....that "line" or "defect in his scalp" was a tear in the scalp that
> was
> sutured closed by the time they took that picture. IOW, the scalp tear and
> the
> dislodged pieces of bone beneath t made for a right-rear opening through with
> brain exuded, bood poured (for a while), and cerebellum could be seen.

Yes.

> >> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
> >>
> >> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
> >> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.
> >
> >Yes, that I did know.
> >
> >Thanks for your reply, John.
>
> You're welcome...I think. I was prepared for you to argue against what I said
> and I was simply going to say, "let's agree to disagree." Amazing. You caught
> me
> off guard.

Your knowledge of this issue is obvious, and you explain it in a
sensible fashion. I'm glad we're "paying attention" to each other's
articles again. :P

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 1:46:56 PM7/17/11
to
In article <ivs3q...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <caeruleo1-000F6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
> says...
>

> >> >Sigh. I've explained that to you also. Yes, of course, the ***SCALP***
> >> >was intact in that photo, except for the small entry wound. It's the
> >> >bone ***UNDERNEATH*** that same part of the scalp that was completely
> >> >detached from the rest of the skull, as is proven by the lateral x-ray
> >> >beyond all possible doubt, the same x-ray you cited above. But that
> >> >piece of skull was still attached to that scalp. So the scalp, with the
> >> >piece of bone attached, could be ***FOLDED*** ***DOWN*** to expose what
> >> >would look like a hole in the ***UPPER*** right rear of the skull.
> >> >
> >> >Do you FINALLY understand what I'm saying?
> >>
> >> By the time that picture was taken no piece of skull were still attached
> >> to the rear scalp.....
> >
> >Could you give me your source for that? Thanks.
>
> I'm not in the habit of giving out citations but, Boswell to ARRB, p. 166.

Yes, sorry, after I posted that I saw you had already clarified this in
other articles.

> >> do you even know the circumstances surrounding the
> >> taking of the BOH photo?
> >
> >Obviously I do, since I have described those circumstances explicitly in
> >other articles in this thread.
>
> So, about what time on 11-22-63 or 11-23-63 do you think those pictures
> were taken?

Heh, well I've already talked about that in replies that I've posted
before now, but quite late of course. Real late. ;-)

> >> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
> >> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
> >> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
> >> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
> >> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
> >
> >Actually more than eleven, but otherwise yes, you and I are more or less
> >in agreement.
>
> Okay, I gave you one citation...how about in return you check to see if
> you really have more than 11 cerebellum eyewitnesses and citations for
> each....if you do have more than 11, I'd like to compare your list with
> mine. I'd be pleased to find out that there were more than 11.

I am so sorry. For some reason there I was thinking "hole in the back
of the head" witnesses, which of course number a "bit" more than eleven,
and wasn't thinking specifically of the subset who also saw cerebellum.
And I'm definitely going to trust you of all people on the number eleven.

> >> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
> >>
> >> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
> >> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.
> >
> >Right.
>
> Are you a CT?

Um...not really. :P

> Other than probably being too large and indicating there was scalp and/or
> bone actually "missing", do you agree with where the BOH wound is in the
> McClelland drawing?

Yes, it's awfully large, and I'm thinking the lower margin is way too
low, and even the upper margin might be a bit too low. In some of those
pics of him with his hand on the rear of his head he's got his hand up
higher than that, I think. Bottom margin about at the level of the EOP,
or about halfway down the back of the head, I should think would be more
accurate. Top margin...hmmm...not so sure about that yet.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 1:48:27 PM7/17/11
to
In article <ivs4u...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <caeruleo1-D7705...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
> says...
> >
> >Lemme see if I can "pay attention" to this one too. ;-)
> >
> >In article <ivj77...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I can't change your mind, David...no one on this group has ever changed
> >> their
> >> mind and said they did so beccause someone else's arguments convinced them
> >> they
> >> were wrong.....and I never expected you to be the first.
> >
> >*cough*
> >
> >Oh, no one before in this newsgroup has ever changed their mind because
> >someone else convinced them they were wrong? I beg to differ.
>
> You know of someone here who admits that someone elses arguments convinced
> them they were wrong about an important issue...and identified that
> person?

Yes, me, and more than once.

> I've been posting here only for about 11 years but I can't recall
> an instance like that.

I've been posting here for less than nine years. So apparently you
missed Barb changing my mind in October/November 2002 regarding, as it
turns out, this very issue we're discussing in this thread, about
whether the Parkland folks were right or wrong about what they saw.
Before that I thought they were wrong, and plainly said so. Then she
got hold of me, shook some sense into me in the virtual world, convinced
me to look much more closely at their complete, unabridged testimonies,
and afterwards I plainly stated in this newsgroup that I had changed my
mind. You also missed Andrew Mason changing my mind in December 2002
about the single bullet, when he convinced me that it didn't happen the
way most LNs say it happened, and I very openly stated that here. I
kept supporting that very strongly in hundreds of articles for a year
until about December 2003. As you might imagine the LNs were all over
me about that but I stuck to my guns. But about at the end of 2003 I
began to realize that a year earlier I had not yet studied the SBT
sufficiently, which was why Andrew was able to persuade me as he did,
and I gradually began to abandon that alternate theory. I think by the
end of 2004 I was no longer endorsing it; I know I don't now. But that
was a gradual change so you won't see in the Google Groups archives any
one particular article of mine, or group of articles posted within a
single month, articulating that change clearly. You will see such a
thing with Barb changing my mind in Oct/Nov 2002 and Andrew changing my
mind in Dec. 2002. Oh, and I just remembered a very obvious one from
later, 2005 I think; would you like me to tell about that one too?

> How about informing me of one...I'd be wrong, but
> it'd be refreshing to know that there are individuals who'd admit
> something like that.

Two major examples for me above, on fundamental issues of the
assassination. The third one in 2005 (I think that's the right year) is
also about a very fundamental aspect.

> BTW, where do you think the fatal bullet entered?

In the back of his head, of course. Unlike those blithering idiots at
Parkland (well, idiots according to David and some LNs only) I am aware
of where the "back" of a human head is, and since I was no older than
three I've never once misidentified any other part of any person's head
as the "back."

Oh, sorry, did you want to know exactly where on the back of his head I
think it was? I'm thinking most likely where you indicated in that
image you posted the other day of the inside of his skull where you
pointed an arrow at a small hole that shows what looks to me like quite
obvious inward beveling.

I admit I did not know a *detailed* answer to that until very recently,
and I got it from reading your articles. :)

> >> Yes, I really wonder if you'll actually try to explain that to yourself? I
> >> wouldn't though if I were you because you can't be the first here to
> >> change
> >> their mind on an important point because of something a few experts
> >> said...so
> >> don't get a headache trying to explain that.
> >
> >I'm still waiting for David to address anything I've written for the
> >first time ever in this thread. In his two replies to me that he's
> >posted so far, he argued only with things that I didn't say and did not
> >mention a single thing that I did say.
> >
> >You see John, David doesn't "pay attention."
>
> When he can't explain something...he doesn't.

This I have noticed, and I'm rapidly getting fed up with it. I'm also
getting more and more disappointed with each passing day. I guess this
is either the first extended exchange I've had with him in this group,
or the first one in a long time because I don't remember anything like
this with him before. In the past several years I have come to admire
him a great deal. I've seen his Youtube posts of the complete network
and local Dallas coverage of the assassination, and on his blog
brilliantly debunk several myths that badly needed to be debunked,
including one that I didn't know had been debunked until I saw it on his
blog just the other day. I thought he'd be the perfect person to also
help to debunk this Parkland/Bethesda "discrepancy" myth when I began
replying to him in this thread a few days ago. But now I am
disappointed and saddened that the great respect that I've built up for
him in the past several years is now eroding due to his failure to
address the obviously plausible points I have raised in anything close
to substantive manner. It is obvious that he merely skims rapidly
through my replies, picks out no more than one percent of the sentences
I wrote in them, and replies to those sentences only, with a blatantly
obvious complete misunderstanding of the point I was making in even one
of my complete paragraphs. It's practically on strawman level, arguing
with arguments I did not make, and making no mention whatsoever of the
arguments I actually did make.

> I wish, instead of providing a link to an article you've written, you'd
> just briefly answer the questions. That is because when the person you are
> exchanging thoughts with sees that link, he or she has no idea how large
> the article is and how long it'd take to read through it to find the
> answer he's looking for.
>
> I rarely open such links myself.

Yes, sorry about that, but I've already rectified that in several
replies that I've posted. I think you and I are having trouble catching
up with each other here. I'm often finding that by the time I first see
a certain reply by you some of those issues have already been clarified.
Oh well, we'll get there. :)

> But your methods are at least better than David's...he just clips the
> questions he can't answer or the requests for explanations he can't
> provide an explanation for.
>
> Typically, David will search through a post and find one thing the person
> said he thinks he can provide a good enough answer to or explanation for
> and cut and paste that one thing, cutting the rest.
>
> I used to call him David "Cut & Paste" Von Pein.

In his latest reply to me (or the latest reply to me that I've seen at
the moment I'm typing this sentence - if there's a more recent one I
haven't seen it yet) all he did was quote, I think, four or five
sentences total from my article, which actually had "quite a few" more
sentences of my text in it, to put it mildly. He responded only to
those individual sentences, and it was quite obvious that he had no
earthly idea what the original context of those sentences had been. He
claimed that he was re-reading "slowly" one of my first three replies to
him, but apparently "slowly" still did not equate to "comprehension."

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 8:08:36 PM7/17/11
to

Barb is wrong, very wrong. Did you base this on her Kotex demonstration?
That is phony because it shows something ABOVE the hair whereas a hole
would be BELOW the hair.

> got hold of me, shook some sense into me in the virtual world, convinced
> me to look much more closely at their complete, unabridged testimonies,

Unfortunately you stopped there. Never just accept what you find in the
WC. Most of those witnesses recanted their earlier statements and admit
that the hole was not in the back of the head.

> and afterwards I plainly stated in this newsgroup that I had changed my
> mind. You also missed Andrew Mason changing my mind in December 2002
> about the single bullet, when he convinced me that it didn't happen the
> way most LNs say it happened, and I very openly stated that here. I
> kept supporting that very strongly in hundreds of articles for a year
> until about December 2003. As you might imagine the LNs were all over
> me about that but I stuck to my guns. But about at the end of 2003 I
> began to realize that a year earlier I had not yet studied the SBT
> sufficiently, which was why Andrew was able to persuade me as he did,
> and I gradually began to abandon that alternate theory. I think by the
> end of 2004 I was no longer endorsing it; I know I don't now. But that

Maybe if you worked a little harder you could come up with your own SBT
which would work.

> was a gradual change so you won't see in the Google Groups archives any
> one particular article of mine, or group of articles posted within a
> single month, articulating that change clearly. You will see such a
> thing with Barb changing my mind in Oct/Nov 2002 and Andrew changing my
> mind in Dec. 2002. Oh, and I just remembered a very obvious one from
> later, 2005 I think; would you like me to tell about that one too?
>
>> How about informing me of one...I'd be wrong, but
>> it'd be refreshing to know that there are individuals who'd admit
>> something like that.
>
> Two major examples for me above, on fundamental issues of the
> assassination. The third one in 2005 (I think that's the right year) is
> also about a very fundamental aspect.
>

So does that mean that you think you were a WC defender and now you think
you are a conspiracy believer? Can you explain how someone can be a WC
defender without believing in the SBT? Obviously the FBI and the WC up
until May 1964 believed that Oswald was the only shooter and did not have
a SBT. Could YOU do that? Or does no SBT automatically mean conspiracy?
How about two shooters? Several die-hard WC defenders claim to believe
there were two shooter and yet claim that alone does not prove conspiracy.
Can you understand their thinking?

>> BTW, where do you think the fatal bullet entered?
>
> In the back of his head, of course. Unlike those blithering idiots at
> Parkland (well, idiots according to David and some LNs only) I am aware
> of where the "back" of a human head is, and since I was no older than
> three I've never once misidentified any other part of any person's head
> as the "back."
>

Do you think that a person has to be a blithering idiot to fall for an
optical illusion or misperceive something?

> Oh, sorry, did you want to know exactly where on the back of his head I
> think it was? I'm thinking most likely where you indicated in that
> image you posted the other day of the inside of his skull where you
> pointed an arrow at a small hole that shows what looks to me like quite
> obvious inward beveling.
>

Show me where you SEE inward beveling.

There are still many myths which need to be debunked. And I've never
seen any indication of thanks from you when I debunk them.

> including one that I didn't know had been debunked until I saw it on his
> blog just the other day. I thought he'd be the perfect person to also
> help to debunk this Parkland/Bethesda "discrepancy" myth when I began
> replying to him in this thread a few days ago. But now I am
> disappointed and saddened that the great respect that I've built up for
> him in the past several years is now eroding due to his failure to
> address the obviously plausible points I have raised in anything close
> to substantive manner. It is obvious that he merely skims rapidly
> through my replies, picks out no more than one percent of the sentences
> I wrote in them, and replies to those sentences only, with a blatantly
> obvious complete misunderstanding of the point I was making in even one
> of my complete paragraphs. It's practically on strawman level, arguing
> with arguments I did not make, and making no mention whatsoever of the
> arguments I actually did make.
>

He's a WC defender. That is the only tactic he knows.

>> I wish, instead of providing a link to an article you've written, you'd
>> just briefly answer the questions. That is because when the person you are
>> exchanging thoughts with sees that link, he or she has no idea how large
>> the article is and how long it'd take to read through it to find the
>> answer he's looking for.
>>
>> I rarely open such links myself.
>
> Yes, sorry about that, but I've already rectified that in several
> replies that I've posted. I think you and I are having trouble catching
> up with each other here. I'm often finding that by the time I first see
> a certain reply by you some of those issues have already been clarified.
> Oh well, we'll get there. :)
>
>> But your methods are at least better than David's...he just clips the
>> questions he can't answer or the requests for explanations he can't
>> provide an explanation for.
>>
>> Typically, David will search through a post and find one thing the person
>> said he thinks he can provide a good enough answer to or explanation for
>> and cut and paste that one thing, cutting the rest.
>>

>> I used to call him David "Cut& Paste" Von Pein.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 8:12:04 PM7/17/11
to

Well, I wonder why you are fixated on 11? Wouldn't it strengthen your
argument if you said it was 1,000 witnesses? Like the people who see the
Virgin Mary on a window pane. If it's only 11 people you can dismiss it,
but if it's 1,000 people you have to accept it as being true, right?

>>>> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>>>>
>>>> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
>>>> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>> Are you a CT?
>
> Um...not really. :P
>

So what do you call yourself? Do you call yourself a WC defender? And yet
you believe in a huge hole in the back of the head and no SBT. Maybe you
could join Ken Rahn's group of non-conspiracists. I hear they're looking
for new members after a couple of recent defections.

>> Other than probably being too large and indicating there was scalp and/or
>> bone actually "missing", do you agree with where the BOH wound is in the
>> McClelland drawing?
>
> Yes, it's awfully large, and I'm thinking the lower margin is way too
> low, and even the upper margin might be a bit too low. In some of those
> pics of him with his hand on the rear of his head he's got his hand up
> higher than that, I think. Bottom margin about at the level of the EOP,
> or about halfway down the back of the head, I should think would be more
> accurate. Top margin...hmmm...not so sure about that yet.
>

Is there some way that you can reconcile a shot from the rear causing a
massive hole in the back of the head? Is that hole the entrance wound or
could the bullet enter and the bounce off the inside of the skull and go
back and exit the back of the head?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 8:13:07 PM7/17/11
to
On 7/17/2011 1:45 PM, Caeruleo wrote:
> In article<ivtkp...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> John Canal<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<caeruleo1-ABF69...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
>> says...
>>>
>>> In article<ivplf...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>> John Canal<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> do you even know the circumstances surrounding the
>>>> taking of the BOH photo?
>>>
>>> I did give you an answer to that as well in another article in this
>>> thread, but I realized afterward that the answer was insufficient. My
>>> apologies. Anyway, if you mean by "circumstances" the "reasons" the
>>> photos were taken, I am aware of three reasons that have been claimed:
>>>
>>> 1. To show the entry hole in the scalp.
>>>
>>> 2. To attempt to line up the entry in the scalp with the entry in the
>>> skull (although there may be some problems with that)
>>>
>>> 3. The scalp is being pulled forward to measure how far it would stretch
>>> regarding whether or not it would cover enough of the damaged skull for
>>> the body to be presentable in an open casket viewing.
>>>
>>> How did I do?
>>
>> Better than most. The picture was taken after the scalp was "undermined"
>> (that's
>> a special process used todramatically increase the "stretchability" of the
>> scalp--both H& B testified they "undermined" the scalp) and stretched. The

>> picture was taken after midnight and after the morticians had sewn up a tear
>> in
>> the rear scalp and stretched it.
>>
>> While all that was done as you correctly stated to prepare the body for an
>> open
>> casket funeral, they used the picture to show the entry in the posterior
>> scalp.
>
> Ah, ok. I hope you see this reply before you see another reply I just
> posted to you, because there I asked why such photos would be taken that
> late and presented as if it was merely another autopsy photo when the
> autopsy would have essentially been "over" at this point, but you've
> already given me the answer.
>

I think John is intentionally confusing two different things. The official
autopsy photos we know are in the National Archives were taken during the
autopsy and before the morticians did anything. Then after the morticians
did their work many of us think that Knudsen made his own unofficial
photos for the family. These are not the autopsy photos and will never
been seen.

>> The problem was that in stretching the scalp they didn't allow for the entry
>> to
>> go from 2.5 inches above his hairline to appx. 5-6 inches above it. I believe
>> Humes died not realizing they caused the bullet hole in that photo to move
>> up.....so far up he denied to the ARRB it was a bullet hole....sad.
>
> Yes, he waffled on several things over the years as I recall.
>
>>>> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
>>>> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
>>>> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
>>>> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
>>>> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
>>>
>>> Ok. Have I been placing the flap or opening too high in my replies to
>>> David?
>>
>> Are you really willing to say you might have placed it too high?
>> Incredible...if
>> you're serious I congratulate you for being willing to admityou could be
>> wrong.
>>
>> But yes, the fact that so many, including Humes, said they saw cerebellum
>> means
>> the lowest margin of the opening was at the level of the EOP.
>
> Oh. Well maybe I wasn't placing it too high, or at least not by much.
> The way I said it to David was that the bottom of it, or lowest margin,
> was "almost halfway down the back of the head." So I guess that is
> about at the EOP.
>

Close enough for the layperson.

>> It makes sense
>> that the piece of skull Boswell drew with the top hemisphere of the entry
>> broke
>> loose (it staed loosely attached to the scalp until it was refected) and
>> dislodged when the bullet entered slightly above the EOP......where photo #45
>> shows it to be.
>
> Ok, and regarding that same piece of skull, have I been identifying the
> correct piece to David and others, the piece that I have circled in blue
> in this image?
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5170/lateralxrayhinge.jpg
>
> Also, you posted an image a few days ago, the photo showing the inside
> of the skull, and pointed an arrow at a small hole which seems to show
> obvious inward beveling, and saying that was the entry. Is that entry
> near the bottom margin of that same piece of skull indicated above?
>

According to Humes there was no complete hole like that. The top part
had been blasted away.


It's more fun when he killfiles everybody and argues with himself.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 8:13:28 PM7/17/11
to

Humes was incompetent. He should have called Parkland BEFORE even
starting the autopsy.
What if Parkland had actually done surgery to the head and removed the
entrance and exit wounds to the skull?

So if you see a wound which goes from the frontal bone all the way back
to the occipital bone, is that wound in the front of the head or in the
back of the head? And we'll restrict you to only one, you can't say both.

>> 4. Both Sibert& O'Neill: Suggested the BOH photos were fakes.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 8:16:16 PM7/17/11
to

Funny, I said that long before Moore did. But when I said it Barb called
me a kook.

> Here's what Moore said in his book:
>
> "The explanation for this [head wound] discrepancy is so simple
> few will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President
> Kennedy in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his
> forehead might have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a
> wound on the right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at
> the rear of the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of
> "Conspiracy Of One"
>

Just look at the Humes and Boswell drawing showing how far back in the
head the wound went. Forget Barb's Kotex demonstration.

> And, incredibly, even Vincent Bugliosi (in "Reclaiming History") gives
> partial credence to Moore's absurd theory that I just quoted above.
>
> But I hope that you don't think that **I** myself subscribe to Jim
> Moore's theory about the Parkland witnesses, because I do not. And I
> blasted Moore's theory quite vigorously in my review of his book,
> here:
>
> http://Conspiracy--Of--One.blogspot.com
>
> But the explanation of the blood, brain, and gore "pooling" to the
> right-rear part of JFK's head at Parkland DOES make a good deal of
> sense to me -- particularly since we know (via the Zapruder Film
> footage alone) that the large exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's
> bullet WAS, indeed, on the RIGHT side of the President's head. It is
> therefore quite logical, in my opinion, to believe that the Parkland
> personnel would have seen a large amount of blood and tissue
> collecting (or "pooling") at the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL area of
> President Kennedy's head in Trauma Room 1.
>

Was I the only one to mention the sliding scalp theory?

> And I think this "pooling" theory is still valid (and on the table for
> serious consideration) even when we consider the fact that Jacqueline
> Kennedy had most likely "closed up" the flap of skull/scalp prior to
> JFK arriving at Parkland. (In fact, the "Jackie Closed Up The Wound"
> theory makes the "pooling blood" theory even MORE valid, in my view.
> See the end of this post for the reason why I say that.)
>
> Jackie might have "closed" up the flap, but she certainly wasn't
> capable of stopping the blood from flowing from the margins of that
> wound she had closed up. So a lot of blood is still coming from that
> wound on the RIGHT side of his head. And we know that JFK's heart WAS
> still beating, and pumping some blood through his veins, for several
> minutes after he was wheeled into Trauma Room 1.
>

The flap that Jackie closed up was in the right temple, not the back of
the head.

Right temple. You can SEE it on the Zapruder film.

> Hospital. I fully admit it: You could be correct. But I certainly
> think that the "pooling" theory could very well be the correct answer
> to this 48-year-old mystery about the Parkland doctors too (but not

Part of the correct answer.

> necessarily the answer to why some of the BETHESDA witnesses said they
> saw the same "occipital" wound in Kennedy's head at the autopsy).
>
> But your theory needs the hinged skull flap to MASQUERADE AS AN
> OCCIPITAL WOUND for several minutes at Parkland Hospital on November
> 22, 1963.
>
> Can the top-of-the-head "hinged flap" actually make its way to the
> OCCIPITAL part of President Kennedy's head, in order to fool many

No, the hinged door in the right temple only extends to about the ear
when open.

A lot of people make that mistake. It is an easy mistake to make.
Just like Humes thought a dab of fat on the top of the hair was brain
matter oozing from the entrance wound.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 10:45:40 PM7/17/11
to
> scalp--both H& B testified they "undermined" the scalp) and stretched. The

> picture was taken after midnight and after the morticians had sewn up a tear in
> the rear scalp and stretched it.
>
> While all that was done as you correctly stated to prepare the body for an open
> casket funeral, they used the picture to show the entry in the posterior scalp.
> The problem was that in stretching the scalp they didn't allow for the entry to
> go from 2.5 inches above his hairline to appx. 5-6 inches above it. I believe
> Humes died not realizing they caused the bullet hole in that photo to move
> up.....so far up he denied to the ARRB it was a bullet hole....sad.
>

Where did you get your 2.5 inches or your 5-6 inches from? Did you just
pull them out of your ass?

mainframetech

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 10:57:53 PM7/17/11
to
On Jul 17, 1:44 pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ivsl2701...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>  John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <3780462e-178d-4a3b-bbb0-d3c98de9a...@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
>

To add to those comments that say that the PH personnel saw what they
said (a large right-rear wound), you have to appreciate that some of them
had the responsibility to DO SOMETHING about the patient's wounds, and the
wound in the head was the most obvious one to start on. Any doctor in
that position wouldn't dumbly stand there and think about the situation
for more than a few seconds. They would go to the head and begin looking
around and manipulating the scalp and the parts hanging far down almost to
the table. They migfht tip the head left and right. They would have seen
inside the wound and seen the uselessness of doing anything for the
patient. The key is that they would KNOW what they were looking at and
where it was, and since it was the president, they just might set it into
memory fairly solidly. They didn't make a mistake about what they saw, and
lookinfg at the pictures with that in mind makes much sense as to what is
where.

I don't know why everyone ignores this set of pictrures that David
supplied earlier, but I found them very useful to see the truth. Here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Chris

John Canal

unread,
Jul 17, 2011, 10:58:58 PM7/17/11
to
In article <caeruleo1-E3BDE...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo

There are several of your posts that I haven't replied to...so I'm just
going to reply to this one and hope I address at least most of your
points.

>> The problem was that in stretching the scalp they didn't allow for the entry
>> to
>> go from 2.5 inches above his hairline to appx. 5-6 inches above it. I believe
>> Humes died not realizing they caused the bullet hole in that photo to move
>> up.....so far up he denied to the ARRB it was a bullet hole....sad.
>
>Yes, he waffled on several things over the years as I recall.

While most others insist he waffled because he was incompetent, in all
fairness to him there were other reasons why some of his comments didn't
make sense. Firts, he had been sworn to secrecy and it wasn't until later
that he was released from that restriction...and then by that time his
memory was beginning to fade.

In fact I interviewed him twice and, while during our first conversation
he was okay, he really had a tough time remembering any of the details
about the autopsy.

>> >> When he was shot one or two of the loose bones on the right rear were
>> >> dislodged allowing blood and brain to exude out the right rear opening
>> >> (there was also a scalp tear there)...and for cerebellum to be exposed.
>> >> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
>> >> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
>> >
>> >Ok. Have I been placing the flap or opening too high in my replies to
>> >David?
>>
>> Are you really willing to say you might have placed it too high?
>> Incredible...if
>> you're serious I congratulate you for being willing to admityou could be
>> wrong.
>>
>> But yes, the fact that so many, including Humes, said they saw cerebellum
>> means
>> the lowest margin of the opening was at the level of the EOP.
>
>Oh. Well maybe I wasn't placing it too high, or at least not by much.
>The way I said it to David was that the bottom of it, or lowest margin,
>was "almost halfway down the back of the head." So I guess that is
>about at the EOP.

I'm beginning to worry we're not on the same page as to where the
cerebellum and EOP are.

>> It makes sense
>> that the piece of skull Boswell drew with the top hemisphere of the entry
>> broke
>> loose (it staed loosely attached to the scalp until it was refected) and
>> dislodged when the bullet entered slightly above the EOP......where photo #45
>> shows it to be.
>
>Ok, and regarding that same piece of skull, have I been identifying the
>correct piece to David and others, the piece that I have circled in blue
>in this image?
>
>http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5170/lateralxrayhinge.jpg

While that piece along with most of the restof the shattered rear skull
was loose, I don't think that's where most of the back of the head (BOH)
wound witnesses described the right-rear opening. There are a few reasons
why I say that.

1. Boswell drew a piece of bone on his face sheet and said that piece
included the top part of the entry hole. This washes with the experts
seeing a semi-circular beveled defect (the entry) in the photo of the
skull with the brain removed that I linked to earlier (#45). He also said
that piece had come loose.

2. The tear (closed when the BOH scalp pictures were taken at the end of
the autopsy...extends up and to the right from the entry which was near
the EOP before the scalp was stretched after the autopsy. IOW, through
that tear and an opening between the bone piece with the top part of the
entry is how the 11 witnesses saw an exposed cerebellum.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/432/sbonepiecetoxray.jpg

See if this graphic helps me get my point across.

This next link is to photo#45...if you'll look carefully you can see how
the piece of loose skull he drew fit on the intact skull to complete the
entry. Again, this piece was at the level of the top of the cerebellum.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5728/entrydwgtof8.jpg

>Also, you posted an image a few days ago, the photo showing the inside
>of the skull, and pointed an arrow at a small hole which seems to show
>obvious inward beveling, and saying that was the entry. Is that entry
>near the bottom margin of that same piece of skull indicated above?

No, see above.

Not to brag, but Barb has said no one has a better knowledge of the
medical evidence than I do.....and one cannot get better praise than
that.....and I'm a bit proud of her saying that...as you might be able to
tell.


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

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 8:54:12 AM7/18/11
to
On Jul 17, 1:44 pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ivsl2701...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>  John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <3780462e-178d-4a3b-bbb0-d3c98de9a...@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Clint Hill did not say "there was a hole in the back of JFK's head."
He has repeatedly and explicitly stated the wound was "above his right
ear." Hill also has claimed "the right rear portion of his head was
missing."
But where is "the right rear portion of a head?" What is right
rear? And btw, where exactly is right front? Is the right front of
the head located on the right side of the head from the ear
forward(where the exit wound was) or is it the right side of someone's
forehead? And does Hill contradict himself when he says JFK's head
wound was both "above his right ear" AND in "the right rear portion
of his head?" Or are both quotes in agreement with each other?
People seem to think that "right rear" and the right side of the back
of someone's head (where the eop is located) are one and the same,
but's that not true.

Excuse me for buttin into this Caeruleo vs DVP battle, but I think
its real important to understand the different terminology re: the
"right rear" part of the head vs the "back of the head."

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 1:13:09 PM7/18/11
to

No one ever tried or thought about doing anything about the head wound.
The very first thing to do is to get breathing started and try to
stabilize the blood pressure. In the meantime he was already dead.

> that position wouldn't dumbly stand there and think about the situation
> for more than a few seconds. They would go to the head and begin looking
> around and manipulating the scalp and the parts hanging far down almost to
> the table. They migfht tip the head left and right. They would have seen

No, you know nothing about emergency room procedures. It wasn't an
operating room.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 8:52:59 PM7/18/11
to
I am TOP POSTING this on purpose so that you might read it first. I can
tell from your reply below that you are STILL not understanding crucial
parts of what I'm proposing. If I type certain words in all caps will
you finally, at last PLEASE read them and address them specifically for
the FIRST TIME EVER?

ONE:

Why on EARTH did you say this to me of all people? "Well, since there is

absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best evidence in the case, which
is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the autopsy report and the
testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the major wound of exit in
President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the 'occipital' (right-rear)
region of his head, there's no way that I can legitimately think that
the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID see a wound in the

occipital area of his head." I will challenge you now to quote me
verbatim saying that the hole created by the opening of the hinge of
bone and scalp was altogether or even mostly in the OCCIPITAL area of
his head, or to immediately admit that you at least MIGHT have
misunderstood me. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THAT. I am
getting extremely tired of you COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING what I've
said. You have by now done this NUMEROUS times, and it is obvious that
the reason you keep doing this is because you are skimming rapidly
through my articles and reading LESS THAN FIFTY PERCENT of what I've
written, or else comprehending less than fifty percent. I have plainly
given, over and over and over (gawd, how many more times must I explain
this before it will sink in) a location for this that is MOSTLY IN
PARIETAL BONE and extends only A LITTLE BIT INTO THE OCCIPITAL BONE.
And name me which Parkland doctors said that it was MOSTLY in the
occipital bone. That will be a very short list.

TWO:

You seem not to be realizing that the back of a person's head is not
flat. It is ROUNDED. Think carefully about that. ROUNDED. Now think
carefully about this David, REALLY carefully. Quite obviously this
means that if a hole in the back of a person's head is not in the center
of the back of the head, but is even slightly to one side or the other,
and especially if the hole is large enough, anyone will be able to
clearly see that hole FROM THE SIDE, even if the victim is laying on
their back with their head facing straight up. Furthermore, this hole
we've been talking about wasn't merely a little bit to the side, it was
almost entirely on the RIGHT side of a midline through his skull. Very
little of this hole, if any in fact, was on the left of the midline.
That puts it significantly on the RIGHT side of the rear of his head,
making it QUITE visible, ABSURDLY visible, HORRIFICALLY visible. Him
laying on his back with his head directly face up would hide very little
of that hole. And as I keep telling you, over and over and over ad
nauseum, the hole was in the UPPER right rear. Not just right rear.
UPPER right rear. So that would make it even MORE visible. In addition
to that, I've already quoted you sworn testimony that at least once his
head was turned slightly to the LEFT as he lay there, which would expose
a hole in the upper RIGHT rear of his head even more. Even McClelland,
standing over his head, would at the most have to bend only slightly to
his right to easily see it. Show me where he said he stood the whole
time over JFK like a statue, never moving even slightly. I don't see
it. And just because he didn't mention bending over a little to the
right to get a better look doesn't automatically mean he didn't. He
also didn't mention blinking or breathing, yet one would assume that he
did both during that entire time. I've also reminded you that not all
these people saw JFK only in a supine position. Clint Hill, Roy
Kellerman, and William Greer all saw JFK being lifted out of the limo,
and they all said he had a hole in the BACK of his head. JFK wasn't
lying on his back then. All three of them saw him at Bethesda as well.
Quite a few others saw him at Bethesda too. Yes, most of the time he
was on his back then, but they are also consistent in describing a hole
in the REAR of the head, and most of them also said it was very much to
the RIGHT.

THREE:

Blood pooling? You can't be serious. You think that's going to look at
all like a HOLE in the head? And way, way, way too many of these
witnesses described specific details about that HOLE, including being
able to SEE DOWN INTO IT for that to be remotely plausible.

FOUR:

I do not understand why you keep saying the hinged piece of skull was
mostly at the top of the skull. This once again demonstrates that you
are not comprehending my articles. I see no mention below of the fact
that I have told you over and over and over that in that lateral x-ray
the skull is TILTED FORWARD BY AT LEAST TWENTY DEGREES AND POSSIBLY AS
MUCH AS TWENTY-FIVE DEGREES. This is OBVIOUS by looking at how the top
of the skull is SLANTED DOWNWARD from left to right. The hinged piece
of skull only looks like it's mostly on top of the skull if you do not
ROTATE THE IMAGE COUNTERCLOCKWISE until the top of the skull is
HORIZONTAL in your view. I have more than once posted my image of it
rotated in just such a way, and every reply you have made to me suggests
that you've ignored it, because you never mention it. I have told you
several times that once you rotate that x-ray to the UPRIGHT ORIENTATION
OF THE SKULL, it becomes obvious that only about HALF of that piece of
skull is part of the TOP of the head, and is also at the very REAR of
the top of the head, and half of that piece is part of the BACK of the
head. I have also told you over and over and over (and I see no
evidence that you ever read this either, since I still see no specific
mention of it below) that the lowest margin of that piece of skull is
approximately HALFWAY DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, which is also at about
the level of the EOP. This also answers your question about CEREBELLUM.
This would indeed put the lowest margin of the hole low enough to see
that.

FIVE:

I see your posted image of a lateral diagram of the skull, and indeed in
that the occipital bone is very low. When the skull is viewed from the
SIDE. But I would suggest you look VERY carefully at the parts of the
skull in a POSTERIOR view, or viewing the skull from the REAR. Some of
the occipital bone goes up a lot higher than you seem to realize. In
fact, I think I am correct about this, though I trust John Canal to set
me straight if I am not: the parietal bone and occipital bone join each
other at the EOP. The bottom margin of the hole was at the level of the
EOP. This would put the hole just a tiny bit into the occipital area.
Now I may admit that I don't have the placement of this hole exactly
right. I may be off by a centimeter or two in one direction or another.
But I doubt I'm off any more than that. Here's the posterior diagram of
the skull. See how high up some of the occipital bone goes?

http://home.comcast.net/~wnor/postskulllabelled.jpg

SIX:

I do not at all understand this sentence of yours: "So, it seems to me

that your theory requires the top-of-the-head 'flap' or 'hinge' to
somehow ADHERE itself to the right-rear (occipital) part of JFK's

cranium." My theory??? I never proposed anything even remotely like
that. Where on earth are you getting this from? It's obviously not
from any article I ever posted in this newsgroup.

SEVEN:

I am writhing with curiosity to see your answers to my ten questions in
my new thread, "Questionnaire on the Parkland/Bethesda 'discrepancy'
myth." Particularly I would be fascinated to see if all ten of your
answers are internally consistent with each other, because if even one
of them isn't, it blows your whole position right out of the water,
whether you admit it or not, and indeed whether you realize it or not.
Likewise, if even one of your ten answers is not entirely consistent
with your position on this BOH issue, the same thing happens to your
position: you destroy any credibility to your position.

In article
<eb260410-fef8-4eed...@r9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,


David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

--

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 11:05:32 PM7/18/11
to
In article
<46d1cc80-790b-47c8...@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't know if you realized that this thread is also being crossposted to
alt.assassination.jfk, but anyway, since that "Misc." thread is in
alt.conspiracy.jfk only, I am looking at it now on Google Groups and I see
that you are making some good comments.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 11:06:07 PM7/18/11
to
In article
<66b059ed-c334-492c...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Lt.Bullitt" <bull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Clint Hill did not say "there was a hole in the back of JFK's head."
> He has repeatedly and explicitly stated the wound was "above his right
> ear." Hill also has claimed "the right rear portion of his head was
> missing."
> But where is "the right rear portion of a head?" What is right
> rear? And btw, where exactly is right front? Is the right front of
> the head located on the right side of the head from the ear
> forward(where the exit wound was) or is it the right side of someone's
> forehead? And does Hill contradict himself when he says JFK's head
> wound was both "above his right ear" AND in "the right rear portion
> of his head?" Or are both quotes in agreement with each other?
> People seem to think that "right rear" and the right side of the back
> of someone's head (where the eop is located) are one and the same,
> but's that not true.
>
> Excuse me for buttin into this Caeruleo vs DVP battle, but I think
> its real important to understand the different terminology re: the
> "right rear" part of the head vs the "back of the head."

I'm sorry, and you're right, he didn't literally say "back" without
qualifying that. I was saying that mainly to make a point with David.
But you'll see a much larger number of articles in this thread where I
specifically say "upper right rear" or descriptions of very similar
meaning.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 11:06:23 PM7/18/11
to
In article
<36b98123-1877-44e9...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> To add to those comments that say that the PH personnel saw what they
> said (a large right-rear wound), you have to appreciate that some of them
> had the responsibility to DO SOMETHING about the patient's wounds, and the
> wound in the head was the most obvious one to start on. Any doctor in
> that position wouldn't dumbly stand there and think about the situation
> for more than a few seconds. They would go to the head and begin looking
> around and manipulating the scalp and the parts hanging far down almost to
> the table. They migfht tip the head left and right.

There is sworn testimony that it was tipped at least once to the left,
and I have quoted it in this thread.

> They would have seen
> inside the wound and seen the uselessness of doing anything for the
> patient. The key is that they would KNOW what they were looking at and
> where it was, and since it was the president, they just might set it into
> memory fairly solidly. They didn't make a mistake about what they saw, and
> lookinfg at the pictures with that in mind makes much sense as to what is
> where.
>
> I don't know why everyone ignores this set of pictrures that David
> supplied earlier, but I found them very useful to see the truth. Here:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
>
> Chris

I'm curious as to why you say everyone is ignoring those pictures when I
have commented extensively on those, two of them in particular, in quite
a few articles in this thread by now. So has John Canal, and he's
commented on more than two quite a bit. ;-)

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 11:09:32 PM7/18/11
to
In article <ivvoe...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Oh dear. That's a LOT lower than what I've been proposing. Now I'm
confused (this is nothing new for me). I thought that you had told me
earlier that the BOTTOM margin of the "hole" was about at the level of the
EOP. And yes I see that you did: "But yes, the fact that so many,

including Humes, said they saw cerebellum means the lowest margin of the

opening was at the level of the EOP." But this looks to me like the TOP
margin of the hole is about at the level of the EOP. Am I
misunderstanding where the EOP is in the lateral x-ray? Also am I wrong
in assuming that the EOP is at the joining of the occipital and parietal
bones as is shown in this posterior diagram of the skull?

http://home.comcast.net/~wnor/postskulllabelled.jpg

Also in that area you circled in yellow I'm not seeing the distinct
cracking that I'm seeing higher up, so in other words on the x-ray by
itself I can't see a piece of skull there that looks like it would swing
open and closed. Now don't take that as a suggestion that I think you're
placing this wrong - at this point I wouldn't dare suggest that to you of
all people, lol - I'm just trying to refine my interpretation of all this.
Maybe there's a reason why the cracking would not be obvious in the
lateral x-ray?

And I'm also confused with a fair number of these witnesses saying that
the opening was in the *upper* right rear of his head. This looks much
more to me like *lower* right rear.

> This next link is to photo#45...if you'll look carefully you can see how
> the piece of loose skull he drew fit on the intact skull to complete the
> entry. Again, this piece was at the level of the top of the cerebellum.
>
> http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5728/entrydwgtof8.jpg

Hmmm. "Note that the slant of both the bone piece and edge of skull above
'entry' (in F8) is diagonal towards the top/left of JFK's head." Ok,
yeah, I can definitely understand the placement of that in relation to the
entry.

> >> >> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some
> >> >> frontal)
> >> >> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, that I did know.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for your reply, John.
> >>
> >> You're welcome...I think. I was prepared for you to argue against what I
> >> said
> >>and I was simply going to say, "let's agree to disagree." Amazing. You
> >>caught
> >> me
> >> off guard.
> >
> >Your knowledge of this issue is obvious, and you explain it in a
> >sensible fashion. I'm glad we're "paying attention" to each other's
> >articles again. :P
>
> Not to brag, but Barb has said no one has a better knowledge of the
> medical evidence than I do.....and one cannot get better praise than
> that.....and I'm a bit proud of her saying that...as you might be able to
> tell.

Well, IMHO a compliment like that from Barb (I still cannot spell her last
name from memory after all these years) is quite a compliment indeed. I
don't think I've gotten a compliment quite like that from her, and I do
not think I deserve one anyway.

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 11:16:43 PM7/18/11
to
Let me repeat and top post what I wrote yesterday about Clint Hill.

Clint Hill has never, to my knowledge claimed that "there was a hole in

the back of JFK's head." He has repeatedly and explicitly stated the wound
was "above his right ear." Hill also has claimed "the right rear portion
of his head was missing."

So does Hill contradict himself when he says JFK's head wound was both

"above his right ear" AND in "the right rear portion of his head?" Or
are both quotes in agreement with each other? People seem to think that
"right rear" and the right side of the back of someone's head (where the
eop is located) are one and the same, but's that not true.

And yes, the back of a person's head is not flat, its rounded. But so is
every side of the head. But its not like we don't know how JFK's head
looks when he's in a supine position.

> <eb260410-fef8-4eed-be94-d26b3b2b4...@r9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

> ...

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 18, 2011, 11:18:16 PM7/18/11
to
Ugh, I need to correct one part of this. David, I may owe you a huge
apology because it appears I may have been misplacing that opening in the
right rear. I'm still trying to resolve that now. Nevertheless much of
what I said in "ONE" below still stands. You were very wrong to say this
to me:

"Well, since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best
evidence in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the
autopsy report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the
major wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the
'occipital' (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I can
legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID see
a wound in the occipital area of his head."

I never once said that the hole in the right rear of his head was a major
wound of exit. Not once. You are still almost completely
misunderstanding my argument. I wish you would finally, for the first
time ever, demonstrate that you are reading my articles even half as
carefully as I am reading yours.

Thank you.

In article <caeruleo1-9EF55...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

mainframetech

unread,
Jul 19, 2011, 9:11:17 AM7/19/11
to
On Jul 18, 11:06 pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <36b98123-1877-44e9-9570-50503cc30...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
If I missed the references to those pictures, I apologize. I've been
calling them BE1-BE7 and I didn't see the same terminology.
Chris

John Canal

unread,
Jul 19, 2011, 9:42:12 PM7/19/11
to

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 20, 2011, 11:02:50 AM7/20/11
to
In article
<ce3c9df0-f2ab-4a0a...@df3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 11:06 pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <36b98123-1877-44e9-9570-50503cc30...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >

> > > They would have seen
> > > inside the wound and seen the uselessness of doing anything for the
> > > patient.  The key is that they would KNOW what they were looking at and
> > > where it was, and since it was the president, they just might set it into
> > > memory fairly solidly. They didn't make a mistake about what they saw, and
> > > lookinfg at the pictures with that in mind makes much sense as to what is
> > > where.
> >
> > >    I don't know why everyone ignores this set of pictrures that David
> > > supplied earlier, but I found them very useful to see the truth. Here:
> >
> > >http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
> >
> > > Chris
> >
> > I'm curious as to why you say everyone is ignoring those pictures when I
> > have commented extensively on those, two of them in particular, in quite
> > a few articles in this thread by now.  So has John Canal, and he's
> > commented on more than two quite a bit.  ;-)
> >
> If I missed the references to those pictures, I apologize. I've been
> calling them BE1-BE7 and I didn't see the same terminology.
> Chris

Ok. I've never been able to memorize which pictures have which numbers,
etc. I simply refer to them as the BOH photos, etc.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 21, 2011, 12:14:53 AM7/21/11
to

Well, wouldn't it be nice if a real researcher indexed them for you and
put that into a handy PDF file which you can pop-up any time?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/f-index.pdf


Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 21, 2011, 12:45:52 AM7/21/11
to
In article <j0410...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Ok...ok...yeah...yeah...I think I'm starting to get it now. Thanks. :)

0 new messages